Toxic Leadership

[Cliff_Chambliss]

In the aviation related page I posted a reference to Anthony Kern's (LTC USAF (Ret)) paper Darker Shades of Blue A Study in Failed Leadership which examined many of the factors that led to the tragic B-52 Crash at Fairchild AFB some years ago.    Several readers identified with the article and felt they could "see" some of the same mindsets, thought trains, etc developing within their CAP Units.  Not being in the units I can't say yay or nay,  However, I would like to present this article written by Col George Reed at the US Army War College on Toxic Leadership and published in the July-August edition of the Military Review for their consideration.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/reed.pdf

After reading this article, I would invite the reader to "google" Toxic Leadership in the US Army for several follow up articles and ideas and programs to identify, correct or eliminate toxic leaders. 

[a2capt]

I could swear I read a whole long post with the same title earlier today .. and was wondering why this one showed up again as new with zero replies. Did that one run afoul?

[bflynn]

An interesting article - this is definately going in my read file.  I scanned it and see that one of the key elements is a review system for leadership.  I hate doing reviews at work, I certainly don't want to do them at CAP.

[Spaceman3750]

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F040_C73A311F4FC74.pdf

[Eclipse]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

The lack of their requirement in CAP is a key factor in many of our personality-based performance issues.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I could swear I read a whole long post with the same title earlier today .. and was wondering why this one showed up again as new with zero replies. Did that one run afoul?

Yes, the original copy I had was really messed up so I thought I would copy-Paste and post.  Well the error or my ways was brought to my attention (not to mention possible copyright infringmnet) so the original was deleted by the powers that be and I was asked (directed) to use links instead of copy paste.   Which worked out great for I found other articles and updates I had not seen before.

[bflynn]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

Let me categorically state this is not true.  Not only is it not true, but I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...this is like dieting on your birthday and wondering why you don't lose weight.  It makes for crumby management.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communciations.  It's as easy as talking...talking with a purpose, yes, but just talking.  Professionally, at work, I meet every week with every direct report I have for 30 minutes.  Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

Could this be adapted to CAP?  Sure to some extent.  You don't need to talk for 30 minutes weekly, but spending time with those assigned to you or with your commander ought to be simple enough, assuming you attend meetings.

Periodic reviews are a management antiquity of the past.

[Eclipse]

L...I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...

I have no doubt of that whatsoever.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communications.

Absolutely, however your 30-minutes each week, unless they are documented mean little to an employee's compensation, advancement, or long-term
retention, especially in the face of downsizing.  If you're ticket-punching the HR stuff, then everyone is equal and who knows who will get tossed.

I've had any number of cases both in business and CAP where I've had to clean up the mess of a manager who felt that informal reviews were all that were necessary.  It later comes out that the employee had a prolonged history of "issues", yet there is next to nothing documented which could substantiate a termination or adjustment.

Not only do proper reviews help people understand expectations, in this litigious universe of employee-centric regulations, they are critical just to keep yourself out of court.

[bflynn]

I think you didn't understand and you don't realize that you didn't understand it.  Or maybe the idea is just too foreign to you.  Try re-reading it again.

Quarter reviews is not the mechanism for correcting someone.  You let someone go off track for 3 months, then try to reign them back in with a single review?

Are quarterly reviews done?  Yes, they're required by HR and they're used as a part of the bonus structure.  Annual reviews are done too and these are the ones that affect compensation as well as bonus.  But these are administrative features, not feedback to the employee.  By the time we get to quarterly or annual reviews, there are no surprises because we've talked about everything before this.  When they go off track, there's feedback, there's coaching and there's weekly talking that we do.  It's like breathing, we do it all not time.  Trying to use quarterly feedback is like holding your breath...and who wants to work that way?

And my 30 minutes a week?  It means everything to employees if it comes to advancement and downsizing.  Every minute I spend with them, I'm building relationships and trust so that when I say "you're not ready", the response isn't a hissy fit.  They know because I've been completely up front with them about their status.  People get upset when expectations aren't met.  In 25 years of professional life, I've never been through a downsizing as a manager - it happened once to me as a worker over a decade ago - and I never want to.  But if it comes, I know the guy who is at the bottom of totem pole won't be surprised because he knows he is first in line.

Look, if you're not a manager, you probably don't get this.  It's ok, most people don't, it has to be taught.  If you'd like some links and suggestions on understanding it better, PM me, I'd be happy to share.

[Eclipse]

Look, if you're not a manager, you probably don't get this.

One should not make assumptions about things one knows little about, CAP or otherwise.

