NER Imposes Term Limits?

[EMT-83]

I stumbled across this on the NER website:

http://ner.cap.gov/docs/NER_OI11-01_Subordinate_Unit_Commander_Term_Limits.pdf

Anyone know any background, or even heard about this?

[SarDragon]

Not a big deal, IMHO. PCR has had a similar policy for several years.

[MIKE]

Gonna be a lot of new CCs in 6 months.

[Spaceman3750]

My group (maybe all of IL?) has a 3 year term with the option for a 4th.

[davidsinn]

My group (maybe all of IL?) has a 3 year term with the option for a 4th.

All of GLR has three year term limits with an optional fourth year if no suitable replacement is available.

[MIKE]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

[Spaceman3750]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

[RADIOMAN015]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 
RM   

[Short Field]

If the unit is so poor in additional leadership potential, then the Region Commander can approve an extension of the Commander for a year - a year at a time.  Term limits were put in place to make sure squadrons didn't become the personal fiefdom of one person.  It has happened and PCR had to establish term limits to stop it.

One of the most important jobs (and responsibilities) of any commander is to train his replacement(s).   

[Eclipse]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 

No, this is the opportunity for new blood and letting someone else stand at the front of the room for a while, including the new staff and ideas that will come with that.  It also forces those who believe they have a plan to start moving, with the impetus of the clock always pushing them forward.

No one volunteers for the job?  Irrelevant.  This is the term, the end date is coming.  You must have a commander and this gentlemen will not be it as of "x".   Step up or find other ways to serve the community.

Having only one person doing the job and no one who will "train for commander", means that the day the current commander, dies, leaves, or gets hacked off, the unit dies a sudden death, but a lot of people don't understand that idea.

The GLR term limits meant a handful of effective leaders were forced to be relieved while still firing on all cylinders, but it also meant that a number of people who were simply walking in the same groove and doing nothing were required to make a change.  We had one commander who had been in place for 17 years (telling everyone it was 20), and one who was a CC for over 28.

Neither unit was considered effective by anyone but those unit CC's, yet for typical reasons of CAP inertia, no one wanted to change status quo.  The
GLR terms limits forced the issue.

Frankly I think the term limits should be aligned with those of the national commander's term on the mid-point of her cycle, like the congressional terms.
The difference being that you may not succeed yourself, so we would not have the quagmire of self-promotion that Congress has.   This would also make change a constant in CAP, as it is in the rest of the world.

Successful organizations which are forced to be in perpetual change, must have business plans and contingencies to stay alive, something CAP has not been good at.

This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does,

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 

Not remotely the same.  Banks have paid teams of professionals, and are required by law to be have transition plans.

[JC004]

...
This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy
...

Is this serious?

[davidsinn]

...
This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy
...

Is this serious?

Got any anti troll spray?

[lordmonar]

MAWG for one has had commanders who have been sitting for something like 8 years or more.  A few for decades.

I don't know who would want the job for that long...

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader.  Also the unit did outstandingly in it's SUI, so it's hard to say we need a change just for the sake of a change.  That doesn't seem to make much sense.   This to me looks like another "wanna bee" policy, similar to what the AF does, with very factual basis.  Locally we've had he same guy running the bank for 20 years and the bank is doing fine. 
RM

I agree....change for the sake of change is stupid.

Implementing policies that are supposed to balance all the things a good wing commander is supposed to be doing is not change for change's sake.

From what I understand.....this policy is in place to a) Eliminate the fifedoms.  b) Encourage growth of our leaders by moving them around from time to time.  c) Free up experinced leaders to take on more respondiblities at group and wing level. d) Reduce the loss of good leaders due to burn out.

If you look at the policy.....it is possible to keep a commander past the time limit....if they need to be....but it puts the burden of finding the replacement of the wing command team...i.e. working with the current squadron staff to find the a replacement.

These are all good things.....yes of course if there has been a break down at the squadron level...and there is no one suitable....of course they should not change the commanders....but they should also be putting together a plan to "fix" the situation in a timely manner.

