Composite Squadron Organization

[SarDragon]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

[TheSkyHornet]

So, I'm not trying to dig too deep into expression internal squadron issues but I'll give a general overview. Lord knows I've had my rants in the past, and they won't be the last of them.

Anyway, I'm in a position where the AEO is also the CDS who is also the Squadron CD. So when working with me for cadet aerospace education, my AEO is my direct superior. As both CDS and CD, and me having to report to the CD, it makes it where Cadet Programs is reporting to the Senior Program.

Now, let's be real here. A conflict of interest like this is very unlikely in the real world, albeit that it does happen. But in CAP, it's a volunteer force, you get over it, you wear multiple hats...yadda yadda yadda... the same story every time one of these discussions comes up.

Our CD wants to run by the book. So with our last unit commander, we had some staff officers who did not perform so great, and the commander appointed the CDS to also be the CD which gave him some authority over the other staff officers to get them in check. Just prior to his appointed to CD, I was appointed CDS, maybe a month or two prior. I suddenly get a new boss to report to, not a huge deal. Unit commanders change, things take a huge turn for the better as far as the Cadet Program, but we have some room for improvement. So, the CD send region his updated org chart, they informally approve (but there's no names filled in, so I'm not sure they understand that the CD is also the CDS and now oversees the CDC). They say they believe the org chart is messed up in 20-1, and they want to work to revise it.

The cadets have had some complaints about aerospace, so I've tried to tell the AEO "here's what I need done for the aerospace lessons as the CDC in charge of Cadet Programs." But it's hard to do that when I'm working with my boss essentially. We had a chat in which I said I want to pull rank over the AEO if he's teaching my cadets as part of a scheduled class each month, and I need the AEO to take my instruction on this matter. He said he would not dare put his CD hat on during AE, but there's still this matter of "I need you to get this done, and I'm ordering the CD at this point to teach AE to my standard." We don't really have a senior AE program at the moment. It's in the works.

But now the CD wants to do staff evaluations, boards for seniors, and talk about my progression as a senior member. Which is fine if the CD wasn't the CDS and wasn't the AEO. I see a major conflict here. I can't have my staff giving me a top-down review when it comes to my progression as a Cadet Programs Specialty Track pursuer or as an officer or what have you. The Commander should do that.

I ask him where we got the idea of even having a Squadron Deputy Commander. He said because the Commander had 15 duty assignments reporting to him. I pointed at that now the Deputy Commander has 14 duty assignments reporting to him. What was changed? I suggested consolidating the departments to be more effective and reduce that span to no more than 8 subordinates with their own delegated staff as necessary. It's what I've done with the Cadet Program and it's structured very nicely in my own opinion. But on the senior side, they don't seem to grasp it.

I was then informed about the "region needs to approve the change" line in 20-1, which I'll admit I didn't know (ignorance doesn't excuse you from reality, you got me). But I pointed out that the Cadet Program is supposed to be flexible and run as structured to meet the needs of the unit. And I got told that it still needs to be approved by region.

No, that's where I draw the line. That's ridiculous. I don't want to be reg-busting here, and starting an internal conflict, but come on. That's way too far.

I'll admit, this did get to be a bit of a rant, and I'll also admit that I was looking for some comfort and alignment in the idea that I was right. But I really appreciate hearing the feedback of how this is supposed to be played out and how units are structured/approved for structural changes. I want to make my side run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and before I take it to the Commander to say "Look, Sir, here's what I need to accomplish my goals," I need to make sure I'm not going to come out of that meeting feeling smaller than I already do with how the authority has been bulked up on the senior side.

This is also one of those things where CAP Talk can be really helpful, but also detrimental in the fact that I'm just waiting to get that email from my Deputy Commander with "I saw your post..."

Dun dun dun........

[etodd]

So, I'm not trying to dig too deep into expression internal squadron issues but I'll give a general overview. Lord knows I've had my rants in the past, and they won't be the last of them.

Anyway, I'm in a position where the AEO is also the CDS who is also the Squadron CD. So when working with me for cadet aerospace education, my AEO is my direct superior. As both CDS and CD, and me having to report to the CD, it makes it where Cadet Programs is reporting to the Senior Program.

Now, let's be real here. A conflict of interest like this is very unlikely in the real world, albeit that it does happen. But in CAP, it's a volunteer force, you get over it, you wear multiple hats...yadda yadda yadda... the same story every time one of these discussions comes up.