[bflynn]

One should not make assumptions about things one knows little about, CAP or otherwise.

No assumptions at all, other than you appear to severely dislike me.  My mere presence seems to offend you since your responses to me are...to borrow the subject....toxic.  But that's ok, it's your right to respond as you see fit and my right to respond how I see fit. 

You also hide your identity here, so no, I don't know who you are.  I've been told that you've led multiple encampments, so perhaps that is indicative of what you're about.

How about we just be civil to each other and leave it there?

********************

Putting this back on topic, I read through the first page of the posted PDF and pulled out some words and phrases indicative of toxic leadership:

bullies
threatens
yells
backbiting
belittling
poor interpersonal skills
maladjusted
malcontent
malevolent
malicious
tearing others down
controlling
arrogant
self-serving
inflexible
petty
demotivational behavior

Have you see these in CAP?  I know I have.

[Spaceman3750]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

[Eclipse]

I am far from hidden, here or otherwise.  You may have noticed people referring to me by my first name?

Within your first 100 posts you referred to me as an encyclopedia with a negative connotation, and made a comment about my mother.

Did I miss anything?  Because I don't recall a single time I made a personal comment about you or challenged anything other than
what experience you have to make some of your assertions, which by your own admission is limited in a CAP context.

Toxicity may also be considered a factor when people with little-to-no practical experience try to "lead" people who
have been doing things for a while, especially when that "instruction" comes with accusations of systemic problems when the
ideas are not immediately met with acceptance.

[Майор Хаткевич]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

Why can't both be done?

If I saw a cadet behave inappropriately, I corrected it on the spot (and in private). If the issues persisted, they were brought up at their next review board. At this "periodic" (promotion, for cause, etc) review, the cadet would be told what they need to improve on, or they do not get promoted/miss an activity/etc.

Guidance should be provided constantly, but to say that anything periodic is junk misses the whole point of doing any sort of formal reviews.

[Spaceman3750]

You know, I've gotta agree with bflynn on this one. Casual feedback is way preferable to bringing all of someone's problems down on their head once and expecting something good to come of it - when I was a trainer in fast food, one of the first things they taught me was that "fast correction produces the best results". If I point something out to someone 3 months later that they don't even remember, how can I expect it not to happen the next time?

Why can't both be done?

If I saw a cadet behave inappropriately, I corrected it on the spot (and in private). If the issues persisted, they were brought up at their next review board. At this "periodic" (promotion, for cause, etc) review, the cadet would be told what they need to improve on, or they do not get promoted/miss an activity/etc.

Guidance should be provided constantly, but to say that anything periodic is junk misses the whole point of doing any sort of formal reviews.

You're right - I didn't mean to imply that the two were mutually exclusive. What I mean is pretty much what bflynn is saying - a 3 or 6 month review isn't the time to bring everything down on someone's head that they've done bad in the last 6 months that you want corrected. That just leads to employee confusion and frustration. I know because I've been there - to go into an office thinking you're doing a good job and to come out finding out that you aren't is very, very disheartening and makes you angry because you want to know why it wasn't brought up sooner.

An evaluation may be the formal instrument that goes on your personnel record, but it shouldn't be the first time you've heard of your problems.

[Eclipse]

An evaluation may be the formal instrument that goes on your personnel record, but it shouldn't be the first time you've heard of your problems.

I agree, but what was said was that the weekly ones were important, and the HR ones just a rubber stamp.
That means the actual "meat" of the evaluations is never (presumably), documented, and the ones that are important
to a career are an afterthought.  I guarantee you that's contrary to what most corporations intend when they invest in the
performance review process.

He also said he has no interest in doing them in CAP at all, and in my experience, the first thing good commanders do when they
take over is implement formal performance reviews programs.

[bflynn]

.

[Pylon]

No, the thing I hate doing is writing down performance reviews.  Paperwork, for paperwork's sake is a waste of time.  I know you don't believe that, you live for doing paperwork.

Can you tone down the grumpiness?  It's really starting to bother a lot of us.


Writing down performance reviews is not paperwork for its own sake.  Believe me, I hate unnecessary paperwork.  I was buried by it while managing a squadron, and vehemently despised every report or extra suspense higher headquarters added to our plate.


But cadets have written performance evaluations required as part of the cadet program's very structure: the CAPF 50.  Cadets have to get a written performance eval at minimum once per phase and anytime grade is withheld or revoked, but they are often also done as part of regular leadership feedback, promotion boards, adverse actions, and as part of after-activity reviews.   They're great tools when used properly, and looking at a cadet's CAPF 50's over time shows demonstrable trends, helps identify improvement as well as weak areas, and gives cadets something concrete with which to improve themselves.


