What would it be? 8)
Anything goes, assume you've got the ear of whoever writes these things and your recommendation is immediately implemented.
*grabs helmet, popcorn, and a poncho for the spittle*
Simple, REVISE 39-1 TO INCLUDE ALL ICLS and then move on.
Head gear for g/w.
One utility uniform (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3896.0) for all members, regardless of size, shape, weigh, grooming, etc.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
Simple, REVISE 39-1 TO INCLUDE ALL ICLS and then move on.
Enlighten me. What's ICLS?
Quote from: NM SAR on May 02, 2013, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 02, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
Simple, REVISE 39-1 TO INCLUDE ALL ICLS and then move on.
Enlighten me. What's ICLS?
Interim Change Letter/s
http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/ (http://www.capmembers.com/forms_publications__regulations/interim-change-letters-1708/)
Based standards off the CG Aux. One Uniform for all. One Utility Uniform for all. One Dres Uniform for all. Include all ICL's.
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Written in clear cut language and the sentence added "anything not listed in this manual is prohibited."
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 02, 2013, 05:42:43 PM
Written in clear cut language and the sentence added "anything not listed in this manual is prohibited."
as the footer on every page.
Quote from: NIN on May 02, 2013, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 02, 2013, 05:42:43 PM
Written in clear cut language and the sentence added "anything not listed in this manual is prohibited."
as the footer on every page.
And on the front of the thing right under "Compliance with this publication is mandatory"
Lots and lots of high quality photos! No slapped together "photoshopped" edits, no Sears catalog style photo shoots of NHQ volunteers or other staffers, no drawings, etc.
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 06:10:37 PM
Lots and lots of high quality photos! No slapped together "photoshopped" edits, no Sears catalog style photo shoots of NHQ volunteers or other staffers, no drawings, etc.
If you change that then I won't need to worry about it, so... no more V-necks under Blues!
Release it as an interactive website similar to http://www.afpc.af.mil/dress/uniforms.asp (http://www.afpc.af.mil/dress/uniforms.asp)
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 02, 2013, 05:39:55 PM
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Don't forget the fringed epaulets. ;D
Quote from: davedove on May 03, 2013, 11:43:34 AM
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 02, 2013, 05:39:55 PM
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Don't forget the fringed epaulets. ;D
No plumes, they look terrible on my Stetson. But lets not forget the Spurs and the Sam Brown Belt. (but in the interests of safety, make it reflective).
Reflective Sam Brown. :o :o
Cool to not in under .5 seconds.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 02, 2013, 04:52:26 PM
Head gear for g/w.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
+1K
Quote from: phirons on May 03, 2013, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 02, 2013, 04:52:26 PM
Head gear for g/w.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
+1K
You can wear the plumed hat with your g/w...
Only if we get a jacket to stick one hand into... >:D >:D
All kidding aside there have been a few good comments posted here. I think the one thing we can all agree on is the need for clear and consise guidance. We can not be all things for all people, so quit speinning wheels trying to accomplish the impossible. Develop a uniform poliocy, publish the policy, and hold apeoples feet to the fire to enforce said policy.
Over the years CAP has had some interesting uniform combinations, and regretably they have never been cheap. As a cadet I remember the confusion between the 505 and 1505 kahiki uniforms, then I remember cutting lawns and saving money to buy the "bush" jacket only to have it done away with within a year. From the old "coke bottle" cloth CAP Patch to the blue metal pin on CAP plate to the grey plate. The only thing consistant with the CAP uniform policy is the inconsistancy. Is it any wonder that it is the butt of so many jokes and worse violations?
Then the good old days of the early 1990's. Showing up at a CAP Squadron meeting and the uniforms looked like a military heraldry display. Had I even bothered with a uniform at that time there would have been so much Army and CAP bling I would have looked like the Grand Admiral of the Bolivian Navy. Even today there is one senior member I know who wears USAF Pilot Wings and CAP Pilot Wings one above the other. Point being the Uniform policy needs to be a policy and right now it is not.
If I could make one change to 39-1...
would start with a clean sheet of paper and write a "one size fits all" policy for all members and all uniforms. No wing/region/shoool supplements, no exceptions, no variations.
The USAF Style uniform will conform to this (publish it) standard.
The Corporate Grey Uniform will conform to this (publish it) standard PLEASE STATE A SPECIFIC SHADE OF GREY.
The BDU, BBDU same.
Flight Suit: Publish the standard, and restrict the wear to the flight line. (Sore point here). The flight suit SHOULD NOT be a go to meeting uniform. Even on a SAR/SAREX mission the flight suit should be worn by flight crew members only. If a mission base member is not part of a flight crew they should not be wearing the flight suit.
I would like a BBDU variant with a tuck-in shirt.
I like the idea of sabers, sashes, and plumes. that is pure style. I say we add those wide ronald mcdonald style pants too, like the oompa loompas wore. only in digital blue camo, with the knee high leather boots. and maybe a spike top helmet like a prussian field marshall, kinda like the one milburn driesdale wore on the beverly hillbillys when jethro bought the sherman tank.
General Patton once designed a uniform for tank crews that we could adopt. A green leather jump suit with red trim and topped with a 1930's style football helmet.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on May 04, 2013, 11:11:56 AM
Even today there is one senior member I know who wears USAF Pilot Wings and CAP Pilot Wings one above the other.
Okay, sorry, I admit it's been a while since I last read the 39-1, but what's wrong with that? Last time I checked, that was permissible in the reg... Is it any worse than wearing CAP wings with a parachutist badge or air assault wings or...?
Quote from: Nuke52 on May 04, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on May 04, 2013, 11:11:56 AM
Even today there is one senior member I know who wears USAF Pilot Wings and CAP Pilot Wings one above the other.
Okay, sorry, I admit it's been a while since I last read the 39-1, but what's wrong with that? Last time I checked, that was permissible in the reg... Is it any worse than wearing CAP wings with a parachutist badge or air assault wings or...?
Two pairs of wings are authorized as long as one are military, CAP aviation badge goes
above the military badge.
I'm not a fan, but it's allowed.
Why would CAP supercede an Air Force issued set of wings though? Doesn't make sense
Quote from: J2H on May 04, 2013, 11:02:20 PM
Why would CAP supercede an Air Force issued set of wings though? Doesn't make sense
Because this is CAP not the USAF.
BITD you wore USAF wings on the right side over the name plate.....but let's not go there.
just curious. I wear my sf function badge
Quote from: J2H on May 04, 2013, 11:50:25 PM
just curious. I wear my sf function badge
You can wear your function badge, just not the shield itself, you can also wear your AF decorations as well.
These's a number of real changes I'd make...clarifying the CAP identity, recognition for significant achievments outside of CAP that should be notable inside CAP...but following my own advice, I don't think this is a forum to address them.
If you want to gain my attention and support on a uniform change (whatever it's worth), express your reasons for the change and make the reason about what is good for CAP.
Claify CAP identiy with distinctive uniforms - better for CAP because we don't get confused with military.
Significant achievement - helps motivate members. What's important to them should be important to CAP.
#1 would be boonie hat with BDUs. You are allowed to wear a dark blue boonie hat with BBDU why not BDUs :)
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 05, 2013, 04:33:05 PM
#1 would be boonie hat with BDUs. You are allowed to wear a dark blue boonie hat with BBDU why not BDUs :)
Because the Air Force said no.
And who is this Air Force we speak of? Only time they claim us is when they need a mission. So, id say if were on a Air Force Mission we wear what they say, when we are not, we wear what we want to. Seems fair to me Aux On/Aux Off. lol
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 05, 2013, 05:17:09 PM
And who is this Air Force we speak of? Only time they claim us is when they need a mission. So, id say if were on a Air Force Mission we wear what they say, when we are not, we wear what we want to. Seems fair to me Aux On/Aux Off. lol
Roger that Doc! Aux off ROFL :clap:
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 05, 2013, 05:17:09 PM
And who is this Air Force we speak of? Only time they claim us is when they need a mission. So, id say if were on a Air Force Mission we wear what they say, when we are not, we wear what we want to. Seems fair to me Aux On/Aux Off. lol
Eh....no.....read that again.
We are ALWAYS the auxiliary of the USAF.......we are only INSTRUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT when on AFAMs.
So Instruments of the Government/Aux On same thing :)
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 06, 2013, 10:13:55 PM
So Instruments of the Government/Aux On same thing :)
Not really.
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 06, 2013, 10:13:55 PM
So Instruments of the Government/Aux On same thing :)
Even when not under AFAM, we are still the USAF Aux, CAP corporation. According to the charter by congress with very little room for interpretation otherwise. Different customer (mission), different insurance, same entity.
I'd like to see wear of multiple specialty badges (EMT and GTL at the same time)
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 06, 2013, 10:13:55 PM
So Instruments of the Government/Aux On same thing :)
No....not the same thing.
When I was on active duty....I was AWAYS a member of the USAF.....but I was an instrument of the government only when I was on DUTY.
I would love to see us gain approval to wear the flight cap with the grey/white aviator uniform, or the service cap.
Quote from: NM SAR on May 07, 2013, 04:49:55 AM
I'd like to see wear of multiple specialty badges (EMT and GTL at the same time)
You should already be able to wear up to two specialty insignias above the left pocket if you have no aviation badges.
^ Incorrect. The wording of the manual only authorizes one specialty badge at a time.
Quote from: MIKE on May 07, 2013, 02:16:38 PM
^ Incorrect. The wording of the manual only authorizes one specialty badge at a time.
You're confusing specialty badges with specialty insignias. CAMP 39-1 is very clear that you can only wear one specialty badge (that is specialty track badge) on each authorized location (one on each pocket of the service uniform).
Quote from: CAPM 39-1
CAP Specialty Badges: Worn centered 1 1/2 inches below top of welt pocket and/or on right side centered between arm seam 1/2-inch above nameplate, only one specialty badge may be worn in each location.
CAPM 39-1 is less specific about specialty insignias (EMT, GT Badges, etc.). It describes the position above the ribbons and/or left pocket and it indicates that if an aviation badge is worn, then the specialty insignia goes below it. CAPM 39-1 never uses the wording above stating that only one can be worn.
CAP Air Force-style service uniform uses the same model than the Air Force uniform with regards to insignias. That is, a maximum of two over the left pocket, one on each pocket and one over the name tag, but only 4 insignias or badges at any given time.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: NM SAR on May 07, 2013, 04:49:55 AM
I'd like to see wear of multiple specialty badges (EMT and GTL at the same time)
You should already be able to wear up to two specialty insignias above the left pocket if you have no aviation badges.
This dichotomy speaks to the fact that our "'specialty insignia" is really not similar to the occupational badges in the Air Force, and thus the different wear modes.
We have things that look one way, then things that look another way, and are worn in different spots.
Really annoying.
Yep - one of each, and EMT is considered = to GT or an MOS badge from the military.
NHQ has confirmed this on a number of occasions.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 03:53:27 PM
Yep - one of each, and EMT is considered = to GT or an MOS badge from the military.
NHQ has confirmed this on a number of occasions.
Can you clarify your post? I can wear two occupational badges in the Air Force over the left pocket/ribbons of my service uniform (blue shirt or service coat) or one aviation badge and an occupational badge. But only two badges at a time on that location. Of course, CAP may be different. I just don't think CAPM 39-1 specifies one way or the other.
Quote from: NIN on May 07, 2013, 03:46:24 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2013, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: NM SAR on May 07, 2013, 04:49:55 AM
I'd like to see wear of multiple specialty badges (EMT and GTL at the same time)
You should already be able to wear up to two specialty insignias above the left pocket if you have no aviation badges.
This dichotomy speaks to the fact that our "'specialty insignia" is really not similar to the occupational badges in the Air Force, and thus the different wear modes.
We have things that look one way, then things that look another way, and are worn in different spots.
Really annoying.
Agree. But I at this point, I don't see it changing. The design of our specialty track badges don't conform to the overall design of the high-polished metal aviation badges, specialty insignias, AF occupational badges, etc. They were designed to be worn on the pockets and I don't think a redesign is needed. Besides, that would severely limit the specialty track badges worn. That's not an issue for the Air Force because the average airman has one or two jobs during a career, including aviation ratings. In CAP, a member may have multiple specialties, rating and qualifications over time.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 03:53:27 PM
Yep - one of each, and EMT is considered = to GT or an MOS badge from the military.
