Has anyone else noticed that the Air Force, a top-down military organization, seems to be much more interested in the opinions of their members on certain issues than CAP, a civilian volunteer organization is?
We've talked here about how all AF members are allowed to comment on or suggest uniform changes.
Theorhetically CAP members can, but our comments are stovepiped and can be stopped at any point in the chain of command and not passed on.
Now, the AF is using focus groups of airmen to help them come up with a new slogan to replace "Above All" http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_slogan_052410w/
When is CAP going to recognize that taking the opinion of its members into consideration doesn't threaten the "power" of the leadership?
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
When is CAP going to recognize that taking the opinion of its members into consideration doesn't threaten the "power" of the leadership?
About three days after Hell freezes over. I believe that listening to the membership would actually increase a leader's "power" because the people would feel like the leader actually cares and would be more willing to go along with his/her direction.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 26, 2010, 01:36:43 PM
About three days after Hell freezes over. I believe that listening to the membership would actually increase a leader's "power" because the people would feel like the leader actually cares and would be more willing to go along with his/her direction.
Actually, I believe that to be true as well, but most of the time in CAP it tends to be like this:
"Smith what do you think we should do? I think we should go left"
"I think we should go right sir"
"Excellent idea Smith, turn left here"
I don't think your logic is working right.
Just because we stove pipe decisions or don't usually ask opinions from the field on each and every little thing....does not necessarily mean that the leadership are a bunch of power hungry paranoids.
As any leader knows.....participative leadership is very time consuming.
Getting a consensus from over 52 wings in a timely manner will just take forever.
Also....just look at the length of the Diversity Committee thread and see what people think when National does try to put together a focus group to handle a specific problem.
In the case of uniform inputs....it only has to go through 3 people at the most before it gets on the NB agenda.
Your Commander, your group commander and then your wing commander.
If you can't get those three guy to back your proposal.....communicating directly to the uniform committee is going to help you how?
If nothing else....by using the chain of command we reduce the work load on the uniform committee by killing really stupid ideas at the lowest level.
Have you seen the USAF's suggestion to their uniform board? You thing CAP comes up with silly stuff....you see worse on the AF side....swords, blood stripes on the pants, un-tucked light blue shift for the male service dress. And the uniform board must read each and everyone.
And in all things.....even if the commander axes your proposal....you can always go up the chain.
QuoteHave you seen the USAF's suggestion to their uniform board? You thing CAP comes up with silly stuff....you see worse on the AF side....swords, blood stripes on the pants, un-tucked light blue shift for the male service dress. And the uniform board must read each and everyone.
And yet they make it work.
QuoteIn the case of uniform inputs....it only has to go through 3 people at the most before it gets on the NB agenda.
I"m not even thinking of new proposals here, but rather the process used to comment on proposals developed through normal means.
I have tried on 2 or 3 occasions to get actual obvious mistakes or clearly messed up things fixed in draft regulations and have yet to see the process work. So, if those things can't even be effectively addressed by our current process, why should anyone think that more opinion-based comments have any chance at all of being heard?
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2010, 04:34:30 PM
...
I have tried on 2 or 3 occasions to get actual obvious mistakes or clearly messed up things fixed in draft regulations and have yet to see the process work. So, if those things can't even be effectively addressed by our current process, why should anyone think that more opinion-based comments have any chance at all of being heard?
...
I've had the same experience. For instance, you know (last I checked) there aren't any gloves that are technically authorized with the flight suit, right? Gloves are laid out for the OTHER uniforms. I wanted to know if I could wear green NOMEX gloves. I went to look and there was nothing. I e-mailed NHQ and they were like "hm, you're right."
We need more member input and participation. We need more involvement to get more done with less assets. We could have a brilliant marketing, branding,
social media (crossed that out for when Bob reads this, but everyone else can read it), web, etc. strategy if they had us heavily involved in this process to make it work. That goes for other stuff too. I'd be glad to update a lot of my locally-developed ES materials that people seem to love if I thought National cared at all and they'd go anywhere.
I'd like to see tools for distributed teams. For instance, maybe wikis, forums, etc.
Starbucks does it. So do others. Not only that, but with Starbucks, they specifically hold themselves ACCOUNTABLE to the customers by showing the customers' ideas in action.
Have a look:
http://blogs.starbucks.com/blogs/Customer/default.aspx
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2010, 04:34:30 PM
QuoteHave you seen the USAF's suggestion to their uniform board? You thing CAP comes up with silly stuff....you see worse on the AF side....swords, blood stripes on the pants, un-tucked light blue shift for the male service dress. And the uniform board must read each and everyone.
And yet they make it work.