Why would doing this for a senior member be completely pointless?  I'm not advocating we have a formal SM review policy nation-wide, but if a unit commander is implementing a more formal process and it works for his or her unit, I don't see the reason to deride it as a "waste of time". 


And lastly, the tongue-in-cheek sarcastic remarks like "you live for doing paperwork" can stop at the door. Thanks.

[FlyTiger77]

...

belittling
poor interpersonal skills
malicious
tearing others down
controlling
arrogant
self-serving
demotivational behavior

Have you see these in CAP?  I know I have.

Heck, I have seen these just recently in this thread.

[bflynn]

Yes, and some of it from me.  I was wrong and I apologize.

[lordmonar]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

Let me categorically state this is not true.  Not only is it not true, but I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...this is like dieting on your birthday and wondering why you don't lose weight.  It makes for crumby management.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communciations. [ALSO KNOW AS Periodic Reviews] It's as easy as talking...talking with a purpose, yes, but just talking.  Professionally, at work, I meet every week with every direct report I have for 30 minutes.  Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

Could this be adapted to CAP?  Sure to some extent.  You don't need to talk for 30 minutes weekly, but spending time with those assigned to you or with your commander ought to be simple enough, assuming you attend meetings.

Periodic reviews are a management antiquity of the past.

Bold Type Added.

I would like to know to whom you teach this to?  I agree that frequent communication is important.  But so are frequent formal evaluations.

The problem here in CAP is that we have neither frequient communications nor any formal evaluations.
Nor do we have any training on how to do them.  So commander X simply promotes member Y because he has filled in the boxes....or worse denies the promotion and the member gets no feed back on why he/she is not promotable.

As far as it being an outdated managment technique.....I would like to know where you come by this idea?  Just about every company I know uses some sort of periodic evaluation system.

[bflynn]

Responded privately

[a2capt]

A few things ...

We're all not perfect. Everyone exhibits some of these traits at times, perhaps unknowingly, but we do.

I know I'm not diplomatic at times, I tend to say it like it is. (how I see it)

I must say that a lot of these traits are fairly regularly exhibited by a core group of leadership and directors that we have had a lot of dealings with lately, and it is really getting old.

Every organization has politics.

The politics are especially strong with this organization, and well rooted. "Toxic Leadership" is a perfect description that is aptly applied at many levels.  Sadly.

[NCRblues]

I shall be doing my RSC speech on this subject, yes I shall... Maybe a few people in the room will get the hint....

[abdsp51]

Formal and informal feedback should be done all the way around.  One thing that jumped out at me while reading 52-16 was that if you hold a promotion board for a cadet to promote then you must have a CAPF 50 that corresponds with the phase they are in.  I do not see any harm in it on the senior member side of the house.  We use a version of it in the AF all the time to document the standards and expectations for the reporting period.  With out factual and frequent feedback one cannot improve themselves or know where they stand. 

[Eclipse]

I can tell you that, at least in my Region, the days of ticket-punched promotions for Major and Lt. Col. are over.  Both my wing and Region
require narratives that justify the upgrade, and having performance reviews to attach would only help the situation.

[AirDX]

I agree, but what was said was that the weekly ones were important, and the HR ones just a rubber stamp.

That's not what he wrote, or meant, at all.  What he wrote was:

Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

...meaning there were no surprises in the quarterly/annual review, everything in them was already know to the employee by being covered in weekly progress/coaching sessions.

I could not agree more with that approach.  Letting people wander, then smacking them once every three months or year is useless - or worse, counterproductive.  Continuous feedback on performance, good or bad, helps everyone concerned. 

Then there is the approach of my current boss, who handed me the annual review form a couple of weeks ago and said, "Here, fill this out, it's due in to personnel on Friday."

[bflynn]

Thank  you for taking the time to understand what I wrote.  My own experience is that management in the corporate world is horrible, so why would we expect management in CAP to be better?

The ideas I propose with these don't come from me, they actually come from two former Army officers - Mark Horstman and Mike Auzenne.  If you'd like to hear more about them, their website is www.manager-tools.com.  What I learned from them has changed how I look at leadership and management for the better.  While the site and the system is focused at the corporate world, what they teach is absolutely adaptable to any situation including CAP, especially if you understand the principles.