NHQ has confirmed this on a number of occasions.
Can you clarify your post? I can wear two occupational badges in the Air Force over the left pocket/ribbons of my service uniform (blue shirt or service coat) or one aviation badge and an occupational badge. But only two badges at a time on that location. Of course, CAP may be different. I just don't think CAPM 39-1 specifies one way or the other.
CAP allows one aviation badge and one "other".
In CAP, "other" = IC, GTM/L/BD, Legal, EMT (there might be one I'm missing). These all occupy the same place, and those with more then one must make a choice.
The only exception to one aviation is two sets of wings if one is military, with the CAP wings on top.
CAP does not wear more then one "other", military or otherwise.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 02, 2013, 05:39:55 PM
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Why not add the cape and just go KofC Honor Guard.
Quote from: Angus on May 07, 2013, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 02, 2013, 05:39:55 PM
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Why not add the cape and just go KofC Honor Guard.
KoFC would complain regarding "low light recognition".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 07, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 03:53:27 PM
Yep - one of each, and EMT is considered = to GT or an MOS badge from the military.
NHQ has confirmed this on a number of occasions.
Can you clarify your post? I can wear two occupational badges in the Air Force over the left pocket/ribbons of my service uniform (blue shirt or service coat) or one aviation badge and an occupational badge. But only two badges at a time on that location. Of course, CAP may be different. I just don't think CAPM 39-1 specifies one way or the other.
CAP allows one aviation badge and one "other".
In CAP, "other" = IC, GTM/L/BD, Legal, EMT (there might be one I'm missing). These all occupy the same place, and those with more then one must make a choice.
The only exception to one aviation is two sets of wings if one is military, with the CAP wings on top.
CAP does not wear more then one "other", military or otherwise.
I see what you're saying and maybe you're right, but that's not what I read in CAPM 39-1. The wording in this manual seems too vague to me. Why would they specify that only one specialty badge can be worn on each pocket, but on the same page not specify the same for the specialty insignia? If we can agree on something is that CAPM 39-1 is poorly written, too vague on certain areas, and in desperate need of a revision.
Yes, I think we can >all< agree on that.
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on May 07, 2013, 06:07:08 AM
I would love to see us gain approval to wear the flight cap with the grey/white aviator uniform, or the service cap.
I have seen new Senior Members wear the flight cap with the G/W uniform and it looks silly. Really no headgear goes well with the G/W uniform except the black or grey stetson of the TXWG ;)
If I could make a change I would allow members to wear their military ribbons on the white aviator shirt.
Why would anyone want to wear any ribbons with just a shirt? Even in the RealMilitaryTM officers don't wear anything on a shirt except every once in a while you would see one with a badge of some sort on it. Ribbons just don't look that good on a shirt even if you put cardboard or whatever behind them to make them stand up straight.
EDIT: punctuation...
Quote from: Duke Dillio on May 08, 2013, 09:33:38 AM
Why would anyone want to wear any ribbons with just a shirt? Even in the RealMilitaryTM officers don't wear anything on a shirt except every once in a while you would see one with a badge of some sort on it. Ribbons just don't look that good on a shirt even if you put cardboard or whatever behind them to make them stand up straight.
EDIT: punctuation...
I agree with what you're saying, however, for those senior members restricted to the G/W uniform it is the ONLY place that the ribbons may be worn.
Ribbons look bad on a shirt? That may be your point of view. Others think... that your point of view is plain wrong wrong wrong!
Flyer
As stated its the only place many can wear them.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 07, 2013, 04:33:54 PM
Quote from: Angus on May 07, 2013, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 02, 2013, 05:39:55 PM
Plumed hats, sashes & sabers for all! ;D
Why not add the cape and just go KofC Honor Guard.
KoFC would complain regarding "low light recognition".
Most KofC wouldn't mind. Our honor guard for the most part is dwindling so someone may as well use a similar get up.
Quote from: davedove on May 08, 2013, 11:27:34 AMsenior members restricted to the G/W uniform
Restricted? I wear the aviator shirt because I'm in CAP. I restrict myself from the AF uniform because I'm not in the AF.
Quote from: bflynn on May 08, 2013, 05:19:42 PM
Quote from: davedove on May 08, 2013, 11:27:34 AMsenior members restricted to the G/W uniform
Restricted? I wear the aviator shirt because I'm in CAP. I restrict myself from the AF uniform because I'm not in the AF.
Please don't take davedove's post out of context. I believe most of us know exactly what he meant and it is not the way you interpret it. :angel:
It isn't a matter of taking it out of context as much as disagreeing with what it represents. We are CAP. We should be proud of that and wear OUR uniform. Yes, I recognize that we don't, we use the AF uniform as the default, then fall "back" to a non-AF uniform.
I fully recognize that isn't a popular viewpoint here. But I think it is a healthy one to point out.
Well, for those not allowed to wear the AF-style uniform, they are in a sense "restricted" to CAP corporate uniforms. Whether we should only have one CAP uniform and whether that uniform should be a CAP-specific or AF-style uniform is a different discussion altogether.
Quote from: bflynn on May 08, 2013, 07:20:33 PMBut I think it is a healthy one to point out.
Clearly.
I guess we just don't get it like you do.
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 08, 2013, 07:32:23 AM
Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on May 07, 2013, 06:07:08 AM
I would love to see us gain approval to wear the flight cap with the grey/white aviator uniform, or the service cap.
I have seen new Senior Members wear the flight cap with the G/W uniform and it looks silly. Really no headgear goes well with the G/W uniform except the black or grey stetson of the TXWG ;)
I like it :D. I guess my feelings come from the discussion I had with a fellow member from my Wing. I mentioned that the old CSU would have been fine with me had they used the grey epaulets and name plate in the first place, but I digress. I just would love to have a more military looking headgear for that combination other than the baseball cap.
Quote from: bflynn on May 08, 2013, 07:20:33 PM
I fully recognize that isn't a popular viewpoint here.
From my experience, it's not only not a popular viewpoint here at CAPTalk, it's a viewpoint that is in the extreme minority in CAP overall. That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it; you are, of course. But you do understand that very, very few CAP members across the organization agree with that viewpoint, don't you?
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on May 09, 2013, 10:14:58 AMBut you do understand that very, very few CAP members across the organization agree with that viewpoint, don't you
Yes, of course. Here covers both CAPTalk and CAP. I think there are very few members open minded enough to hear and consider it. But, based in part on the number of discussions about it here, I think there are far more than a few members whose "light appreciation" is the AF uniform, whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not.
Berets for all!!! Viva la resistance!!!
Quote from: Duke Dillio on May 09, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
Berets for all!!! Viva la resistance!!!
If we get berets, they should be ANSI Class II spec so we can wear them on GT missions. >:D
Quote from: Walkman on May 09, 2013, 02:49:19 PM
Quote from: Duke Dillio on May 09, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
Berets for all!!! Viva la resistance!!!
If we get berets, they should be ANSI Class II spec so we can wear them on GT missions. >:D
Just an FYI, you will never look as cool as this guy:
(http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3735/canadianmilitary.jpg)
Quote from: Duke Dillio on May 09, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
Berets for all!!! Viva la resistance!!!
:)
We had berets in ROTC - your ears are sunburned, there's no shade for your eyes and you're wearing a wool hat that stinks when it gets wet in the middle of summer. But it IS stylish.
Berets? Pfui! Silly French hats!
Jack
I don't wear a beret, but I don't see the problem with them. The Air Force has them to designate special teams and/or specialties. They're not meant to be worn in the field. They're meant to be a tool for recognizing certain accomplishments or functions, just like shoulder cords. While some people may not like them, they're usually not the ones wearing them. So why make a big deal about them?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 09, 2013, 06:25:29 PM
. While some people may not like them, they're usually not the ones wearing them.
I wore one and I really didn't like it, but that is a story for another day.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 09, 2013, 06:25:29 PM
I don't wear a beret, but I don't see the problem with them. The Air Force has them to designate special teams and/or specialties.
They're meant to be a tool for recognizing certain accomplishments or functions, just like shoulder cords. While some people may not like them, they're usually not the ones wearing them. So why make a big deal about them?
Because what is being recognized generally comes with a lot more 'tude then is warranted. Also this:
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 09, 2013, 06:25:29 PMThey're not meant to be worn in the field.
I agree, 100%, but that's basically the only place CAP is authorized to wear them (over BDU's).
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 06:35:27 PM
Because what is being recognized generally comes with a lot more 'tude then is warranted.
Then that is the problem, no the beret itself.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 06:35:27 PM
I agree, 100%, but that's basically the only place CAP is authorized to wear them (over BDU's).
When I said "field", I really meant field as in when we do ES operations. That's not the only time we wear BDUs. But I don't see why berets couldn't be approved for wear with service uniforms.
BTW, I'm not promoting berets; I'm merely stating that the whole beret issue seems to be blown out of proportion at times.
Berets are a sore topic in most places. They don't add much, but are a lot of times linked with problem children...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 09, 2013, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 06:35:27 PM
Because what is being recognized generally comes with a lot more 'tude then is warranted.
Then that is the problem, no the beret itself.
I don't disagree - but that doesn't change the problem. Whether it's a beret, a whistle chain, a tab, or anything else
which signifies "different" or "elite", when no such status is actually present, you have a problem.
Now, in similar organizations, and the military, there is a lot more culture of common sense, as well as positive peer pressure for nonsense,
but in CAP, we like to pretend things will go away if you ignore them.
Take a member with common sense and a little maturity and ask them to "ditch the beret", and they generally will. Add in other "issues",
lack of maturity, or worse, and the next thing you know you have a round of "you can't make me", which is always fun for everyone.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
I don't disagree - but that doesn't change the problem. Whether it's a beret, a whistle chain, a tab, or anything else
which signifies "different" or "elite", when no such status is actually present, you have a problem.
That is how the military works and we mirror the military with regards to insignias, awards and rank. We have members with higher rank than others; with patches, badges and ribbons that others haven't earned. How is that different?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
Now, in similar organizations, and the military, there is a lot more culture of common sense, as well as positive peer pressure for nonsense, but in CAP, we like to pretend things will go away if you ignore them.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure berets or any insignia or the lack of for that matter will make any difference in this regard.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
Take a member with common sense and a little maturity and ask them to "ditch the beret", and they generally will. Add in other "issues", lack of maturity, or worse, and the next thing you know you have a round of "you can't make me", which is always fun for everyone.
How is that different from many of the discussions we have in CAP Talk about uniforms, insignias, ranks, awards, etc. Should we ditch them all because of the "lack of maturity" of some members?
If we are going to argue the Beret thing.....it all goes back to the set arguments a) They are not elite enough to rate a beret. b) They let their ego make it an issue at local squadrons. c) Some yahoo told me to shut up when I told him to take it off. d) I hate them, don't want to wear them, and think anyone who wants to is stupid, and should not be allowed to.
All of which are stupid reasons to not let a commander at what ever level use his judgment to decide to use this tool or not.
As Eclipse points out.....9 times out of 10 there is no problem, but that one kid who comes back from NBB and tries to stand his ground and you want to take it away from everyone.
Reminds me of why we all lost the use of golf carts in CAP and how intelligent that rule was.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2013, 07:53:18 PM
If we are going to argue the Beret thing.....it all goes back to the set arguments a) They are not elite enough to rate a beret. b) They let their ego make it an issue at local squadrons. c) Some yahoo told me to shut up when I told him to take it off. d) I hate them, don't want to wear them, and think anyone who wants to is stupid, and should not be allowed to.
All of which are stupid reasons to not let a commander at what ever level use his judgment to decide to use this tool or not.
Agree. Commanders always have the prerogative to set a UOD and any standardization, within regs, they see fit. But more than just letting commanders make blanket decisions on this, I would encourage them to deal with individuals having issues because of a beret or any special uniform item on a case by case basis.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2013, 07:53:18 PM
As Eclipse points out.....9 times out of 10 there is no problem, but that one kid who comes back from NBB and tries to stand his ground and you want to take it away from everyone.