None of this has to do with the fact that "The USAF does it too".......it is just a fact that both CAP and the USAF (and many other organisations) have the same ideas about how to keep a unit functional, prevent stagnation and develope good leaders.

[ZigZag911]

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader. 
RM

A rule like this helps a unit CC who has served well to step down before burning out.

I often hear about units where no one is willing to accept command; some may have perfectly valid reasons (family, work, school) for declining); many, however, just don't take into account that it's not fair to expect one person to carry the load year after year.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know one squadron commander that wants to retire, however no one in the unit has come forward to volunteer to be considered for training to be the commander -- and it's been discussed asked at senior member meetings.  IF you don't have a volunteer to be the commander, you can have all the regulations in the world, it still doesn't change the dynamics of getting a new leader. 
RM

A rule like this helps a unit CC who has served well to step down before burning out.

I often hear about units where no one is willing to accept command; some may have perfectly valid reasons (family, work, school) for declining); many, however, just don't take into account that it's not fair to expect one person to carry the load year after year.

Unfortunately situations where a dynamic leader burns out/steps down/has to step down and has no replacement is the reason most units have cyclical periods of greatness and decline. A lot of the times those who can't find a replacement try to hold on for as long as possible to keep the unit running well until they burn out. Of course by that time you end up with a burnt out member and a unit that still lacks a good replacement.

[arajca]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

[lordmonar]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

+1

Nothing like a dead line to motivate people to get it done.  The out going commander does not have to feel like a heel because they are "quitting".  The other members will have to look at the change as done deal....step up or the program folds....situation and maybe someone will step up.  No one has to deal with "Lt Col Sparkplug has been doing this for 10 years...there is no way I can ever do that job" syndrom.  The outgoing commander will not be burned out on CAP and will still be around to mentor and guide the new commander...further reducing the anxiaty.

Add the OE program that (among other things) is set up to groom new commanders and a good strong wing PD program that holds regular Squadron Commanders Courses and we will have more constant leadership and less cycles of good/bad leadership.  We hand off the squadron at a high instead of on the down turn once a commander has burned out and it starts showing up in squadron performance.

[DakRadz]

I just moved to GLR, and I've seen a CC who was affected by the rule change- he stepped down soon after it was implemented after ~12 years (wasn't here, don't know exactly). The unit was doing fine before he stepped down, nothing wrong with it.

Afterwards, a new CC stepped up, grew our squadron past 100, and we have created about 4-5 squadrons in some way in the past 5 years.
Said new CC stepped down, helps keep events going, and we have a good CC as of now, who still has the support of a SUPER Gung-Ho former CC who was not burned out. We just created another Flight (mine) under the new CC.

We have another CC lined up who would do great as well. It's really, really helping us. We went from a good squadron that was always meeting standards to a GREAT squadron which has spun off and trained new squadrons around our area, and generally exceeds standards.

No, I wasn't there for all of this, but I have witnessed the other squadrons, the CCs, and the effects of shortened command. The only non-active, living former CC is the one who was in for ~12 years- he's a great officer, but was burned out.

Heck, our Group CC had a potential cadet and parent contact him- he referred them to our squadron above all, even though it wasn't quite the closest.

[EMT-83]

Anyone from NER heard about this through channels?

I was somewhat surprised to read it, as I've heard no announcement.

[lordmonar]

It's on their web page.

[titanII]

Anyone from NER heard about this through channels?

I was somewhat surprised to read it, as I've heard no announcement.

I've heard nothing. But then again, I'm not important enough 

[ColonelJack]

Wow ... where was this policy when I needed it?   :clap:

I could've avoided total burnout after six years as a squadron CC.  I wish SER had had that policy back in the 90s ... heck, we had a Region CC who was in the job for almost 20 years, as I recall.

Jack

[Thrashed]

It's new. It will take time to get through channels to each wing, group, and squadron. They have six months either way.  My squadron will be looking for someone.