You mean that they get paid a full salary and do it as a full time job....and make it work.
QuoteQuoteIn the case of uniform inputs....it only has to go through 3 people at the most before it gets on the NB agenda.
I"m not even thinking of new proposals here, but rather the process used to comment on proposals developed through normal means.
I have tried on 2 or 3 occasions to get actual obvious mistakes or clearly messed up things fixed in draft regulations and have yet to see the process work. So, if those things can't even be effectively addressed by our current process, why should anyone think that more opinion-based comments have any chance at all of being heard?
I guess we have different experiences with the system. The one time I made a suggestion for a uniform change....it made it to the NB and got partially approved. So there system works.
Even if the system is inefficient.....that does not mean our leaders are scared of sharing power.....so use a different argument.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 26, 2010, 04:25:38 PM
Also....just look at the length of the Diversity Committee thread and see what people think when National does try to put together a focus group to handle a specific problem.
Bad example - I'd say this shows a very top-down model and most certainly isn't a "focus group". While the term is somewhat ambiguous, it usually describes a set of "average" people (or members in our case) and that is by no means what they're looking for. This is more of an "expert" technical committee, which is a useful tool for some issues bu should not be mistaken for a group representing CAP members as a whole. Same goes for pretty much all the national level committees on various issues.
QuoteEven if the system is inefficient.....that does not mean our leaders are scared of sharing power.
I certainly don't make such a suggestion lightly, but I find no other reasonable explanation for the apparent lack of interest in the views of regular CAP members that is demonstrated (or more accurately, not shown by) members of CAP's upper level leadership.
While you certainly can't have the membership vote on everything, having a good system for taking in, considering, and perhaps implementing member suggestions on certain issues would certainly make sense. The chain of command does not work when any commander for any reason can decide not to pass something on. Heck, we do it for safety, so why not for other aspects of CAP life?
1 :clap:
Having a process which engages the membership gives new motivations and drives for progress. When it comes to our leaders, I think we need a way for the members to feel "wanted". We don't get a paycheck for what we do but, we do need to get some type of appreciation. Feeling like you have some involvement in the system is a good way to start.
Don't get me wrong.
I would love to have a system where we can get direct input from the field on issues.
Uniforms, regs, policies, what have you......
My only point is that there are more reasons then just "fear of loosing power" for our leadership not to pursue these type of things.
One of them is simple ignorance. Many of the older type SM's don't know that power of the internet.
One of them is just time......they only have so much time to devote to CAP...and yet they have to still get the reg written and project done.
One of them is responsibility....it is my butt on the line if this goes wrong....I don't want/can't be distracted by a collaborative effort.
Differing points of focus.....making the membership feel wanted in not necessarily the job of the "New CAP Branding" committee. Sure we can add that requirement to their charter....but when you add more requirements you increase the difficulty of the job.
Let's take designing a new unifrom.
If the sole requirement was to get everyone in the same uniform...then that is easy (think Robin Hood Men in Tights ;D).
Oh but wait!.
We need to make the USAF happy.
We need to keep our heritage and traditions.
We need to preserve our identification with the USAF
We need to keep down costs
We need to be concerned about different operational environments (Alaska to Texas, Hawaii to Purto Rico).
We need to avoid being mistaken for RM/SWAT/Forest Rangers/Girl Scouts/ET AL.
Oh....and we need to engage the rank and file to make sure that they feel needed.
That's a lot of work.
None of this has anything to do with fear of loosing power.
Now again, don't get me wrong....we got a lot of empire builders out there....I see them at all levels of the organisation. But there are many other reasons for not asking and using feed back from the field.
NHQ regularly solicits input on various topics, and usually gets hardly any response at all.
Most members can and do have meaningful input at the local level, and there is a process for upchannel suggestions.
Some random email box with gripes and rantings would just be ignored.
Last I checked, volunteer or not, CAP was not a democracy, and trying to run a paramilitary organization
while still giving everyone an equal voice just doesn't work.
QuoteMy only point is that there are more reasons then just "fear of loosing power" for our leadership not to pursue these type of things.
I wouldn't argue that it is the only reason
Quoteand trying to run a paramilitary organization while still giving everyone an equal voice just doesn't work.
and yet a real military organization that has absolutely no elements of democracy in it does give some opportunities for its members to have input on some decisions that affect them all.
The AF isn't alone on the slogan thing -- the Coast Guard recently sent out a survey that touched on various issues on the "identity" of the service (Guardian vs Coastie, etc.).
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2010, 08:49:56 PMand yet a real military organization that has absolutely no elements of democracy in it does give some opportunities for its members to have input on some decisions that affect them all.