Our CD wants to run by the book. So with our last unit commander, we had some staff officers who did not perform so great, and the commander appointed the CDS to also be the CD which gave him some authority over the other staff officers to get them in check. Just prior to his appointed to CD, I was appointed CDS, maybe a month or two prior. I suddenly get a new boss to report to, not a huge deal. Unit commanders change, things take a huge turn for the better as far as the Cadet Program, but we have some room for improvement. So, the CD send region his updated org chart, they informally approve (but there's no names filled in, so I'm not sure they understand that the CD is also the CDS and now oversees the CDC). They say they believe the org chart is messed up in 20-1, and they want to work to revise it.

The cadets have had some complaints about aerospace, so I've tried to tell the AEO "here's what I need done for the aerospace lessons as the CDC in charge of Cadet Programs." But it's hard to do that when I'm working with my boss essentially. We had a chat in which I said I want to pull rank over the AEO if he's teaching my cadets as part of a scheduled class each month, and I need the AEO to take my instruction on this matter. He said he would not dare put his CD hat on during AE, but there's still this matter of "I need you to get this done, and I'm ordering the CD at this point to teach AE to my standard." We don't really have a senior AE program at the moment. It's in the works.

But now the CD wants to do staff evaluations, boards for seniors, and talk about my progression as a senior member. Which is fine if the CD wasn't the CDS and wasn't the AEO. I see a major conflict here. I can't have my staff giving me a top-down review when it comes to my progression as a Cadet Programs Specialty Track pursuer or as an officer or what have you. The Commander should do that.

I ask him where we got the idea of even having a Squadron Deputy Commander. He said because the Commander had 15 duty assignments reporting to him. I pointed at that now the Deputy Commander has 14 duty assignments reporting to him. What was changed? I suggested consolidating the departments to be more effective and reduce that span to no more than 8 subordinates with their own delegated staff as necessary. It's what I've done with the Cadet Program and it's structured very nicely in my own opinion. But on the senior side, they don't seem to grasp it.

I was then informed about the "region needs to approve the change" line in 20-1, which I'll admit I didn't know (ignorance doesn't excuse you from reality, you got me). But I pointed out that the Cadet Program is supposed to be flexible and run as structured to meet the needs of the unit. And I got told that it still needs to be approved by region.

No, that's where I draw the line. That's ridiculous. I don't want to be reg-busting here, and starting an internal conflict, but come on. That's way too far.

I'll admit, this did get to be a bit of a rant, and I'll also admit that I was looking for some comfort and alignment in the idea that I was right. But I really appreciate hearing the feedback of how this is supposed to be played out and how units are structured/approved for structural changes. I want to make my side run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and before I take it to the Commander to say "Look, Sir, here's what I need to accomplish my goals," I need to make sure I'm not going to come out of that meeting feeling smaller than I already do with how the authority has been bulked up on the senior side.

This is also one of those things where CAP Talk can be really helpful, but also detrimental in the fact that I'm just waiting to get that email from my Deputy Commander with "I saw your post..."

Dun dun dun........

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

[THRAWN]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

It took you 6 months to figure out there is an ops group, support group, maintenance group and (sometimes) a med group? That's faster than most load masters....

[TheSkyHornet]

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

Our squadron is actually very small.

We currently have the following

- *Commander / Public Affairs Officer / Recruiting & Retention Officer
- * Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors / Professional Development Officer / Personnel Officer / Aerospace Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer
- * Chaplain / Safety Officer
- Finance Officer / Testing Officer / Administrative Officer
- * Emergency Services Officer / Communications Officer
- Logistics Officer
- Transportation Officer
- 1 member on hiatus (former Commander)
- * Deputy Commander for Cadets / Activities Officer (Cadet Programs) / Leadership Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer

(*) represents people who show up frequently (at least 2 meetings a month)

So 5-6 regularly show up. The 3 commanders definitely due most of the work. I have no involvement with the programs outside of the Cadet Program whatsoever, and I have specifically stated that I will not take on responsibilities for the senior side. I have too much to do on the cadet side.

The Cadet Program is essentially self-sustained, aside from the fact that I need to have another senior present for any cadet activity, whether at the meeting or outside of the meeting. An exception would be Aerospace Education, in which the Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors is the AEO.

So in a unit of relatively 6 people, I don't understand why this is such a big to-do. Simplify the org chart. It seems very cut-and-dry to me.

But that's when this whole "it needs to go to region" came in.

[C/SrA Ravlin]

In my squadron the cadet support staff report to our XO. Flight staff report to the flight sergeant who reports to the flight commander who then reports to the cadet commander and then up to the senior member chain...