[FW]

Having term limits is a good idea.  However, as each wing has it's unique situation, wing commanders need the flexibility to be the final arbiters of a squadron commander's term.  There is good reason why we don't specify term limits for squadron and group commanders in the regs. They serve at the pleasure of the next higher command, not the region commander.  Wing commanders are the appointing authority.  Good wing commanders understand burnout and the idea of a squadron needing fresh "blood". They are duty bound to change commanders when needed.  This is what leadership is all about.  Any restriction on this authority is meaningless, IMHO. 

It is proper for a region commander to instruct wing commanders to form such a policy though. There should be a process in each wing where there is an acceptable turnover of unit leaders to keep ideas and programs fresh along with a productive and growing membership. 

[RiverAux]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

Which is one of the reasons why I probably won't ever become a CAP squadron commander again, but why I'm on track to take on my CG Aux flotilla -- they've got hardcore term limits and I know that I won't be getting myself stuck for an indefinite period of time. 

[JeffDG]

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

[Eclipse]

^ I don't necessarialy disagree with this, the issue being that if higher HQ were involved and active in weeding out
the ineffective commanders, the term limits probably would not be imposed to start with.

To be an effective squadron CC requires you be a manager first and a doer second.  A hard lesson for people who join
to be doers.  The ineffective ones tend to just "do" what they want to, ignore the rest of the program, and sometimes
even many of their members, and rest on single-threaded success instead the diverse reach they should have.

Perhaps instead of or in keeping with term limits, a pre-requisite of 2 years active services and a senior level in at least one
rating, preferably two...

Meh, we can hash requirements all day, but without the people, we're destined for "respiration, gravitational attraction" as the only
thing we can require.

Until we're in a position to comfortably disallow SMWOG and Butter bars from unit command (or higher), things are not going to change.

[SamFranklin]

Nearly everyone says that the squadron is the most important echelon in CAP, and that squadron commander is the most important job. I agree. If that's so, what are the implications?

We should recruit our very best people to serve as squadron commanders. Freeing up experienced commanders to serve at wing has it backwards.

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons. Therefore, the fiefdom problem we most want to avoid is a wing staffer, for example, "owning" a functional area and imposing his or her way on the squadrons.

Sure, there are some squadron commanders who need to be politely thanked for their service, but instead of placing term limits on them, I say we greatly trim the higher echelon staffs, send those people to the squadrons where the help can do the most good, and tap the very best people in the wing to serve in command roles opposed to staff / director roles.

[Eclipse]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

[MIKE]

If you go off CAPR 39-3 and the Command Service Ribbon, a commanders term is 1 year.

[Eclipse]

If you go off CAPR 39-3 and the Command Service Ribbon, a commanders term is 1 year.

An interesting position, but 1-year CC's would be useless.  It takes a year just to get the ship moving.

It should be like this:

First year - find the bathrooms, establish new posture, set plans in place, new staff, and generally "clean house".

Second year - implementation of plans, adjustment and tweaks.

3rd Year - steady state on plans, plus the beginning of transition planning.

4th year - steady state on plans, full transition planning, hopefully with buy-in of higher HQ on new CC-designee, or work with
higher HQ on selection of new CC to insure smooth transition.

If I ever see this happen at any echelon, I'll let you know.

[FW]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

Eclipse, I don't know if this has gotten lost or, we just forgot the need to work together in supporting the entire orgainization. 

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

Ok, Jeff, I agree with this however, flexibility is still needed.  And, there should be a limit to a squadron commander's tenure.  We need to develop new leaders to keep Civil Air Patrol Strong. 

[Eclipse]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

Eclipse, I don't know if this has gotten lost or, we just forgot the need to work together in supporting the entire orgainization. 

But the "entire organization" is the units.  I teach the inverse pyramid at encampment, where the entirety of the activity is focused on the experience
of the basic cadets - that's the mission of the encampment - anything else is ancillary.  Whether it's the cadet staff's experience, the O-rides,
how many awards there are, the dreaded "party", whatever.  The focus of the activity is supposed to be the basic cadets.

Same goes for daily organizational operations.  They should be focused on the needs and experience of the rank and file members, and
the plans and programs should be scaled for that.  Nothing happens without them.

No ES.
No Cadet Activities.
No AE.
No PD.

Nothing.