Reminds me of why we all lost the use of golf carts in CAP and how intelligent that rule was.
I would deal with that cadet in particular. It all boils down to the culture of respect fostered in a unit. As a Capt, I once asked a new Lt Col in my squadron, who was wearing a NBB beret, not to wear it anymore since a FLWG supplement prohibits their wear on military installations. He didn't like the supplement, but quickly replaced his beret with a BDU cap without issues. If a cadet, in a different setting, was having attitude problems because of the beret, I would warn him to do something about his attitude and if that didn't work, then I would deal with that cadet as appropriate. The issue is not the beret or special insignia, but some of the persons wearing them. These individuals would have attitude even without the beret and need to be dealt with accordingly.
"This is all I have / brought today..."
Which includes, kevlar battle helmets, boonie hats, Gore-Tex parkas (before they were approved), mixed corporate and USAF-style parts, tan boots, a wheel cap
when no one else is wearing them, Oakley blades, etc., etc.
"My commander says I can wear it, so (http://www.animationplayhouse.com/rasp1.gif) on you..."
But berets ARE authorized; you just don't like them. If anything needs to change with regards to them, it has to start from the top. National either authorizes them or not. Period. If there are attitude problems from those coming back from NBB, then it needs to be addressed with the individuals. If the problem is NBB itself, then it needs to be addressed from the top as well. Replace the leadership at the activity. Change the training curriculum. Do something.
As long as NBB exists, as long as blue berets are authorized, and as long as wing commanders are allowed to authorize berets for particular uses within their wings, then we have to stop bickering about them. Period. If you have an issue with an individual that's wearing one, then address it with the individual because the piece of felt on his or her head can't do anything about it.
For the most part I agree with this - the way and the how of the authorization is a typical NHQ kludge.
Instead of simply saying "you may wear this here, here and here, but not here...", it's been left to a single sentence
in a 7 year old meeting as authorization, one which itself said had to be clarified and published.
So everyone is free to "do as they will".
Well, it IS in the Mar 2012 super ICL.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 09, 2013, 10:18:46 PM
Well, it IS in the Mar 2012 super ICL.
Yeah, well what isn't, right?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 09, 2013, 10:18:46 PM
Well, it IS in the Mar 2012 super ICL.
Yeah, well what isn't, right?
Four pounds of back bacon
Three French Toast
Two turtle necks
and a beer....in a tree.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 10, 2013, 11:57:13 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 09, 2013, 10:18:46 PM
Well, it IS in the Mar 2012 super ICL.
Yeah, well what isn't, right?
Four pounds of back bacon
Four pounds of ribs
Three French Toast
Two turtle necks
and a beer....in a tree.
and a dark Corona in a palm tree.
FTFY
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 10, 2013, 11:57:13 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 11:58:19 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 09, 2013, 10:18:46 PM
Well, it IS in the Mar 2012 super ICL.
Yeah, well what isn't, right?
Four pounds of back bacon
Three French Toast
Two turtle necks
and a beer....in a tree.
FIVE GOLDEN TOQUES!
Quote from: Duke Dillio on May 08, 2013, 09:33:38 AM
Why would anyone want to wear any ribbons with just a shirt? Even in the RealMilitaryTM officers don't wear anything on a shirt except every once in a while you would see one with a badge of some sort on it. Ribbons just don't look that good on a shirt even if you put cardboard or whatever behind them to make them stand up straight.
I guess you do not belong to the VFW or visit many senior centers. Many elderly Veterans loves it when somebody recognizes their service. We got a new member and he brought in his medals from Viet Nam and asked if he could wear them. I had to tell him no, unless you shave your beard, lost 50 pounds and buy a USAF uniform.
YMMV
Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2013, 07:53:18 PM
Reminds me of why we all lost the use of golf carts in CAP and how intelligent that rule was.
That was epic 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 09:18:36 PM
For the most part I agree with this - the way and the how of the authorization is a typical NHQ kludge.
Instead of simply saying "you may wear this here, here and here, but not here...", it's been left to a single sentence
in a 7 year old meeting as authorization, one which itself said had to be clarified and published.
So everyone is free to "do as they will".
That is why we have commanders. Each individual commander makes the call for his situation. That is called front line leadership. NHQ should give us the guidelines and let the line leaders make the call.
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 11, 2013, 04:37:19 PM
I guess you do not belong to the VFW or visit many senior centers. Many elderly Veterans loves it when somebody recognizes their service. We got a new member and he brought in his medals from Viet Nam and asked if he could wear them. I had to tell him no, unless you shave your beard, lost 50 pounds and buy a USAF uniform.
YMMV
OTOH, I had a guy come to my unit open house in January of 2000 with a full bushy beard and long white pony tail, Vietnam era vet. The next week, another guy showed up, clean shaven and with a fairly close to reg haircut, to turn in his senior paperwork.
I said "Well, we prefer if people come to three meetings before turning in paperwork, and its too bad you missed last week's open house."
He said "No, I was here."
Turns out, he was the guy with the bushy beard and pony tail. :-[
He wanted it
that bad. He's a major now, just over 13 years in CAP. Great guy.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 11, 2013, 05:27:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 09, 2013, 09:18:36 PM
For the most part I agree with this - the way and the how of the authorization is a typical NHQ kludge.
Instead of simply saying "you may wear this here, here and here, but not here...", it's been left to a single sentence
in a 7 year old meeting as authorization, one which itself said had to be clarified and published.
So everyone is free to "do as they will".
That is why we have commanders. Each individual commander makes the call for his situation. That is called front line leadership. NHQ should give us the guidelines and let the line leaders make the call.
Not on "uniforms". Thus the
term.
Further, few of our commanders have the experience to make these calls in a context which recognizes more then their field of view, which is usually the problem.
From the local commander's view.......it is uniform.
What they do elsewhere has little impact on his unit. Why should we write rules that impedes his ability to run his program.
As far as that goes 39-1 is pretty good.....it is when someone from across the fence wants to impose his view of how things need to be done that cause all the problems.
And any argument that uses "uniform" as it base is already lost when applied to CAP due to the CAP distinctive uniform rules.
^ Because there is an expectation that the members of that unit, senior and cadet, participate outside the unit,
and as soon as they do, there's issues.
As to the corporates, the majority of the uniform is "uniform" enough on the major parts, and yet because of the failure to press the
standard, we can't even get that right. The arguments about the shade of the pants are a little sily, because somehow
the majority get it right, and it's usually only the troublemakers who come up with something "other".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2013, 07:48:55 PM
^ Because there is an expectation that the members of that unit, senior and cadet, participate outside the unit,
and as soon as they do, there's issues.
How? Cadet X wearing his NBB blue beret can't do his function "outside the unit"?
For the few things where uniformity of the members is an issue....you make sure the individuals know what uniform (including the hat) is expected before hand. It is simple.
QuoteAs to the corporates, the majority of the uniform is "uniform" enough on the major parts, and yet because of the failure to press the
standard, we can't even get that right. The arguments about the shade of the pants are a little sily, because somehow
the majority get it right, and it's usually only the troublemakers who come up with something "other".
You answered your own augment right there. Assuming we are maintaining the standards.......if white/grey vs USAF blues is not enough disrupt operations.........then the fact that a handful of members are sporting berets is not going to end the world.
Trouble makers are easy to handle........"you are out of uniform....go home".
^ You and I both know if the conversation were that simple, we would not be having the conversation.
And further, uniforms in general are so inconsistently and lackadaisically enforced, that there's no way to know from one unit / activity to the next what will be an issue.
We have national activities publicly violating uniform rules and then commended on NHQ's site for the activity. Blah, blah, blah.
For years we've had national leaders who flout the rules, or make up their own on the fly to suit their needs.
The other part of this is the wasted time, of which we have precious little. I don't want to, and shouldn't have to, spend
any time front-ending uniform policies and rules just to deal with a few bad actors who can't read or just do what they want.
And "sending them home" doesn't just happen, which wastes even more time.
Most of this is fixed with a sentence or a paragraph from NHQ. Clear, concise, unambiguous.
Two of the major points to wearing a uniform are attention to detail, release from having to think about what you are going to wear.
Once the former is in place, the latter should take care of itself.
We ignore the former.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2013, 08:02:37 PM
^ You and I both know if the conversation were that simple, we would not be having the conversation.
And further, uniforms in general are so inconsistently and lackadaisically enforced, that there's no way to know from one unit / activity to the next what will be an issue.['/quote]
Ah....I think the conversation is that simple.....and uniform enforcement is pretty consistent at activities that I run.
QuoteWe have national activities publicly violating uniform rules and then commended on NHQ's site for the activity. Blah, blah, blah.
For years we've had national leaders who flout the rules, or make up their own on the fly to suit their needs.
QuoteThe other part of this is the wasted time, of which we have precious little. I don't want to, and shouldn't have to, spend
any time front-ending uniform policies and rules just to deal with a few bad actors who can't read or just do what they want.
And "sending them home" doesn't just happen, which wastes even more time.
Then don't worry about it. NHQ does not......and I personnel have sent members home and have seen members at NESA told to fix it or go home.
QuoteMost of this is fixed with a sentence or a paragraph from NHQ. Clear, concise, unambiguous.
Two of the major points to wearing a uniform are attention to detail, release from having to think about what you are going to wear.
Once the former is in place, the latter should take care of itself.
We ignore the former.
We already have that.......even with our ambiguous rules.......How does my unit's decision to allow berets affect your mission?
Personal opinion here: a photograph of CAP members in one part of the country should look completely indiscernible from a photograph of any other unit in CAP in any other part of the country (this is sometimes called uniformity).
Further personal opinion: a group of CAP members at any activity should look like they all belong to the same organization (this is also sometimes called uniformity).
Things that "individualize" a uniform or "localize" a uniform detract from this. So it's my personal opinion that we need to limit those items at the national level.
I agree.....to a point.
On the other hand a local unit/wing using the rules as published to promote our aims and goals by using the beret is not distracting enough to warrant the level of angst shown toward the beret.
The USAF and U.S. Army has been using distinctive head gear and other localized uniforms to increase esprit de corps since uniforms started.
Why can CAP accept this as a given and move on?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 11, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
On the other hand a local unit/wing using the rules as published to promote our aims and goals by using the beret is not distracting enough to warrant the level of angst shown toward the beret.
The USAF and U.S. Army has been using distinctive head gear and other localized uniforms to increase esprit de corps since uniforms started.
Why can CAP accept this as a given and move on?
Because nothing is a given. We can and should re-evaluate things of the past and see if they really make sense moving forward. The "this is the way its always been, so it should be such forever more" approach doesn't do us any favors. Nothing should be a "sacred cow" beyond being re-evaluated, re-considered, and potentially changed or abandoned.
I don't see the benefit of the beret as being warranted against the benefit, when every other national activity awards an NCSA ribbon and maybe a BDU patch and gets along fine with standard recognition. If an activity can't stand on its own merit and needs gimmicks to keep attendance up, then the activity itself should be re-evaluated on its worth (see above re: sacred cow). I don't see the benefit of orange baseball caps, unit baseball caps, the "BDU baseball caps," whistles, non-standard activity awards (so things other than activity patches and a ribbon, e.g.: ranger tabs, ascots, shoulder cords), and other non-standard, non-uniform appurtenances. But I realize that's just me. It's not a personal witch hunt, a vendetta, or some sort of personal attack or a criticism of the people who attend or run these activities at all.
Some people see value in a wide variety of colorful and individualistic bling, and I see value in less bling that's more standardized. That's all it is. So the vitriol that surrounds these debates is not warranted. But so is the mentality that we can't or shouldn't periodically re-evaluate anything.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 11, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
The USAF and U.S. Army has been using distinctive head gear and other localized uniforms to increase esprit de corps since uniforms started.
Why can CAP accept this as a given and move on?
distinctive headgear, at least from the Army context, is almost strictly unit-based, not individually awarded like a badge.
You're a greenie-beanie assigned to a leg support unit. You wear the black beret.