Yes, and CAP offers "some opportunities" as well.
I would say "CAP - We don't like change (except to the triangle-thingy)".
Sorry, I am still a bit bitter over what "She who shall be obeyed" did to Iowa.
CAP members get to vote on EVERY activity, by their presence (or absence). Sometimes the vote is about the activity; other times, it is a confidence (or no confidence) vote on the CC.
The UCMJ offers no such option.
She who shall be obeyed? :o
Care to fill me in?
I was referring to your National Commander. But I do apologize, respect the position, not the person, right?
Yeah, its OK to respect the person as well, she's a volunteer just like the rest of us.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 26, 2010, 08:02:06 PM
NHQ regularly solicits input on various topics, and usually gets hardly any response at all.
Most members can and do have meaningful input at the local level, and there is a process for upchannel suggestions.
Some random email box with gripes and rantings would just be ignored.
Last I checked, volunteer or not, CAP was not a democracy, and trying to run a paramilitary organization
while still giving everyone an equal voice just doesn't work.
It's not NHQ (employees) which makes the decisions effecting members; it is the NB, NEC and, BoG.
These are our leaders who need to be responsive to the membership. These are the men and women who should be listening and consider alternatives before making their decisions. No reasonable member should demand things be done their way however, members should demand they be heard.
For the last few years, there seems to be an atmosphere of "I'm the leader", to heck with your thoughts and advice or, "how dare you give me advice on how to do...". "Do you think I'm stupid or something".
A volunteer organization thrives on some very basic principles. First is; get your volunteers to buy in on what you want. Second is; to motivate them to get the job done and, third, to make your "customers" happy. Everything else is secondary to these three principles. Good leaders recognize this and act accordingly. Dismissing someones constructive suggestions or comments out of hand is bad practice. Dismissing gripes and complaints is even worse. And, the IG system is not intended for gripes and small complaints.
Yes, we can vote with our feet. But, that doesn't seem to make CAP a better place. Leaders who desire nothing but control end up with controlling nothing. What I've seen in the last 4 or so years is discouraging but, I still have hope for better things.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 26, 2010, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 26, 2010, 08:49:56 PMand yet a real military organization that has absolutely no elements of democracy in it does give some opportunities for its members to have input on some decisions that affect them all.
Yes, and CAP offers "some opportunities" as well.
Yes, the same oppotunities that the AF and CG evidently believed were insufficient.
i am probably about to open a HUGE can of opinion worms here, but it is just that, an opinion. I think that as a "corporation" it should not be about what makes people happy. Get the decision made, do it, then stick to it. If makes the USAF upset, oh well...we are not the USAF we are CAP, a corporation in itself. everyone needs to stop worrying about making other entities upset, stepping on toes, and offending...and just get the job done whether it is uniforms, regs, slogans, patches, what ever.
Quote from: Lt Buzzbear on May 27, 2010, 01:04:13 AM
i am probably about to open a HUGE can of opinion worms here, but it is just that, an opinion. I think that as a "corporation" it should not be about what makes people happy. Get the decision made, do it, then stick to it. If makes the USAF upset, oh well...we are not the USAF we are CAP, a corporation in itself. everyone needs to stop worrying about making other entities upset, stepping on toes, and offending...and just get the job done whether it is uniforms, regs, slogans, patches, what ever.
We are talking about the same folks that operate all the stealth bombers and predator drones right?
Quote from: Lt Buzzbear on May 27, 2010, 01:04:13 AM
i am probably about to open a HUGE can of opinion worms here, but it is just that, an opinion. I think that as a "corporation" it should not be about what makes people happy. Get the decision made, do it, then stick to it. If makes the USAF upset, oh well...we are not the USAF we are CAP, a corporation in itself. everyone needs to stop worrying about making other entities upset, stepping on toes, and offending...and just get the job done whether it is uniforms, regs, slogans, patches, what ever.
I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I do think it would be best for all involved if we simply charted our course and reacted to actual problems instead of trying to head off every potential issue. There are some people so invested in personal drama that they would complain about Mother Teresa if she sneezed liquid gold that cured cancer and powered small cities in a fully green way.
Granted M*A*S*H was just a TV show, but the correct premise was that people who are top performers have more value and flexibility because they have proven themselves to be trustworthy. A CAP executing on its missions is an invaluable resource to this country, one which would not be ignored as it is today, and when people would try to bring in chickenpoop stuff, we could say "talk to the hand, because we did 'x, y, z, AND Q" last year for free..."
As it stands today most of our successes are either in spite of ourselves or due to the brute-force effort of a small group who are more involved and committed then the majority of members. That's not how its supposed to work.