Yet much of the time and effort expended is focused on plans, programs, and administrivia at the wing and higher which in no way serve the
units, and in many cases are to the detriment of unit operations.

Pick your fiefdom that makes getting something signed off harder than declaring independence, or getting a radio harder than nuclear fission,
or any other area where the HQ staff thinks checking their box of a PoA, inventory, or CI is the end of their job, when in fact it is where the job starts.

You cannot show me a single area of CAP operations where the experience of the units should not be the focus.  And for those of you who would
respond "all ES is done at the wing level", the "wing has the planes", whatever.  Bear in mind that those situations are the evolution of a shrinking manpower and the inability to execute at the unit level, not the core design of the CAP model.

The base model of CAP, at least on paper, has the entity of operations being executed by unit members, with plans, programs, and coordination being assumed at higher HQ.  That's the paramilitary model we emulate, but we've corrupted that by having "doers" in command and staff roles, which means their attention and (duty) loyalties are divided at best, to the detriment of both.

[FW]

^ Well, Eclipse, if you want to put it that way.....   

[Eclipse]

I do go on sometimes...

[BillB]

We need to organize the International Association to censor Eclipse. Afterall he already has earned the TMFT award, and he has more posts than all the Mods combined. But the only problem is he's unuslly correct in his posts

[JeffDG]

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

Ok, Jeff, I agree with this however, flexibility is still needed.  And, there should be a limit to a squadron commander's tenure.  We need to develop new leaders to keep Civil Air Patrol Strong.

And on that we disagree.  The higher-echelon should have the flexibility to select the individual who is best able to fill the role, whether that be a new SMWOG with tons of leadership and management experience outside of CAP who can reinvigorate a moribund squadron, or the current squadron commander who's held the job for the last two decades, but still produces great results for the squadron.  Placing artificial limits on terms is just an excuse to not actually evaluate results and qualifications and go back to "You know, Col, you're doing a fantastic job, but the policy says I have to replace you."

[FW]

You are correct Jeff, on that, we disagree. No member "owns" their positition in CAP.  A squadron commander is not doing their job if they can't recognize leadership potential in the members they lead, nurture it and, eventually move on to let new talent take over.   

We need squadron commanders to feel comfortable leaving to assume duties at higher levels.  We need mentors.  We need a constant flow of new ideas.  I do not think a squadron with the same commander for 20 years is successful or effective.  I've seen great squadrons fall apart because such a long term-er decided to leave unexpectedly.  A commander who stays for 20 years stifles the members in a unit.  It happens all the time.  It also makes it more difficult for a wing commander to find talent for group command or staff.  Also, letting a squadron commander stay on for such an extended time is an abdication of duty.  We just can not afford to stagnate our leadership pool at any level.

Yes, having a set term is preferrable to a term limit however, no one should be allowed to serve an unlimited amount of terms. 

[Eclipse]

And on that we disagree.  The higher-echelon should have the flexibility to select the individual who is best able to fill the role, whether that be a new SMWOG with tons of leadership and management experience outside of CAP who can reinvigorate a moribund squadron,

The creature does not exist.  While general management skills and leadership experience will serve any CAP leader well, just because you can manage a company, doesn't mean you can manage a paramilitary squadron of volunteers.  Ditto for those with previous military experience.  I have seen way too many people look in from the outside, think they have it knocked, and then fail because they had no idea what or why CAP was, let alone how to inspire people who are free to come and go as they please.

If anything, SMWOG should be disallowed from command, period.  Because anyone at that level is either too new to be of value as a commander, or
doesn't' "get it" (i.e. the misguided notion that grade and PD don't mean anything).  Of course saying that won't make commanders with more experience magically appear for the 10 or so units with SMWOG as CC last time I checked which is CAP's eternal conundrum of raising the bar when you can't requisition personnel or make people do things they don't want to.

or the current squadron commander who's held the job for the last two decades, but still produces great results for the squadron.

There are so few of those as to be statistically zero.

Placing artificial limits on terms is just an excuse to not actually evaluate results and qualifications and go back to "You know, Col, you're doing a fantastic job, but the policy says I have to replace you."