You're a Ranger not assigned to the regiment? You wear the same headgear as every other Rappelling Richard in your unit.
You're airborne qualified but not assigned to an airborne unit? Black beret for you.
We have GOT to stop treating headgear like a qualification badge or a "been there, done that" award. Its NOT. It just looks like crap and its not promoting anything but an individualism agenda in a context (uniforms) where individualism is not really required, or even desired (you know, that whole "uni-form" thing. As opposed to "multi-form")
^ Roger that sir.
I concur 100%
Let's flip the argument around...
If the blue beret is so kewl, why not make it the standard CAP headgear for the bdu & bbdu?
Getting popcorn while waiting for the fireworks >:D
Quote from: arajca on May 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM
Let's flip the argument around...
If the blue beret is so kewl, why not make it the standard CAP headgear for the bdu & bbdu?
Getting popcorn while waiting for the fireworks >:D
Thanks. No butter for me.
Why not? Because it's really a garrison uniform item, no matter how hard the BB folks try to make it a field uniform item. Its functionality is limited, and it's a higher maintenance head covering than the patrol or baseball caps.
Besides which, a sizeable portion of the membership would just as soon we didn't adopt the beret for anything other than (perhaps) target practice.
After all ... it's just a silly French hat.
Jack
Quote from: arajca on May 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM
Let's flip the argument around...
If the blue beret is so kewl, why not make it the standard CAP headgear for the bdu & bbdu?
Getting popcorn while waiting for the fireworks >:D
Then it loses it's utility as an incentive to motivate people to join special teams and/or go to NBB.
The U.S. Army learned that with the Black Beret and the USAF learned it with the Air Crew Style Name Patch back in the 90's.
Quote from: NIN on May 12, 2013, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 11, 2013, 10:28:36 PM
The USAF and U.S. Army has been using distinctive head gear and other localized uniforms to increase esprit de corps since uniforms started.
Why can CAP accept this as a given and move on?
distinctive headgear, at least from the Army context, is almost strictly unit-based, not individually awarded like a badge.
You're a greenie-beanie assigned to a leg support unit. You wear the black beret.
You're a Ranger not assigned to the regiment? You wear the same headgear as every other Rappelling Richard in your unit.
You're airborne qualified but not assigned to an airborne unit? Black beret for you.
We have GOT to stop treating headgear like a qualification badge or a "been there, done that" award. Its NOT. It just looks like crap and its not promoting anything but an individualism agenda in a context (uniforms) where individualism is not really required, or even desired (you know, that whole "uni-form" thing. As opposed to "multi-form")
Roger that.....but the same does not hold true for the USAF. Cops in non SF squadrons still wear their beret.....and non-fliers in flying squadrons do not wear flight suits.
I understand uniformism.....and support that individual commanders set the standard for their squadron.....but that is my point.
If Wing X wants to allow color guard teams to wear berets (all the time not just on details)....or Ground Teams.....then it is up to the commander of the squadron to make the call.
You don't like it.....don't do it for your squadron. It is that simple. Cadet Knowitall gives you lip....deal with it. It is that simple.
Why do you keep ignoring the issue of Cadet Knowitall causing issues at other activities?
If this were only a local unit issue, no one would care.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 12:28:11 AM
USAF learned it with the Air Crew Style Name Patch back in the 90's.
The only thing the Air Force learned with the Air Crew Style Name Patch was that some officers really whine when Airman Bagadonuts failed to salute him because he couldn't read the officer's grade on the patch. >:D
But nobody had problems with it while they were in the "sandbox". ::)
The aircrew patch for the entire USAF in the 90's was crammed down the services throats by McPeak, who also crammed down his ideal service dress uniform as well.
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 13, 2013, 01:50:01 AM
The aircrew patch for the entire USAF in the 90's was crammed down the services throats by McPeak, who also crammed down his ideal service dress uniform as well.
Most people liked it since you only had to sew on one 2" x 4" piece of velcro on their DCU's.
Much better then the eight or more patches you had to sew on the BDU's.
Quote from: PHall on May 13, 2013, 03:10:15 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 13, 2013, 01:50:01 AM
The aircrew patch for the entire USAF in the 90's was crammed down the services throats by McPeak, who also crammed down his ideal service dress uniform as well.
Most people liked it since you only had to sew on one 2" x 4" piece of velcro on their DCU's.
Much better then the eight or more patches you had to sew on the BDU's.
I heard plenty of griping AF wide over it, and Fogleman promptly nixed it when he took office.
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 13, 2013, 04:13:56 AM
Quote from: PHall on May 13, 2013, 03:10:15 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 13, 2013, 01:50:01 AM
The aircrew patch for the entire USAF in the 90's was crammed down the services throats by McPeak, who also crammed down his ideal service dress uniform as well.
Most people liked it since you only had to sew on one 2" x 4" piece of velcro on their DCU's.
Much better then the eight or more patches you had to sew on the BDU's.
I heard plenty of griping AF wide over it, and Fogleman promptly nixed it when he took office.
Fogeleman nixed ALL of McPeak's uniform changes, good and bad.
I was an activated Reservist from 1990 - 1993 and I didn't hear that much griping about the ASNP.
The one place I did hear some whining was at ATC/AETC bases because of the saluting issue.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 12:54:17 AM
Why do you keep ignoring the issue of Cadet Knowitall causing issues at other activities?
If this were only a local unit issue, no one would care.
I don't see how Cadet Knowitall is causing issues at other activities.
If the administrator of that activities clearly spelled out the uniform of the day......"you are out of uniform" end of story.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 04:28:49 AM
If the administrator of that activities clearly spelled out the uniform of the day......"you are out of uniform" end of story
You're incredibly idealistic. 104% of all activity directors in the history of CAP of any activity have never sat down during their planning to consider the need for wear of blue berets by their activity attendees. I'm sorry, if an activity director needs to consider these things at all, then we're doing it wrong.
That even being aside, you know as well as I do that when a CAP member shows up at the average CAP activity with a jacked up uniform, chances are nobody will even correct him or her, let alone send the offending member home.
But all of these thoughts and considerations are anecdotal to my main beliefs: that the uniform should be simpler, less individualistic, less localized; and that the beret and non-standardized dooddads and "make-me-feel-cool" accessories benefit the organization in absolutely no way whatsoever in their entire history of existence. Again, this is my belief of the value of uniform items: not the individuals wearing them, not the activities that proliferate them, and not the people who decided we should allow them. This is not a personal attack, despite the fact that people in this thread seem to think every contrary opinion is so.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 04:28:49 AMIf the administrator of that activities clearly spelled out the uniform of the day......"you are out of uniform" end of story.
Unfortunately, that's where the story
starts. You're pretending to be far more naive then we both know you are.
Then maybe the lesson here is.........we as leaders need to step up and our jobs.
The Beret is not the problem.....the rules as written are not the problem......we as leaders are just not doing our jobs.
That has been my story from day one.
Agreed 100%.
And that's pretty much the answer to just about every problem CAP has right now.
But until NHQ can make that happen, they need to to make the program have a level of consistency
that, by design, negates the background noise this stuff engenders, perhaps from the angle that
anyone who understands people, especially adolescents, knows about the "peacock mentality".
The bottom line, anyone who participates in these types of activities, first and foremost because of
the accouterments (hat, tab, patch, whatever), is doing so for the wrong reason, and has completely
missed the point of the entire conversation. Whether that's because the activity itself can't stand on its
own within the paradigm, or the members haven't been paying attention.
And don't given me that nonsense about "whatever gets them there is fine", because we both know,
especially in the CP, that's 100% the wrong message.
No....I don't think that is the wrong message.
We sell the better citizens line to their parents and to our donors.....we sell the cool uniforms and marching up and down the street to the kids.
No 12 year old is ready to take on the service as it own reward.
Last I checked this isn't just about "12 year olds".
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 03:20:34 PM
Last I checked this isn't just about "12 year olds".
No......it is about people......and we should be ready to use all the tools we can to get the mission done.....and not worry about philosophical points about "why we should be doing this".
Someone in CAP who gets their jollies off because they get saluted and get $2 off with the military discount at Denny's is just as valuable to the program as the guy who does it because he loves serving his country, state, nation as their own reward.
We spend a lot of time working against ourselves......trying to uphold the value of the ribbon/reward/what ever.....or they are missing the point of why they should be doing it......or they are just hunting bling...........when we should be simply worrying about A) Enforcing the rules as published and B) Getting the mission done.
If the only reason why Cadet or SM X wants to go to NBB is so that he can wear the beret for the rest of his life.......who cares.....we got the mission done by manning the NBB and successfully getting the mission done.
If the only reason why Cadet Y goes out and does 60 hours of community service is to get the honor of paying vanguard $1 and putting on a ribbon.....we go the mission of promoting community service done.
We need to expand on this idea.....the Boy Scouts and the U.S. Army have had a lock on this for years. The Quality Unit program we started a few years ago should have a unit citation type ribbon that goes with it....as should the unit of distinction and unit of merit......just to improve the buy in from the rest of the squadron members.
People like to be rewarded for doing what we ask of them. Either via a pay check, a pat on the back or some other tangible "thank you".
We need to use that....because we certainly can't pay them.
Yes, people >love< to be rewarded. That's the problem with this "participation trophy" mentality that permeates society, especially youth programs.
What's missed in that mentality is that giving everyone a carrot for showing up waters down the initiative of those who do the real work of the
organization when they get the same carrot (or maybe broccoli, or maybe nothing) as everyone else.
There's also a problem when carrot's are given out for things that deserve asparagus, at best, or an award which is supposed to signify some sort of
"elite" status for duty which clearly "isn't", in any sense of the word.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Yes, people >love< to be rewarded. That's the problem with this "participation trophy" mentality that permeates society, especially youth programs.
What's missed in that mentality is that giving everyone a carrot for showing up waters down the initiative of those who do the real work of the
organization when they get the same carrot (or maybe broccoli, or maybe nothing) as everyone else.
There's also a problem when carrot's are given out for things that deserve asparagus, at best, or an award which is supposed to signify some sort of
"elite" status for duty which clearly "isn't", in any sense of the word.
Yep....that's that attitude that I'm talking about. Too worried about the tools and the motivation and not focusing on what is really important.....the mission.
Do X.....because we want X to get done.....and you get this bling. What is wrong with that? Your definition of "elite" is different then my definition of "elite"......or it is relative to our frames of reference.
NHQ uses the blue beret to promote NBB. They use the Hawk Mountain Ranger Bling to promote PAWG's program. 39-1 allows wing commanders to approve other uses of this bling to promote our missions. Again......where is the problem with that? Anecdotal stories of "one day band camp I had some HGA cadet get in my face" is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Fix the real problems.......and move on.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 04:28:14 PMDo X.....because we want X to get done.....and you get this bling. What is wrong with that? Your definition of "elite" is different then my definition of "elite"......or it is relative to our frames of reference.
It negates the entire idea of service for service's sake, without thought to personal reward.
As to "elite" - that's the implication of the beret - ability far and above that of the average member, when the reality is that Airventure is a private, for-profit airshow, not much different
then 100 others that happen all over the country. It's big, and it's long, but it's no different from a skillset perspective then any other, so identifying its participants as "elite" outside the activity
makes no sense. And further, the people who founded NBB itself would likely tell you the same thing, since Airventure is light years away from the original intention of what NBB was all about in IAWG.
The reality is that the symbol was co-opted by someone else for a completely different intention.
As to the other wing's doing it. If the only reason I can entice you into being on a GT is a hat that isn't even intended for GT use, I don't need you - your initiative is questionable at best,
and you're not going to be doing anything different then the thousands of other GTs across the country, so why do you think you are "special"?
As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to blue berets. While I don't wear one now, I used to wear one when I was a cadet as a graduate of PRWG Disaster Response School (DRS). In general, I don't have problems with the beret used as a distinctive uniform for a special team and/or qualification attained through rigorous training.