[grunt82abn]

Thanks for the clarification, I was confusing myself, I think 

Honestly, I think that the ICS structure could well avail itself as a workable squadron/group/wing structure.

IC becomes the Unit Commander, OSC=DO, LSC=LG, FASC=FM, etc.

Nope. They have two different functional structures. A squadron is equivalent to the fire station; an ES operation is equivalent to a fire.

It only took 6 month for me to finally figure out how an Air Refueling Wing was structured, hopefully not as long for CAP

It took you 6 months to figure out there is an ops group, support group, maintenance group and (sometimes) a med group? That's faster than most load masters....

I wased a grunt, and they ain't learnded me so good

[etodd]

How many actual participating members in your Squadron? Must be huge compared to the one I'm in where we just have a few folks that all wear multiple hats. I see so many posts here like this with organizational issues and I never see anything like it in our group. Maybe its because we are so small(?) About 30 Seniors and 20 Cadets, with about half actually showing up for meetings. Very good group of folks, but casual I guess would describe it.

Our squadron is actually very small.

We currently have the following

- *Commander / Public Affairs Officer / Recruiting & Retention Officer
- * Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors / Professional Development Officer / Personnel Officer / Aerospace Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer
- * Chaplain / Safety Officer
- Finance Officer / Testing Officer / Administrative Officer
- * Emergency Services Officer / Communications Officer
- Logistics Officer
- Transportation Officer
- 1 member on hiatus (former Commander)
- * Deputy Commander for Cadets / Activities Officer (Cadet Programs) / Leadership Education Officer / Assistant Testing Officer

(*) represents people who show up frequently (at least 2 meetings a month)

So 5-6 regularly show up. The 3 commanders definitely due most of the work. I have no involvement with the programs outside of the Cadet Program whatsoever, and I have specifically stated that I will not take on responsibilities for the senior side. I have too much to do on the cadet side.

The Cadet Program is essentially self-sustained, aside from the fact that I need to have another senior present for any cadet activity, whether at the meeting or outside of the meeting. An exception would be Aerospace Education, in which the Deputy Commander / Deputy Commander for Seniors is the AEO.

So in a unit of relatively 6 people, I don't understand why this is such a big to-do. Simplify the org chart. It seems very cut-and-dry to me.

But that's when this whole "it needs to go to region" came in.

I guess I should ask who I should report to. So far any questions or concerns I've simply sent a cell phone text or email to the Squadron Commander and he answers. Never tells me I should be talking to anyone in-between. Maybe there is a chart somewhere for our Squadron ...

[TheSkyHornet]

In my squadron the cadet support staff report to our XO. Flight staff report to the flight sergeant who reports to the flight commander who then reports to the cadet commander and then up to the senior member chain...

In our CP structure, the C/CD reports to the C/CC.

C/XO reports to the C/CD, and oversees all of the executive staff (C/PAO, C/AEO, etc).

Flight Commanders report to the C/CD for operational flight responsibilities.

[I guess I should ask who I should report to. So far any questions or concerns I've simply sent a cell phone text or email to the Squadron Commander and he answers. Never tells me I should be talking to anyone in-between. Maybe there is a chart somewhere for our Squadron ...

What is your role, Sir?

I used to report directly to the Commander. Now I report to the Deputy Commander, which isn't a big deal. But the Deputy Commander in our unit is also the Deputy Commander for Seniors (wears two hats in this case---in addition to the other duty assignments he holds). So effectively, the Deputy Commander for Cadets is reporting to the Deputy Commander for Seniors due to the dual role.


I saw a post previously that said in one unit, the Commander was also the Deputy Commander for Seniors, while a separate Deputy Commander for Cadets was assigned. I think people are misunderstanding how chain of command works in the absence of an assigned duty. I keep getting broadcast as "also the Activities Officer and Leadership Education Officer." This shouldn't be the case. I should automatically be filling those roles because I'm the next higher in the chain of command and those positions are currently vacant. Until I have someone reporting to me in that particular role, it's my responsibility, albeit that the quality will be reduced simply because of the fact that I can't do everything. But I wouldn't expect my Commander to also be my Leadership Officer for the Cadet Program.

You either delegate responsibilities, or fulfill them at your level. That's how I see it.

But I'm also coming from a background of a strict chain of command that goes up, not up and down and sideways and back down again. So it's a bit hard for some to catch on to my ideas of staffing, and hard for me to back off from trying to fix the spaghetti monster that is a unit's organizational structure. Bear in mind that I'm solely referring to the Cadet Program and how it reports to the Commander. The senior side isn't my business.