The problem is those evaluations were not being done, which forced the issue.

The correct statement is, "Well Capt., you've done such a fantastic job with this unit, that you need to move up and export your ideas and success to the rest of the group, etc."  If we're waiting until they are field grade to move them up, we've done everyone a disservice, or in some cases they shouldn't be field grade to start with (a whole 'nother argument).

[lordmonar]

I got to disagree.

There are plenty of times where bringing in outside management who know nothing about the nuts and bolts of the day to day operations can work.

Being a good leader is as much nature as it is nurture.

You can teach anyone the nuts and bolt of how to run a squadron in a fairly short time.....getting a good manager and motivator takes a much longer time.

Of course the best situation is to have someone with the leadership skills needed AND the experince in CAP.  But it is possible to bring in outside leadership if that is the best fix for the situation.

[titanII]

Being a good leader is as much nature as it is nurture.

That's not what the leadership books say...

"The Air Force's offi-
cial view on leadership states that leadership can be
built through experience, education, and training."
-Learn to Lead, chapter 3

[Eclipse]

I'd have to go with Lord on the nature / nuture point.  I think you can build an effective "manager", but leaders are born.

With that said, who's doing that training?  If someone was around to effectively build a new CC, you'd likely not have to go outside to start with.

There's no way somebody off the street, with no military or CAP experience, is going to be much use as even a member for 6-months to a year, let alone as a commander.  Remember, while he's trying to find the bridge, the ship is still moving, and if it is a case where some newb non-member had to be brought in, then odds are no one else is in the wheelhouse, either.

[Ned]

  I think you can build an effective "manager", but leaders are born.

Yup, absolutely. 

That's why we are changing the name of that portion of the cadet program to the "Management Laboratory."   

[bosshawk]

Couldn't resist adding my .01.5 cents worth on this issue, which happens to be one of my pet peeves.  I found, in my 18 years in CAP, far too many folks who got "leadership" mixed up with "management" and were prone to substituting one for the other.  They are two distinct and different characteristics in a person.  Lots of people can be managers: few can be leaders and that seems to be a common problem throughout a lot of the volunteer organzations to which I have belonged: lots of managers, few leaders.

[lordmonar]

Being a good leader is as much nature as it is nurture.

That's not what the leadership books say...

"The Air Force's offi-
cial view on leadership states that leadership can be
built through experience, education, and training."
-Learn to Lead, chapter 3

Yes....and I don't disagree with that.  To use analogy....any 12 year old can be taught to play base ball.....but only a select few will ever make it to the Majors.
Getting there is a combination of natural talent, personal commitment, training and a bit of luck.

Leaders like base ball players can be built theough experince, education and training.....but there is a natural ability factor in there as well.

[lordmonar]

On the leadership/managment dicotomy.


I disagree that they are two things......and a lot of this is just terminolgy.

A leader is one who "gets the mission done".

Leadership is both managment and what I call motivation.

You can't be a good leader if you don't have a good balance of both of these abilities.  You may be able to talk eskimos into buying swim suits....but if you can do the managment functions  then you will fail to get the mission done and fail as a leader.

Likewise you may be the bean counter from hell and organised to the T.....but if you can't understand what makes your people tick you will fail to get the mission done and fail as a leader.

All of these skills can be taught.  But it is very very hard to teach the ART of if it.   And sometimes to be a great leader you have to be born to it.
Just like there are only a hand full of Michelangelos, Picasso, rembrand, etc.....there are only a hand full of Pattons, Shermans, Rommels, etc.

But to say that leaders are born not made is not true as well.

Okay.....end of rant.

[Майор Хаткевич]

My biggest issue in my "Business Leadership" class was the fact that they basically covered how to manage people as being leadership.

While leadership involves management, most Managers would lead their subordinates off a cliff within minutes.

[JeffDG]

My biggest issue in my "Business Leadership" class was the fact that they basically covered how to manage people as being leadership.

While leadership involves management, most Managers would lead their subordinates off a cliff within minutes.

The way I've always defined the difference between management and leadership is:

A good manager will take a defined goal and get the organization there.
A good leader will define what that goal should be.