The problem, as I see it, is that this "incentive" is not always used properly and this causes a sense of "elitism" that is somewhat unwarranted. In a way, the current iteration of NBB is portrayed as providing specialized training and its graduates as an "elite" group. And, while I'm sure that NBB is a great activity, that is simply not the case. NBB is one of many NCSAs. They provide ES training followed by work at an airshow, albeit the largest one in the nation. But make no mistake, NBB is not the original CAP Special Service Corps instituted by Iowa Wing in the '60s, which started Blue Beret.
Because of the distinctiveness of the beret when compared to other special uniform items, their wearers get certain recognition that in some people's views exceed their actual accomplishments. That, coupled with the attitude displayed by some, does not render this uniform "incentive" effective, hence the constant debate over its use.
This is something that needs to be addressed at the National level though. For now, all we can do is follow the current regulations, deal with any issues as they arise and allow commanders to make decisions regarding allowed uniforms at any given time and/or activity. If National (or wing commanders since they can authorize the beret for use within their wings) decide that they don't want specialized teams and/or individuals, then they should eliminate the beret. If they decide that they want to have that level of specialized training, then they may want to revise the criteria and activities in which they are awarded. Until that happens, we will continue to have these debates.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 05:10:20 PM
In a way, the current iteration of NBB is portrayed as providing specialized training and its graduates as an "elite" group.
As the person who has literally wrote the NBB handbook, and has been in NBB command/senior staff positions for years, I'd like a cite please. Where is NBB as an NCSA or activity portraying itself as what you say?
Cite please
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 03:20:34 PM
Last I checked this isn't just about "12 year olds".
No......it is about people......and we should be ready to use all the tools we can to get the mission done.....and not worry about philosophical points about "why we should be doing this".
Someone in CAP who gets their jollies off because they get saluted and get $2 off with the military discount at Denny's is just as valuable to the program as the guy who does it because he loves serving his country, state, nation as their own reward.
We spend a lot of time working against ourselves......trying to uphold the value of the ribbon/reward/what ever.....or they are missing the point of why they should be doing it......or they are just hunting bling...........when we should be simply worrying about A) Enforcing the rules as published and B) Getting the mission done.
If the only reason why Cadet or SM X wants to go to NBB is so that he can wear the beret for the rest of his life.......who cares.....we got the mission done by manning the NBB and successfully getting the mission done.
If the only reason why Cadet Y goes out and does 60 hours of community service is to get the honor of paying vanguard $1 and putting on a ribbon.....we go the mission of promoting community service done.
We need to expand on this idea.....the Boy Scouts and the U.S. Army have had a lock on this for years. The Quality Unit program we started a few years ago should have a unit citation type ribbon that goes with it....as should the unit of distinction and unit of merit......just to improve the buy in from the rest of the squadron members.
People like to be rewarded for doing what we ask of them. Either via a pay check, a pat on the back or some other tangible "thank you".
We need to use that....because we certainly can't pay them.
Our Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 13, 2013, 05:49:47 PMOur Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
I don't think a UC for the SOM is unreasonable, but that, frankly, smacks of a double award for the same thing.
I think a better idea would be Comm Comms for the commander and his related staff.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 05:10:20 PM
In a way, the current iteration of NBB is portrayed as providing specialized training and its graduates as an "elite" group.
As the person who has literally wrote the NBB handbook, and has been in NBB command/senior staff positions for years, I'd like a cite please. Where is NBB as an NCSA or activity portraying itself as what you say?
Well, then what is the necessity of wearing the beret outside the activity? And why was it so important that it was pushed up to the national level?
Saying "I didn't ask for that." sidesteps the question, since it could be undone quickly and easily.
Or more to the point, what does
NBB think it says outside the activity?
I think it is somewhat interesting that WIWG isn't the most heavily represented wing for a locally-run activity, which may, or may not speak somewhat to the issue (full disclosure, I know some of the locals involved). Though with that said, NESA has the same issue, with it not really being an INWG "thing", either.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 05:10:20 PM
In a way, the current iteration of NBB is portrayed as providing specialized training and its graduates as an "elite" group.
As the person who has literally wrote the NBB handbook, and has been in NBB command/senior staff positions for years, I'd like a cite please. Where is NBB as an NCSA or activity portraying itself as what you say?
Cite please
I did not say that NBB portrayed "itself" as an elite group, but that it was portrayed as such (and I should've added) 'by some individuals'. That being said, here's the Blue Beret Creed taken from the 2013 NBB Smart Book:
Quote
The Blue Beret Creed
I am a Blue Beret. I am what my country and Civil Air Patrol expect me to be; the best of
American youth, and an example of leadership for today and the future.
Never will I fail that trust.
Therefore I pledge to perform with the highest degree of professionalism. My service to others rendered with respect and humility will be the outward sign of this pledge.
I am a leader who exhibits the highest level of integrity and am committed to the well being of my comrades and community. I understand that to wear the Blue Beret is a great honor.
Therefore I forsake not:
My Country,
My Mission,
My Comrades,
My Duty,
I am a Blue Beret!
Follow Me!
How would you characterize this creed? I don't believe most NCSAs have creeds like this one. Would you agree?
Quote from: NIN on May 11, 2013, 06:05:14 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on May 11, 2013, 04:37:19 PM
I guess you do not belong to the VFW or visit many senior centers. Many elderly Veterans loves it when somebody recognizes their service. We got a new member and he brought in his medals from Viet Nam and asked if he could wear them. I had to tell him no, unless you shave your beard, lost 50 pounds and buy a USAF uniform.
YMMV
OTOH, I had a guy come to my unit open house in January of 2000 with a full bushy beard and long white pony tail, Vietnam era vet. The next week, another guy showed up, clean shaven and with a fairly close to reg haircut, to turn in his senior paperwork.
I said "Well, we prefer if people come to three meetings before turning in paperwork, and its too bad you missed last week's open house."
He said "No, I was here."
Turns out, he was the guy with the bushy beard and pony tail. :-[
He wanted it that bad. He's a major now, just over 13 years in CAP. Great guy.
That is Understandable NIN. But the G/W is not an AF Uniform it is a CAP Uniform, so shouldnt technically CAP state we can wear the Military Ribbons on it? The VFW,DAV, AMVETS, etc were their medals on a "Uniform" that is not Military? Or, do you think the reason is, that most CAP personell would think it is unfair that they have more Bling, or Salad than they do?
It looks like what others complain in these boards is that some of those participating on the NBB forget part of their credo... that part that goes
Quote...service to others rendered with respect and humility...
Myself, I have met only one former Blue Beret... The only way you know he is a former NBB is because he wears his little shield with the Blue Cross... In other words, he has not forgotten this...
Quote...service to others rendered with respect and humility...
Flyer
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 13, 2013, 05:49:47 PMOur Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
I don't think a UC for the SOM is unreasonable, but that, frankly, smacks of a double award for the same thing.
I think a better idea would be Comm Comms for the commander and his related staff.
So comm, comms, would go to the Cadet Leadership/Staff? SM Leadership/Staff? Everybody was involved in the award IMO. I am glad that our unit got recognized my SCC and CC for cadets along with our chaplain and staff work hard everyday
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 04:45:53 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 04:28:14 PMDo X.....because we want X to get done.....and you get this bling. What is wrong with that? Your definition of "elite" is different then my definition of "elite"......or it is relative to our frames of reference.
It negates the entire idea of service for service's sake, without thought to personal reward.
As to "elite" - that's the implication of the beret - ability far and above that of the average member, when the reality is that Airventure is a private, for-profit airshow, not much different
then 100 others that happen all over the country. It's big, and it's long, but it's no different from a skillset perspective then any other, so identifying its participants as "elite" outside the activity
makes no sense. And further, the people who founded NBB itself would likely tell you the same thing, since Airventure is light years away from the original intention of what NBB was all about in IAWG.
The reality is that the symbol was co-opted by someone else for a completely different intention.
As to the other wing's doing it. If the only reason I can entice you into being on a GT is a hat that isn't even intended for GT use, I don't need you - your initiative is questionable at best,
and you're not going to be doing anything different then the thousands of other GTs across the country, so why do you think you are "special"?
Yep....you don't understand the motivations of you people.....you forego their participation because you prejudge their service based on YOUR attitude of what their motivations should be.
Leadership is about getting the most out of your people. Using the tools available to get the mission done.
By your statements......If all you want is a beret I don't need you......you are showing your contempt towards your volunteers based solely on their motivations and not their actions.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 13, 2013, 05:49:47 PMOur Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
I don't think a UC for the SOM is unreasonable, but that, frankly, smacks of a double award for the same thing.
I think a better idea would be Comm Comms for the commander and his related staff.
How in anyway is that a "double award" for the same thing. the SOM is NOT an award in the sense that the "double award" rule is intended.
I agree that SOM/SOD should automatically generate a National Commander's Unit Citation and the Commander should get an MSM and the staff Commander's Comm. YMMV.
Quote from: flyer333555 on May 13, 2013, 06:24:22 PM
It looks like what others complain in these boards is that some of those participating on the NBB forget part of their credo... that part that goes Quote...service to others rendered with respect and humility...
Myself, I have met only one former Blue Beret... The only way you know he is a former NBB is because he wears his little shield with the Blue Cross... In other words, he has not forgotten this...
Quote...service to others rendered with respect and humility...
Flyer
That is my experience with everyone I have met who has gone to NBB.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 13, 2013, 05:49:47 PMOur Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
I don't think a UC for the SOM is unreasonable, but that, frankly, smacks of a double award for the same thing.
I think a better idea would be Comm Comms for the commander and his related staff.
How in anyway is that a "double award" for the same thing. the SOM is NOT an award in the sense that the "double award" rule is intended.
The decoration is for the unit as a whole, and does not recognize individual accomplishment, and that's really the way it should stay.
A UCC for the SOM says "Here's a streamer for your flag to recognize the streamer you just got on your flag." No. It would make a lot more sense to come up with a
ribbon for the SOM, and maybe an attachment for SOD."
Being the SOM would certainly be one of the accomplishments indicated on the 120 for a UCC, but a UCC is generally supposed to be for more then a single accomplishment,
and further, we all know that the SOM is as much about chance and someone's subjective decision as any objective accomplishments.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 06:27:31 PMYep....you don't understand the motivations of you people.....you forego their participation because you prejudge their service based on YOUR attitude of what their motivations should be.
Leadership is about getting the most out of your people. Using the tools available to get the mission done.
By your statements......If all you want is a beret I don't need you......you are showing your contempt towards your volunteers based solely on their motivations and not their actions.
Um, no. What you're forgetting or ignoring is that isn't just about "getting your people to do what you need" - maybe that's OK on the senior side - but it's 180 opposed to what
we're supposed to be teaching our cadets (and the example we're supposed to be setting as seniors).
If you need to take a hill, or move 1000 boxes, then fine, do whatever you need to motivate people, but when you're trying to teach people to pick up a box
because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the reward, then the incentives work against your process.
Actions are what you do today, motivations are what you will do for the long term. It gets back to the check box mentality CAP has dropped into (assuming it wasn't always that way).
"What can we do to get people to come to encampment, SAREx, training, whatever." That solve today and causes issues down the road, because every time you need
something, you have to raise the incentive. "Why should I bother? I already got my beret, tab, badge, etc." I've heard that plenty.
What we should be doing is building a program that includes less objective, longer-term incentives and has quality in the activities themselves, while stifling this individualistic
nonsense. CAP's mission isn't to get you to do "x". It's to get you prepared for service, and indebted enough to feel you need to give back, not ask for more.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 06:32:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Quote from: Devil Doc on May 13, 2013, 05:49:47 PMOur Squadron just got a Squadron of Merit Award for 2013. A Plaque and a Streamer, but no Ribbon. Am I upset, not really, but it would be nice for the cadets/SM there hard work instead of just a streamer to go on the guidon.
I don't think a UC for the SOM is unreasonable, but that, frankly, smacks of a double award for the same thing.
I think a better idea would be Comm Comms for the commander and his related staff.
How in anyway is that a "double award" for the same thing. the SOM is NOT an award in the sense that the "double award" rule is intended.
The decoration is for the unit as a whole, and does not recognize individual accomplishment, and that's really the way it should stay.
