http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf
I guess this form is not applicable to SMs without grade and SM NCOs?
I believe CAP decided Officer was the generic term for all SM's.several years ago.
Quote from: MSG Mac on August 07, 2011, 06:52:03 PM
I believe CAP decided Officer was the generic term for all SM's.several years ago.
That was never adopted in any publications, and was disavowed officially during the current CC's tenure.
Quote from: MIKE on August 07, 2011, 04:46:31 PM
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf
I guess this form is not applicable to SMs without grade and SM NCOs?
Of course it's applicable. This form is for Duty Positions, no? The only question would be, "what does one put in the 'Grade' box?"
I would presume that you would write, "SM," "Senior," "Senior Member," or "N/A." The way I look at it is to consider what eServices indicates next to the member's name? Just remember the purpose and context of this specific form; Performance Feedback! They get a copy, you get a copy. It was devised to help members and not to be that complicated. See the instructions and don't forget that if there's another reason that you selected this form, then you might in fact be looking for a completely different form for your purposes altogether.
I hope this helps!
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9674/form40.jpg)
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
what purpose does this form actually serve? Where is the regulation that authorizes or requires it?
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
what purpose does this form actually serve? Where is the regulation that authorizes or requires it?
It's so a supervisor can tell a subordinate how they're doing. In the Air Force you get these about half way through your rating period.
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
what purpose does this form actually serve? Where is the regulation that authorizes or requires it?
It's so a supervisor can tell a subordinate how they're doing. In the Air Force you get these about half way through your rating period.
I understand that but where in CAP do we even have a "rating period"
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 10:15:38 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
what purpose does this form actually serve? Where is the regulation that authorizes or requires it?
It's so a supervisor can tell a subordinate how they're doing. In the Air Force you get these about half way through your rating period.
I understand that but where in CAP do we even have a "rating period"
I never said anything about it making sense! >:D
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 10:15:38 PM
I understand that but where in CAP do we even have a "rating period"
It depends. These are an excellent way to give constructive feedback for subordinates. Similarly, it's a useful tool when discussing Professional Development. I've used these for both Prof Dev and duty performance feedback simultaneously. Consequently, many members progress, get promoted, hear what they are doing right or doing wrong, and often ask various questions they might otherwise not had time to ask. It can even get you prepared for inspections, though technically self inspections don't need these, but this form on its own can be a very useful tool in helping new and seasoned members. When I used them, everybody loved these.
In CAP the rating period could be since you last did one of these, OR, during the specialty track and Professional Development levels. It depends.
Quote from: cap235629 on August 07, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: PHall on August 07, 2011, 08:03:06 PM
Appears they took the Air Force Performance Feedback Form, made a few adjustments and viola, a new CAP Form.
Even the Active Duty Air Force can't make those form work the way they're supposed to, oughta be interesting to see what CAP does with it.
what purpose does this form actually serve? Where is the regulation that authorizes or requires it?
It's part of the Organizational Excellence (OE) Program. The form was available when the program first started and has been updated for OE 2.0. See CAPP 50-9 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_009_33B9C3AF62C62.pdf) for more information.
I received one for my promotion to Lt Col last year.
It was a great way for me to know what my strengths were and it helped me identify my weaknesses so I can work on them during my probationary period after my promotion.
It also gave me a sense of worth to know that my leaders made an effort to help me improve myself as a member of CAP.
Personally, I think that this should be a reverse evaluation form. So for example on squadron commanders, all the senior members in the squadron get to fill out a form on him/her. For the group commanders (where authorized) the squadron commanders under the group commander. For the wing commander it should be either the group commanders (or if groups not authorized) the squadron commanders, (and perhaps his staff senior members) etc. At any level that has staff officers for a particular function, than the subordinate staff function should fill out the evaluation.
In all cases the individuals supervisor (as well as the individual being evaluated) should get a copy of each evalution form. Now I think that would be a very interesting exercise to try :angel:
RM
Just how bad are things in your wing?
Everything you post is an indictment of your leadership tinged with anecdotal histrionics of the mistreatment of members.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 08, 2011, 01:49:23 AM
Personally, I think that this should be a reverse evaluation form. So for example on squadron commanders, all the senior members in the squadron get to fill out a form on him/her. For the group commanders (where authorized) the squadron commanders under the group commander. For the wing commander it should be either the group commanders (or if groups not authorized) the squadron commanders, (and perhaps his staff senior members) etc. At any level that has staff officers for a particular function, than the subordinate staff function should fill out the evaluation.
In all cases the individuals supervisor (as well as the individual being evaluated) should get a copy of each evalution form. Now I think that would be a very interesting exercise to try :angel:
RM
I'm not advocating for what you're instructing BUT there is in fact a box on the reverse side of this form to evaluate the evaluator (e.g. the box for your mentor's feedback). I suppose if it was really bad you could give a copy to your next CC in the CoC or the IG.... but, I'm not sure why all the stress over this particular form. Is it really that bad in your wing?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2011, 01:58:21 AM
Just how bad are things in your wing?
Everything you post is an indictment of your leadership tinged with anecdotal histrionics of the mistreatment of members.
My unit commander is a great guy who respects everyone in the unit and is an exceptional leader with many, many years of experience in CAP. The wing commander is very approachable and see the wing's staff as being there to support the squadrons where the action is. He's made some very good contacts with the state emergency management agency (MOA recently signed/approved), national guard, national park service, and continues to work on trying to get the wing additional missions.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 08, 2011, 02:39:48 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 08, 2011, 01:58:21 AM
Just how bad are things in your wing?
Everything you post is an indictment of your leadership tinged with anecdotal histrionics of the mistreatment of members.
My unit commander is a great guy who respects everyone in the unit and is an exceptional leader with many, many years of experience in CAP. The wing commander is very approachable and see the wing's staff as being there to support the squadrons where the action is. He's made some very good contacts with the state emergency management agency (MOA recently signed/approved), national guard, national park service, and continues to work on trying to get the wing additional missions.
RM
What, no smiley faces? ::)
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 08, 2011, 01:49:23 AM
Personally, I think that this should be a reverse evaluation form. So for example on squadron commanders, all the senior members in the squadron get to fill out a form on him/her. For the group commanders (where authorized) the squadron commanders under the group commander. For the wing commander it should be either the group commanders (or if groups not authorized) the squadron commanders, (and perhaps his staff senior members) etc.
Very similar to climate surveys in the military. They got to be real popular in the 90's. You were guaranteed at least a 10% negative rating from the disgruntled individuals who saw it as a way to get back against their leadership. Since it was expected, the leadership normally got a good laugh out of the comments (for some reason the disgruntled ones were not that smart).
However, when the negatives got too high or there was a common thread being complained about, the top leadership tended to take action. I knew one commander (shoo-in for O7 on the next board) who was fired when the main problem in the unit turned out to be him. ;D