I've met incredible leaders who couldn't manage to get out of a wet paper bag.  They saw the goal over the horizon and could explain that goal in a way that made you want to get there, but actually ask them to figure out the details and they were lost...they just couldn't get the small steps figured out right, but still had an excellent vision for the future.

By the same token, I've seen first-class managers who were not leaders.  Give them a goal, and by God they'll get you there, but ask them where the organization should go, and they don't have a clue.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think you're lumping visionaries with leaders. Overall though I agree.

[Al Sayre]

You manage systems and programs, you lead people...

[Spaceman3750]

Managers are put there by higher power. Leaders have followers who follow because they think it's right. You can be a leader among your peers without being appointed a manager.

[davedove]

I learned this difference at RSC last month:

A manager will make sure the path through the jungle is completed by assuring the machetes are sharp, the workers are fed, etc.

A leader will climb a tree and tell you you're going in the wrong direction.

[NIN]

My biggest issue in my "Business Leadership" class was the fact that they basically covered how to manage people as being leadership.

While leadership involves management, most Managers would lead their subordinates off a cliff within minutes.

I impressed the hell out of a CFO by saying "I prefer to manage thru leadership rather than try to lead by management" in an interview once.

Must have been the right thing to say: it got me the job.

[Майор Хаткевич]

My biggest issue in my "Business Leadership" class was the fact that they basically covered how to manage people as being leadership.

While leadership involves management, most Managers would lead their subordinates off a cliff within minutes.

I impressed the hell out of a CFO by saying "I prefer to manage thru leadership rather than try to lead by management" in an interview once.

Must have been the right thing to say: it got me the job.

Zing!

Stolen.

[RADIOMAN015]

Gonna be a lot of new CCs in 6 months.

Well I'm bringing this back up again, especially with the last paragraph.......

6. Should any wing commander find that a subordinate unit, squadron or flight, cannot replace its
commander as to no effort has been made to recruit and train a replacement, that squadron or
flight should be merged into another nearby unit that is meeting the wing's tenure instructions......

How much responsibility do wing commanders have in ensuring this is being done.  Surely one would expect a phase in period in this policy, perhaps 1 year .   How long does it take to successfully train a new squadron commander

I don't think many wing commanders are interested in reducing the number of units in their areas.  With some units closing  possibly due to this policy, basically the member is the one that is impacted negatively by having to travel further to meetings -- will most stay in or opted for other closer volunteer opportunities   Also some units may have  usage of government facilities and closing that unit will mean a loss of that facility to CAP.

Again are we causing problems that don't exist by forcing out effective adult leadership   IF a unit is passing it's inspection, doing well with retention, and both senior & cadet members are progressing, do we really need to do this    

Mike I'm sure as you know we have at least 4 Squadron Commander's in the wing right now that based upon this policy wouldn't be able to get a waiver.   Also as many of us know one unit 20+ years with one commander for most of these years, closed last spring due to a lack of senior members to support the unit    
RM

[ZigZag911]

My experience (over 40 years in CAP) has been that "Commander for Life" is good neither for the individual nor the unit.

Are there exceptions? Sure, rarely...on the other hand, a member that is so deeply devoted to a squadron is going to remain so in any capacity of service.

None of us is indispensable, and we all have an obligation to nurture new leaders.

Not everyone is a natural leader, but many who are efficient, effective managers and organizers can be motivated/guided in developing their leadership potential.

[KyCAP]

My guess is that following recent change in National Commander that this policy will be standard practice across all regions.  As Eclipse noted, it started in GLR and it roto-rooted some dead weight, but at the same time took some toll on effective leaders runnng their programs.   Hard to say what the outcome was other than a "vanilla" way to make change that could have been take head-on in my opinion.    But, wasn't my issue to solve and "something" happened rather than "nothing".  I am standing by to see what the changes are on the horizon with our new leadership as the transition occurs.   I can say for one thing, my only "need" from Col. Carr was during the Ice Storm back in '09 and he lit the fires and kicked the tires at NHQ.  So, I am standing by.