"Here's a streamer for your flag to recognize the streamer you just got on your flag." It would make a lot more sense to come up with a
ribbon for the SOM, and maybe an attachment for SOD."
?? I think we said the same things here. Either create an SOD/SOM ribbon(s) or just automatically award the appropriate unit award when you announce the SOM/SOD.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 06:50:02 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 06:27:31 PMYep....you don't understand the motivations of you people.....you forego their participation because you prejudge their service based on YOUR attitude of what their motivations should be.
Leadership is about getting the most out of your people. Using the tools available to get the mission done.
By your statements......If all you want is a beret I don't need you......you are showing your contempt towards your volunteers based solely on their motivations and not their actions.
Um, no. What you're forgetting or ignoring is that isn't just about "getting your people to do what you need" - maybe that's OK on the senior side - but it's 180 opposed to what
we're supposed to be teaching our cadets (and the example we're supposed to be setting as seniors).
If you need to take a hill, or move 1000 boxes, then fine, do whatever you need to motivate people, but when you're trying to teach people to pick up a box
because it's the right thing to do, regardless of the reward, then the incentives work against your process.
Actions are what you do today, motivations are what you will do for the long term. It gets back to the check box mentality CAP has dropped into (assuming it wasn't always that way).
"What can we do to get people to come to encampment, SAREx, training, whatever." That solve today and causes issues down the road, because every time you need
something, you have to raise the incentive. "Why should I bother? I already got my beret, tab, badge, etc." I've heard that plenty.
What we should be doing is building a program that includes less objective, longer-term incentives and has quality in the activities themselves, while stifling this individualistic
nonsense. CAP's mission isn't to get you to do "x". It's to get you prepared for service, and indebted enough to feel you need to give back, not ask for more.
Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise. The first and most important measure of a leader's effectiveness is "did he get the mission done". That is the Go/No-Go criteria.
Motivations are WHY you do things........Fear, reward, personal satisfaction, what Maslow need are they fulfilling.
We want members do different things to reach our goals and aims as an organization. We want people to go to SAREX and become ES qualified to meet our goal to respond to our community's/state's/Nation's emergencies.
We want people to get PD qualified to provide better leadership to our units.....so we can reach our ES/AE/CP goals.
We want our cadets to join and progress in the CP program so that we can produce good American citizens.
These are not our member's motivations....they are our organization's motivations.
If a one time award is the ONLY tool you are using to meet your on going mission goals....then you are doing it wrong.
You have to continue to understand the motivations of your people and meet those needs....because as you pointed out the change over time.
This is basic learning theory and basic leadership theory. If in a perfect world we have people who were motivated and trained to do everything "for the right reasons" we would not need leaders, uniforms, rank and all the other things we use to get our people to do things.
I agree - but which mission takes precedence? And if one negates the other, who wins? A major factor in this is the lack of strategic planning to provide guidance
to local leaders as to which is more important. Yes - NBB people want to do everything they can to get their mission fulfilled, so does every encampment CC,
flight academy, NESA, HMRS, etc., but their "buyers' incentives" can't be allowed to interfere with the mission execution of other activities or the organization as a whole.
Your statements also make the assumption that motivation plays no role in performance - get them there any way you can, as long as they are there.
I would counter that those who are motivated by some kind of reward / award, etc., are much less likely to be an asset because they don't understand
the mission to being with.
"Buy one get one free" Might spike sales today, but it rarely grows a company.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 06:15:03 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 05:19:11 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 05:10:20 PM
In a way, the current iteration of NBB is portrayed as providing specialized training and its graduates as an "elite" group.
As the person who has literally wrote the NBB handbook, and has been in NBB command/senior staff positions for years, I'd like a cite please. Where is NBB as an NCSA or activity portraying itself as what you say?
Cite please
I did not say that NBB portrayed "itself" as an elite group, but that it was portrayed as such (and I should've added) 'by some individuals'. That being said, here's the Blue Beret Creed taken from the 2013 NBB Smart Book:
Quote
The Blue Beret Creed
I am a Blue Beret. I am what my country and Civil Air Patrol expect me to be; the best of
American youth, and an example of leadership for today and the future.
Never will I fail that trust.
Therefore I pledge to perform with the highest degree of professionalism. My service to others rendered with respect and humility will be the outward sign of this pledge.
I am a leader who exhibits the highest level of integrity and am committed to the well being of my comrades and community. I understand that to wear the Blue Beret is a great honor.
Therefore I forsake not:
My Country,
My Mission,
My Comrades,
My Duty,
I am a Blue Beret!
Follow Me!
How would you characterize this creed? I don't believe most NCSAs have creeds like this one. Would you agree?
Would I agree that other NCSA's don't have creeds? I don't know or really care. Comparing hawk to ness or ness to NBB fails as they are not the same at all. Each provides different training and fulfills different missions.
What do you have against the creed? It emphasizes that service at NBB is for others, including community state and nation. The creed is what the entire CP should be emphasizing to all cadets. Our cadets are going WAY above and beyond their average peer group.
NBB senior staff tells every cadet and senior what the rules are, how NOT to act and to take home what you learned and expand other cadets/seniors knowledge. We as senior staff of NBB hold the cadets to high standards and do not allow elitist attitude or "I'm better than you" to foster at the program. If the member comes home to the unit and has that attitude, the local leadership needs to correct it. As command staff of NBB, I have no authority once the member leaves, that's local. When the cadets leave the compound of NBB to go home, they don't behave like that because they don't want to lose credit for the NCSA or their beret. If the local leadership sees that the attitude presents itself once home, take the beret away, and petition NHQ to remove credit for the NCSA.
Painting all of NBB as bad because you have had an issue or 2 is not right for a senior leader of CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 07:24:49 PM
I agree - but which mission takes precedence? And if one negates the other, who wins? A major factor in this is the lack of strategic planning to provide guidance
to local leaders as to which is more important. Yes - NBB people want to do everything they can to get their mission fulfilled, so does every encampment CC,
flight academy, NESA, HMRS, etc., but their "buyers' incentives" can't be allowed to interfere with the mission execution of other activities or the organization as a whole.
Your statements also make the assumption that motivation plays no role in performance - get them there any way you can, as long as they are there.
I would counter that those who are motivated by some kind of reward / award, etc., are much less likely to be an asset because they don't understand
the mission to being with.
"Buy one get one free" Might spike sales today, but it rarely grows a company.
I agree that motivation does affect performance. But this is a volunteer organization and we have to leader volunteers. And of course anything that impedes operations or mission effectiveness needs to be dropped and/or modified to be more effective.
Like I said before.......bling is a tool in our tool kit to get the mission done. It should not be the only one and no one should be ignoring the tool.
Hook them with the beret.....use the opportunity to teach the selfless service.......and press on.
In the mean time don't disparage those who have motivations that you think are less then optimum. That is a violation of our core values and only teaches them that you don't care about their service.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
Would I agree that other NCSA's don't have creeds? I don't know or really care. Comparing hawk to ness or ness to NBB fails as they are not the same at all. Each provides different training and fulfills different missions.
Fair enough. What is the mission of NBB? Is it to train and provide a service to EAA AirVenture? Because if that's the case, the creed doesn't mention that at all. If NBB's mission goes beyond NBB, then why not re-factor the training into something closer to its original roots?
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
What do you have against the creed? It emphasizes that service at NBB is for others, including community state and nation. The creed is what the entire CP should be emphasizing to all cadets. Our cadets are going WAY above and beyond their average peer group.
I don't have anything against the creed. I brought it up because you challenged me to cite a source where NBB was portrayed as an elite group. "Elite" means best, select, superior, etc. And the creed refers to "the best of American youth..." It also says "that to wear the Blue Beret is a great honor" and continues with a creed based on the Infantry Creed. So, you tell me; does that sounds elitist or not?
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
NBB senior staff tells every cadet and senior what the rules are, how NOT to act and to take home what you learned and expand other cadets/seniors knowledge. We as senior staff of NBB hold the cadets to high standards and do not allow elitist attitude or "I'm better than you" to foster at the program. If the member comes home to the unit and has that attitude, the local leadership needs to correct it. As command staff of NBB, I have no authority once the member leaves, that's local. When the cadets leave the compound of NBB to go home, they don't behave like that because they don't want to lose credit for the NCSA or their beret. If the local leadership sees that the attitude presents itself once home, take the beret away, and petition NHQ to remove credit for the NCSA.
I never said that the staff at NBB did such things. I'm sure NBB is a great activity. But the question I posed, and you're welcome to disagree with, is whether NBB in its current iteration merits having such a distinctive uniform item, which the blue beret is. In the military, berets represent special operations, combat airman, elite teams, etc. Is that what NBB Alumni represent? If not, then why the beret?
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 07:30:50 PM
Painting all of NBB as bad because you have had an issue or 2 is not right for a senior leader of CAP.
Again, I never said that NBB or its staff was bad. I'm sure the staff at NBB is made up of dedicated volunteers trying to put the best NCSA possible. But I would argue that that's probably the true of other NCSAs and yet, none of their participants get a beret, but only a patch and a ribbon. So what sets NBB apart?
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 07:11:15 PM
Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise. The first and most important measure of a leader's effectiveness is "did he get the mission done". That is the Go/No-Go criteria.
That is a very narrow view a leader's role and/or mission.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 07:11:15 PM
Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise. The first and most important measure of a leader's effectiveness is "did he get the mission done". That is the Go/No-Go criteria.
That is a very narrow view a leader's role and/or mission.
How so? Bottom line that is all that leaders do. If the mission fails......the leader fails.....if the mission succeeds the leader succeeds. What he does and how he does it is the analog scale of how "good" a leader is. But fail/succeed is the basic measure.
Never understood why SOD is not picked from the SOM units...that's how COY is done...
Storm chaser, I'm typing this on my iPad, so you will have to excuse that I don't quote your response.
The mission of NBB is actually a sub set of the WI wing run AFAM to handle all of the overdues and ELT's that occur at the worlds largest fly-in (beret also handles all traffic coming off 9/27, plus crash site cordons). NBBs training is for the cadets MRO, UDF, GTM, FLM. For seniors it's GTL/GTM, MRO, UDF, FLM/FLS. So, obviously all of those are useful outside NBB correct? Would you like me to include those in the creed, I'm sure adding in "I will do my best in MRO, UDF ext..." Will really add some spice to it...
Do you not believe that our Cadet corps is the best of American youth? I sure do, and not a thing wrong with saying that. For those 2 and a half weeks I know those young men and women are safe, protected and performing an AFAM for CAP that includes SAR. Not out causing trouble, drinking or doing drugs like a solid majority of American youth are doing. I believe that does make our cadet corp the best of the American youth.
It is an honor to wear the beret. That's a fact. NBB has a 6 to 1 applicant to opening ratio. A lot of cadets want this activity, a minimum amount get in. It's an honor to be chosen to attend plain and simple. Cadets that go to NBB (generally) must the best and brightest of the cadets. They must be above board and trustworthy beyond doubt. NBB cadets handle million dollar aircraft with souls on board for 2 weeks. If the cadet on the flight line tells that pilot to go left and they needed to go right, potential loss of life, limb or property.
Please stop comparing the wear of berets in the military or the Boy Scouts or uncle Jim bobs civil zombie defense group. We are none of those organizations. My question to you is, why not the beret?
Your argument is " none of the other NCSAs give out berets" well, to bad for them. I don't believe pilots should get to wear wings because that makes them "elite" over those of us that cannot afford to get our pilots license ~ sarcasm btw.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 13, 2013, 10:21:00 PM
Never understood why SOD is not picked from the SOM units...that's how COY is done...
None of the "OTH" awards have that as a specific mandate, some wings do it that way, some don't.
How a region or national winner can be "not" the wing winner will remain a mystery to me.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
Storm chaser, I'm typing this on my iPad, so you will have to excuse that I don't quote your response.
The mission of NBB is actually a sub set of the WI wing run AFAM to handle all of the overdues and ELT's that occur at the worlds largest fly-in (beret also handles all traffic coming off 9/27, plus crash site cordons). NBBs training is for the cadets MRO, UDF, GTM, FLM. For seniors it's GTL/GTM, MRO, UDF, FLM/FLS. So, obviously all of those are useful outside NBB correct? Would you like me to include those in the creed, I'm sure adding in "I will do my best in MRO, UDF ext..." Will really add some spice to it...
Do you not believe that our Cadet corps is the best of American youth? I sure do, and not a thing wrong with saying that. For those 2 and a half weeks I know those young men and women are safe, protected and performing an AFAM for CAP that includes SAR. Not out causing trouble, drinking or doing drugs like a solid majority of American youth are doing. I believe that does make our cadet corp the best of the American youth.
It is an honor to wear the beret. That's a fact. NBB has a 6 to 1 applicant to opening ratio. A lot of cadets want this activity, a minimum amount get in. It's an honor to be chosen to attend plain and simple. Cadets that go to NBB (generally) must the best and brightest of the cadets. They must be above board and trustworthy beyond doubt. NBB cadets handle million dollar aircraft with souls on board for 2 weeks. If the cadet on the flight line tells that pilot to go left and they needed to go right, potential loss of life, limb or property.
Please stop comparing the wear of berets in the military or the Boy Scouts or uncle Jim bobs civil zombie defense group. We are none of those organizations. My question to you is, why not the beret?
Your argument is " none of the other NCSAs give out berets" well, to bad for them. I don't believe pilots should get to wear wings because that makes them "elite" over those of us that cannot afford to get our pilots license ~ sarcasm btw.
NCR - you can't make the argument about the generalized totality of CAP vs. "not CAP" in a discussion about a specific activity.
Yes, on the mean, cadets are heads and shoulders above their non-cadet peers, but not necessarily just because they participate in NBB.
Further to that, there's a fair number of comments in the official newsletters that NBB cadets are the "best of their wing" (in what? There's no competition to attend NBB that I am aware of, nor any ranking system. In some states there is little-to-no interest at all),
and the fact that there are 800 applicants somehow makes those selected "better" then those who weren't, when we all know the NCSA selection process is not exactly "American Idol" in terms of selection.
You also can't try and remove comparisons of a piece of traditionally military headgear worn in a paramilitary organization from
comparisons with other paramilitary and military organizations and be expected to be taken seriously. The beret was clearly
chosen by the original NBB activity for it's lineage to military rangers and other elite units. Their history page essentially
says just that, and there are quotes from historical leaders that use that term. You can make the argument that this is no longer the
timbre of the activity, but that idea is clearly the lineage.
And the rhetoric about the cadets being protected and "handling million dollar airplanes", padding the resume a bit, yes?
As if this doesn't apply to any number of flight academies, encampments, and airshows?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 13, 2013, 10:21:00 PM
Never understood why SOD is not picked from the SOM units...that's how COY is done...
None of the "OTH" awards have that as a specific mandate, some wings do it that way, some don't.
How a region or national winner can be "not" the wing winner will remain a mystery to me.
Yep. Each region that does that ends up with one wing that has two winners...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 13, 2013, 11:17:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2013, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 13, 2013, 10:21:00 PM
Never understood why SOD is not picked from the SOM units...that's how COY is done...
None of the "OTH" awards have that as a specific mandate, some wings do it that way, some don't.
How a region or national winner can be "not" the wing winner will remain a mystery to me.
Yep. Each region that does that ends up with one wing that has two winners...
so you are saying that a SOM should get the NCUC award or the UC award?
Quote from: Stonewall on May 02, 2013, 04:57:40 PM
One uniform (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3896.0) for all members, regardless of size, shape, weigh, grooming, etc.
FTFY.
I'm saying SoD should be pulled from the regions SoMs...
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
The mission of NBB is actually a sub set of the WI wing run AFAM to handle all of the overdues and ELT's that occur at the worlds largest fly-in (beret also handles all traffic coming off 9/27, plus crash site cordons). NBBs training is for the cadets MRO, UDF, GTM, FLM. For seniors it's GTL/GTM, MRO, UDF, FLM/FLS. So, obviously all of those are useful outside NBB correct? Would you like me to include those in the creed, I'm sure adding in "I will do my best in MRO, UDF ext..." Will really add some spice to it...
I am aware of what NBB does and it is good work; I have no doubts about it. The creed, however, is a little over the top. That is an Infantry Creed that was adapted for NBB. In my opinion, that creed made more sense back when Blue Berets were the CAP Special Service Corps.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
Do you not believe that our Cadet corps is the best of American youth? I sure do, and not a thing wrong with saying that. For those 2 and a half weeks I know those young men and women are safe, protected and performing an AFAM for CAP that includes SAR. Not out causing trouble, drinking or doing drugs like a solid majority of American youth are doing. I believe that does make our cadet corp the best of the American youth.
The Blue Beret Creed doesn't refer to CAP cadets in general, but to those who attended NBB. You said that NBB didn't portray itself as an elite group and challenged me to provide a citation. While I never said that to begin with, I did provide the citation (the creed), which I believe speaks for itself.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
It is an honor to wear the beret. That's a fact.
A fact? Really? You do know the definition of honor, right? Seems to me more like pride.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
NBB has a 6 to 1 applicant to opening ratio. A lot of cadets want this activity, a minimum amount get in. It's an honor to be chosen to attend plain and simple. Cadets that go to NBB (generally) must the best and brightest of the cadets. They must be above board and trustworthy beyond doubt. NBB cadets handle million dollar aircraft with souls on board for 2 weeks. If the cadet on the flight line tells that pilot to go left and they needed to go right, potential loss of life, limb or property.
Cadets that attend NBB are selected through the same process that is used for other NCSA. Are you saying that NBB participants are above those who attend other national activities? I'm glad we established that NBB does not promote "elitism".
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
Please stop comparing the wear of berets in the military or the Boy Scouts or uncle Jim bobs civil zombie defense group. We are none of those organizations. My question to you is, why not the beret?
There's nothing wrong with the beret; it's just a distinctive headgear. It's no more important than a shoulder cord or a ribbon or a badge. But when you say things like "It is an honor to wear the beret", followed by "That's a fact", then it's obvious that the one making the comparison is you and NBB.
Quote from: NCRblues on May 13, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
Your argument is " none of the other NCSAs give out berets" well, to bad for them. I don't believe pilots should get to wear wings because that makes them "elite" over those of us that cannot afford to get our pilots license ~ sarcasm btw.
My point is that while I think NBB is a great activity (heck, I've considered attending myself), I think that Blue Beret as an "elite group" is blown out of proportion. NBB participants do good work and they probably receive good training, but whether they merit wearing a blue beret outside of NBB is another story.
You say that NBB doesn't portray itself as an elite group, but after this short discussion, I'm inclined to believe that perhaps they do. At least it seems possible that cadet participants are taking that creed to heart, hence the elitist attitude displayed by some as attested on this board.
I'm sure that's not the case of everyone that participates in NBB and I would have no problems supporting any of my cadets that wish to participate. After all, NBB is one of many great NCSAs.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 08:50:40 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 07:11:15 PM
Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise. The first and most important measure of a leader's effectiveness is "did he get the mission done". That is the Go/No-Go criteria.
That is a very narrow view a leader's role and/or mission.
How so? Bottom line that is all that leaders do. If the mission fails......the leader fails.....if the mission succeeds the leader succeeds. What he does and how he does it is the analog scale of how "good" a leader is. But fail/succeed is the basic measure.
The reason I say this is because it appears to me that you're viewing the mission as a collection of tasks that need to be accomplished. And successful leadership as the ability to get those tasks accomplished. Or, in other words, you can measure success of a leader by the completion of such tasks. I truly believe that that's a narrow view of leadership.
Leadership is not just about getting things done. And the mission is not just a collection of tasks that need to be accomplished. You can accomplish many tasks related to a mission and still miss the objectives or goals of such mission. Furthermore, leadership is not just about getting things done. You can get things done even without a leader.
Now, influencing people to do the right thing even when is hard requires leadership. Getting them motivated even with the lack of tangible incentives requires leadership. Seeing the big picture and being able to come up with long term goals and guide your people to achieve them requires leadership. As leaders, we can't just focus on the tasks at hands. That's what supervisors and managers do. As leaders we have to look beyond that.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 14, 2013, 03:49:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 08:50:40 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 13, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 13, 2013, 07:11:15 PM
Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise. The first and most important measure of a leader's effectiveness is "did he get the mission done". That is the Go/No-Go criteria.
That is a very narrow view a leader's role and/or mission.
How so? Bottom line that is all that leaders do. If the mission fails......the leader fails.....if the mission succeeds the leader succeeds. What he does and how he does it is the analog scale of how "good" a leader is. But fail/succeed is the basic measure.
The reason I say this is because it appears to me that you're viewing the mission as a collection of tasks that need to be accomplished. And successful leadership as the ability to get those tasks accomplished. Or, in other words, you can measure success of a leader by the completion of such tasks. I truly believe that that's a narrow view of leadership.
Leadership is not just about getting things done. And the mission is not just a collection of tasks that need to be accomplished. You can accomplish many tasks related to a mission and still miss the objectives or goals of such mission. Furthermore, leadership is not just about getting things done. You can get things done even without a leader.
Now, influencing people to do the right thing even when is hard requires leadership. Getting them motivated even with the lack of tangible incentives requires leadership. Seeing the big picture and being able to come up with long term goals and guide your people to achieve them requires leadership. As leaders, we can't just focus on the tasks at hands. That's what supervisors and managers do. As leaders we have to look beyond that.
If you don't complete the objectives and goals of the mission......then the mission is a fail. Regardless if you completed the tasks......although I don't see how you can complete the task but fail at the mission (the tasks should be supporting the mission ergo completing them should be getting you closer to the goals and objectives of the mission).
Everything that a leader does is aimed at completing the mission.....this is all the mission...tactical, theater and strategic.
Supervisors and managers are leaders....there is no dichotomy there!
There's plenty of ways to complete the tasks but fail the mission - one only needs to look at the SUI and CI process for that.
Check the boxes and you come out with an "outstanding" despite the fact that you aren't really doing anything.
It's also typical of CAP to view anecdotal / activity success as "mission" success. Those aren't the same things in even a little way.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2013, 04:48:59 PM
There's plenty of ways to complete the tasks but fail the mission - one only needs to look at the SUI and CI process for that.
Check the boxes and you come out with an "outstanding" despite the fact that you aren't really doing anything.
It's also typical of CAP to view anecdotal / activity success as "mission" success. Those aren't the same things in even a little way.
That's because the SUI and CI are poor leadership tools.
Don't confuse what I am saying as an endorsement that CAP is doing all things right.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 04:45:33 PM
If you don't complete the objectives and goals of the mission......then the mission is a fail. Regardless if you completed the tasks......although I don't see how you can complete the task but fail at the mission (the tasks should be supporting the mission ergo completing them should be getting you closer to the goals and objectives of the mission).
Everything that a leader does is aimed at completing the mission.....this is all the mission...tactical, theater and strategic.
Supervisors and managers are leaders....there is no dichotomy there!
Perhaps we see things differently because of our different backgrounds and experience.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 14, 2013, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 04:45:33 PM
If you don't complete the objectives and goals of the mission......then the mission is a fail. Regardless if you completed the tasks......although I don't see how you can complete the task but fail at the mission (the tasks should be supporting the mission ergo completing them should be getting you closer to the goals and objectives of the mission).
Everything that a leader does is aimed at completing the mission.....this is all the mission...tactical, theater and strategic.
Supervisors and managers are leaders....there is no dichotomy there!
Perhaps we see things differently because of our different backgrounds and experience.
I'd like to continue this discussion.
I always say....Leadership is the art and science of influencing people to complete the mission.
The mission can be small (take out the trash) or large (Win the big war!)
Ergo.....first line supervisors....are influencing their people to complete the task. Managers are simply leaders of other leaders, influencing them to complete their tasks.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:05:09 PMThat's because the SUI and CI are poor leadership tools.
Don't confuse what I am saying as an endorsement that CAP is doing all things right.
But that's pretty much my point - your points about leadership tools, accomplishing the missions, etc., aren't necessarily incorrect, but
they presuppose that the rest of the organization is hitting on most cylinders most of the time, and that leadership and members training
and performance expectations are fairly consistent.