[PHall]

My guess is that following recent change in National Commander that this policy will be standard practice across all regions.  As Eclipse noted, it started in GLR and it roto-rooted some dead weight, but at the same time took some toll on effective leaders runnng their programs.   Hard to say what the outcome was other than a "vanilla" way to make change that could have been take head-on in my opinion.    But, wasn't my issue to solve and "something" happened rather than "nothing".  I am standing by to see what the changes are on the horizon with our new leadership as the transition occurs.   I can say for one thing, my only "need" from Col. Carr was during the Ice Storm back in '09 and he lit the fires and kicked the tires at NHQ.  So, I am standing by.

It didn't start in GLR. PCR has had this policy for over 10 years now.

[MSG Mac]

Commanders who stay too long will stagnate or worse  develop a culture that revolves aroundhim and not the various CAP missions. I firmlyu believe that three years is more than enough time to stay in command of any organization, train a replacement, and step aside. Hopefully leaving the unit better than he found it.

[Eclipse]

This is another of those policies that just needs to be written down and enforced, nationwide.  It has to be fair for all, otherwise it only penalizes
the people who pay attention to it or care about CAP and their jobs.

If the clock is ticking, it's ticking, but nothing is more demoralizing to an effective commander to know that because he's aware of the policy, he's in his lame duck year and looking for a successor, while around him are people who don't even know there is a limit, and won't be changed out unless they actually
say something.

[RiverAux]

Unfortunately, the loophole in the NER policy is that the Wing Commander can keep extending squadron commanders past the end of the term limit.  That means that the squadrons where supposedly "no one else will do it" will still be stuck. 

Squadron Commander term limit should be three years maximum with no possibility of extension and at least 5 years before being eligible to command that unit again. 

[Eclipse]

I'd argue that in a lot of cases the ones where "no one else will do it" are the most in need of change.

In those cases, forcing the issue, through whatever means necessary, is probably the best for all involved.

And for those of you that would ask "What about Gumby Composite?  They have 80 members, and the commander
has been the same for 15 years..."

I would respond - then she is not making opportunities for anyone else, moving herself to a higher echelon to
export her success, and will, for sure, die or quit one day, and in those cases I have seen "successful" units
grind to a halt because no one else had a clue but the long-term commander.

And those cases of highly successful units with CC's for life are few and far between.

[Eclipse]

Personally, I'd like to see new CC's at all levels either concurrent with the wing CC's term, or on the mid-point.  That way the organization is in a perpetual state of change.

This would require that we have fixed terms for wing CC's, and in the case that a wing CC leaves office early, the Vice CC completes the term before getting
a chance at his own appointment.  That insures continuity as well as manageable cycles of change.

And that's another thing...

CAP members think they are on steady annual cycles, but they really aren't.  Whether it's the often and random staffer and commander changes, or
major activities like SUI's, Eval's, NCC, etc., which change on the whim if the director's personal schedule.  There's while lot of random
on the calendar every year, which is another reason we can't get things deconflicted.

[MIKE]

Mega Bump.

I was searching for this topic when the more recent thread came up on term limits for unit commanders... It appears that the NER OI was updated less than a month after we discussed it here, and appears to have been severely gimped in revision.  Anyone have the previous version to compare?

[RADIOMAN015]

Mega Bump.

I was searching for this topic when the more recent thread came up on term limits for unit commanders... It appears that the NER OI was updated less than a month after we discussed it here, and appears to have been severely gimped in revision.  Anyone have the previous version to compare?

Can't find the other policy in my computer, but I think what it did is for the first few waivers the respective Wing Commander can grant the waiver.   Region only gets involved with it after 6 years.

Paragraph 6 of the that policy, doesn't make much sense.   Group & Wing Commander's are responsible for appointment Squadron Commanders and not individuals within the squadron.    It's interesting in my wing because one squadron had a commander resign and another member from another unit volunteered to be the commander (40+ mile drive one way to the new unit).  The unit the individual left, closed within 3 years when that commander didn't want to do it any more and it was difficult recruiting/retaining staff for that squadron.  So the Wing Commander allowed the plugged to be pulled.
RM