Neither is the case in CAP, and that's the real-world problems start for the volunteer
leadership.
BTDT, literally, more then once. The calories burned and time wasted was totally unnecessary from all sides, not to mention the
sour grapes from the members.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2013, 05:39:23 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:05:09 PMThat's because the SUI and CI are poor leadership tools.
Don't confuse what I am saying as an endorsement that CAP is doing all things right.
But that's pretty much my point - your points about leadership tools, accomplishing the missions, etc., aren't necessarily incorrect, but
they presuppose that the rest of the organization is hitting on most cylinders most of the time, and that leadership and members training
and performance expectations are fairly consistent.
Neither is the case in CAP, and that's the real-world problems start for the volunteer leadership.
BTDT, literally, more then once. The calories burned and time wasted was totally unnecessary from all sides, not to mention the
sour grapes from the members.
I presuppose nothing. My leadership is not dependent on the bad leadership of others nor on the bad leadership tools of the organization.
It is dependent upon the core values of the organization and getting the mission done.
I can get the "mission" of getting through an SUI......but that does not help me get the Cadet Program Mission done, or the ES mission done.
As a Leader of Volunteers.......I have to use any and all tools available to get our mission done....be it "hold a meeting", "be prepared for an real world SAR mission", "mold the young people of my squadron into productive citizens".
My whole point about bling and berets is that "with in reason" we should not be restricting our tools as we don't have all the tools that an employer or the military or government has.....i.e. pay, laws, restrictions, punishments.
Leadership is about achieving the mission/goal/objective. As a CAP leader......all I need and ask for is clearer goals and objectives. The CI and SUI are good tools for "dotting your I's and Crossing your T's" but the SUI are poor tools to help get the larger mission done.
And this is not just a CAP failing. The USAF does this same thing on AD. Once a year "quality assurance" would go over my books to make sure I was "dotting my I's and Crossing my T's".......but my "quality" never changed as most of those items had no influence on how I got my job done.
Or improved my uptime rates or reduced my work load (in fact they often increased my work load).
Some of this ties back to our conversation about Metrics.......before you start counting beans.....you have be sure that the beans have some bearing on the missions assigned.
I'll freely admit that one of the reasons I push myself in CAP service is for the bling/recognition/grade/etc. It's not the only reason, but I'd be lying if I said that is wasn't in the mix.
I'd like to think I've given a good amount of time & energy to CAP. My CC put me in for ESO-OTY (didn't get it but...). When I was first taking on the ESO assignment, I put together a GTM3 weekend with two other units. A couple of weeks later, CC calls me up in closing formation to present me with a Certificate of Appreciation as we hadn't had an ES program for a long time. The act of saying "thank you" and him letting me know I did a good job and he was pleased was motivating for me to put in more hours as ESO. Ribbons, bling, heck even berets, when used correctly are valid tools leaders can use. They're not the only tools, though, and I think most of us understand that.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 06:07:47 PMI presuppose nothing. My leadership is not dependent on the bad leadership of others nor on the bad leadership tools of the organization. It is dependent upon the core values of the organization and getting the mission done.
Fair enough, but >your< leadership techniques aren't allowed to impose on >my< leadership techniques, or more importantly >our< leadership techniques.
Wear what you will at your unit and individual activities. And leave it at home when you are expecting to interact with others in the same organization.
You've made the comment several times that my (assumed) personal bias about a particular item should not shape how others react to it, again fair enough,
but by the same token your personal bias towards a particular item isn't allowed to impact my activities, either.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2013, 06:43:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 06:07:47 PMI presuppose nothing. My leadership is not dependent on the bad leadership of others nor on the bad leadership tools of the organization. It is dependent upon the core values of the organization and getting the mission done.
Fair enough, but >your< leadership techniques aren't allowed to impose on >my< leadership techniques, or more importantly >our< leadership techniques.
Wear what you will at your unit and individual activities. And leave it at home when you are expecting to interact with others in the same organization.
You've made the comment several times that my (assumed) personal bias about a particular item should not shape how others react to it, again fair enough,
but by the same token your personal bias towards a particular item isn't allowed to impact my activities, either.
I believe that has been my argument all along.....except the "leave it at home" thing. IF at a group/wing/region/national activity hat uniformity is an important thing......then it should be communicated to the participants......and all the participants Will comply or go home.
I agree......my personal bias should not influence your way of doing things.....so if I were to send my people to other activities and their uniform policies don't match mine.....they will either comply or stay home. Got no problem with that...never had and never would.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
I'd like to continue this discussion.
Ok, fair enough.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
I always say....Leadership is the art and science of influencing people to complete the mission.
You're basically providing a standard textbook definition here.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
The mission can be small (take out the trash) or large (Win the big war!)
In the context of the discussion you and Eclipse were having about whether which tools you use to get the job done really matter, I'm going to side with Eclipse. While providing incentives and recognition such as distinctive uniform items (e.g. beret, patches, etc.) can help motivate people to accomplish certain short term tasks (e.g. participatse in NCSAs, exercises, etc.), it fails to look at the big picture or macro view of CAP missions and programs. With respect to the Cadet Programs, we want to "transform youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders." (CAPR 52-16) Within that macro mission, giving a cadet a quick incentive so that he or she may participate in an activity, may defeat the overall mission, especially if such incentive is the only reason the cadet is participating.
You argued with Eclipse that it didn't matter because, and I quote, "Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise." [
sic] I still believe that that is a narrow view of leadership. You also stated that "Leadership is about getting the most out of your people." Well, I can manipulate people into doing what I want; is that leadership? I can bribe people into doing what I need them to do by offering something in exchange; is that leadership? I know that that's not what you meant, but do you see my point here? If I get a cadet to support a "mission" only or primarily in exchange for some "bling", I defeat the main mission of the Cadet Programs. I defeat the core value of volunteer service. I believe that is what Eclipse was saying, and if so, I agree with him.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
Ergo.....first line supervisors....are influencing their people to complete the task. Managers are simply leaders of other leaders, influencing them to complete their tasks.
While supervisors and managers can be leaders (and probably should be), these are positions and functions that do not necessarily equate to leadership. Furthermore, supervisory and management techniques can be useful to leaders, but are also not leadership.
Amazing... a uniform thread that got offtrack to leadership. What will CAPTalk do next?
This thread and it being derailed does not amaze me. It is the same phenomena that derails non-uniform threads into an uniform thread. So if ya do not want a thread derailed by uniform issues, start it as a thread about uniforms!
???
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on May 14, 2013, 08:23:08 PM
This thread and it being derailed does not amaze me. It is the same phenomena that derails non-uniform threads into an uniform thread. So if ya do not want a thread derailed by uniform issues, start it as a thread about uniforms!
???
Flyer
You know, no one is forcing you to be here. Don't like the way this board "works", don't log in. Simple as that...
PHALL
What the heck is with you!
If you are upset at me, rail more at Billb!!!
As a matter of fact, if no one has even sent you a message don't even answer if you are going to respond so snidely. So I am reporting you.
Flyer
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 14, 2013, 08:03:52 PM
In the context of the discussion you and Eclipse were having about whether which tools you use to get the job done really matter, I'm going to side with Eclipse. While providing incentives and recognition such as distinctive uniform items (e.g. beret, patches, etc.) can help motivate people to accomplish certain short term tasks (e.g. participatse in NCSAs, exercises, etc.), it fails to look at the big picture or macro view of CAP missions and programs. With respect to the Cadet Programs, we want to "transform youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders." (CAPR 52-16) Within that macro mission, giving a cadet a quick incentive so that he or she may participate in an activity, may defeat the overall mission, especially if such incentive is the only reason the cadet is participating.
Big scope/small scope....makes no difference. Bling is not the only tool I use. It should not be the only tool. I am simply arguing that by focusing on the macro goals and disparaging the "simpler" tools you are interfering with my leadership tool box.
Hammers come in all sizes......each is useful for it's intended purpose. One should not use a sledge when a tap hammer is called for.....but on the other hand.....don't take away my sledge hammer because people abuse it or it is not "universal" enough. That is my argument with the beret haters. They don't like the beret...for what ever reason...good/bad/indifferent. Just don't take it away from me as a tool that I can use to get my mission done.
QuoteYou argued with Eclipse that it didn't matter because, and I quote, "Mission one of any leader is to GET THINGS DONE.....everything else is gravy or just background noise." [sic] I still believe that that is a narrow view of leadership. You also stated that "Leadership is about getting the most out of your people." Well, I can manipulate people into doing what I want; is that leadership?
Yes it is leadership......maybe not the best form of leadership....but if your manipulation got the team to get the mission done......it was "good" leadership from the basic definition.
QuoteI can bribe people into doing what I need them to do by offering something in exchange; is that leadership?
Yes it is leadership. We use it all the time.....Performance Bonuses, Overtime Pay, Reenlistment bonuses, Deployment pay, Hardship Pay......bribes are a common tool of leadership.
QuoteI know that that's not what you meant, but do you see my point here? If I get a cadet to support a "mission" only or primarily in exchange for some "bling", I defeat the main mission of the Cadet Programs. I defeat the core value of volunteer service. I believe that is what Eclipse was saying, and if so, I agree with him.
The main point of the Cadet program from OUR point of view is to build good citizens, develop leaders, etc.......We get him to the activity to be able to sneak the "real" lessons on them while they are doing other things. In a way we are tricking them into learning what we want them to learn. Because the point of the Cadet Program from our cadet's point is view it completely different....no one joins CAP to become a better citizen.....they joint to wear uniforms, go out into the woods, play army, march around in circles, throw drill rifles. We use all the tools available to get them in, keep them in, and keep them coming to meetings.....so we can do all the things we want to do to them.
QuoteWhile supervisors and managers can be leaders (and probably should be), these are positions and functions that do not necessarily equate to leadership. Furthermore, supervisory and management techniques can be useful to leaders, but are also not leadership.
No....not CAN BE.....ARE. Leadership is the art and science of getting people to accomplish a mission. I have yet to see a job description of any supervisor or manager that does not have these elements in them.
There is no dichotomy between a leader and a manager....they are simply different names for the same jobs.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 09:02:40 PMThere is no dichotomy between a leader and a manager....they are simply different names for the same jobs.
There's plenty of difference between a leader and a manager.
I would hazard a guess that by a factor of ten, especially in CAP, there are many more managers then leaders.
And further, many leaders are poor managers.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 14, 2013, 09:12:02 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 14, 2013, 09:02:40 PMThere is no dichotomy between a leader and a manager....they are simply different names for the same jobs.
There's plenty of difference between a leader and a manager.
I would hazard a guess that by a factor of ten, especially in CAP, there are many more managers then leaders.
And further, many leaders are poor managers.
I challenge you to define both.
If leadership is the art and science of influencing people to accomplish a mission/task/goal......all managers are leaders.
I have never met a manager who did not as part of his job influence people to accomplish a mission/task/goal.
There is no dichotomy.
Most managers don't influence. They use the power of position/fear/consequences/authority to get workers to get the job done.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 14, 2013, 09:31:48 PM
Most managers don't influence. They use the power of position/fear/consequences/authority to get workers to get the job done.
If I use positional power/fear/consequence/authority. I am using the tools of a leader to get the job done.
All those tools are available to all leaders.
You have fallen into the leader vs manager dichotomy myth.
I challenge you to name one famous "leader" that did not have and use positional power/fear/consequence/authority to get the mission done.
I challenge you to show me a single system that somewhere in its process does not have the concept of positional power/authority/consequences/fear is not part of the leadership system.
Not putting a value judgment on those tools.....but I stand by my statement.....all managers are leaders.
@ Lordmonar
I think this thread has gone way off topic and I can see that we will not come to an agreement on this issue. We obviously come from different backgrounds when it comes to leadership. I believe that getting the job done, while important, is only part of the equation. You seem to think it's everything. I also believe that in good leadership, not everything goes. You've stated that as long as you get the job done, you can pretty much use any tools at your disposal. Well, maybe that's you, but that's definitely not me. So let's just agree to disagree on this.