If you'd just like to get the feel for it, look up Manager Tools as a podcast on iTunes.  They come out weekly and they've been running for several years now so there are literally hundreds of topics.  But just start with listening to the first few and see if you like the topic.  To get the basic idea, I'll recommend the following:

#2 - One on Ones, part 1
#3 - One on Ones, part 2
#5 - Feedback
#11 - Coaching
#38 - Improve Your Feedback With DiSC

From that, you should be able to know whether or not you want to continue learning this stuff.  I have taught these ideas internally at my company and I can vouch for the effectiveness...it works because it's about building relationships with people and that always makes things run more smoothly.  If relationships aren't your thing...well, it's not for everyone.  Hopefully you've gained something  from it anyway.

Brian

[RADIOMAN015]

No, the thing I hate doing is writing down performance reviews.  Paperwork, for paperwork's sake is a waste of time.  I know you don't believe that, you live for doing paperwork.

Why would doing this for a senior member be completely pointless?  I'm not advocating we have a formal SM review policy nation-wide, but if a unit commander is implementing a more formal process and it works for his or her unit, I don't see the reason to deride it as a "waste of time". 

CAP is suppose to be a standard program thoughout all levels and all locations.  Not sure why we need to have ANYONE doing any formal performance reviews on unpaid dedicated volunteers .   Looks to me like more marginal paperwork -- remember if you do reviews & someone disagrees you have to have an appeal process so that adds to the cost (and if you want to play like the AF that means a board out of the chain of command).   There are betters ways to approach this when working with volunteers.      Probably the best way is to look at the various programs management within the unit and ask basically how are we (the volunteer in charge of each section) doing, what can be improved at, and what's our goals/plans    Actually it probably should start with the adult leader expressing of general expectations.
RM 

[Eclipse]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

The key to making the above work is to constantly whine about no missions and not being taken seriously, while still expecting to be held to zero standard.

[Spaceman3750]

The key to making the above work is to constantly whine about no missions and not being taken seriously, while still expecting to be held to zero standard.

All while complaining about having to show up.

[bflynn]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

I don't think anyone said that and I think that even through your sarcasm, you know it.

One of the reasons I see no value in a formal review system is a lack of downstream need.  What would such a review system feed?  Who is the downstream customer that would use the output of a review system.

I think everyone with management experience recognizes the futility of using reviews as corrective action...it's like flying, you don't wait, wait, wait and then put in a giant control input.  You do it constantly and make small inputs.

So what's the value and what's the output? 

[Spaceman3750]

So what's the value and what's the output?

I think the root of it is documentation of how good (or bad) a person is doing.

On the good side, you as a member have your "goodness" documented when it comes time for promotion, which may have to be approved at the region (or higher) level. Further, all of your "goodness" is documented until the ends of time (or 5 years after your membership lapses, whichever comes first), meaning all of your "goodness" doesn't disappear when the SQ/CC drops off the radar.

On the bad side, it is a useful tool for commanders to document repeated problems meriting further action (suspension, demotion, termination). Your "badness" over time is documented with supporting evidence to prevent "he-said she-said" matches at appeals boards.

So, while the review paperwork should never be the first time someone's heard of their "goodness" or "badness", it does make sure that it stands up over time.

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

[Eclipse]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

I don't think anyone said that and I think that even through your sarcasm, you know it.

Actually, I don't.  Mr. RADIOMAN is well-known for his constant assertions that, beyond occasionally showing up, anything else is too much to ask "volunteers".  Wearing uniforms, driving more than a few miles, and professional management techniques are generally well over the line for anything he would personally tolerate.  The only time his rhetoric changes is when he's reminding us we're not in the military.

I think everyone with management experience recognizes the futility of using reviews as corrective action...

Everyone I know with practical, hands-on management experience, beyond the academics of project management theory knows exactly the opposite.
And those with real CAP command experience know that a major factor in the current state of the organization is the idea that a formal review process is unnecessary.

[PHall]

Making it real simple here......


Performance Reviews  =  Feedback.


The people you're supervising won't know how they're doing unless they get some feedback from you on how they're doing.

Are they meeting the standard?        Are they meeting the goals that have been set by you and your boss?

They have no way of knowing unless they get some feedback from you.

And that's what Performance Review sessions are all about. Giving them the feedback they need.

[bflynn]

Performance Reviews  =  Feedback.
...
And that's what Performance Review sessions are all about. Giving them the feedback they need.

That is a common belief.  It's what I used to believe ten years ago.  But the reality is Performance Reviews = ineffective feedback because it comes way too late.  Their only value is a paper trail to fire someone with or to justify a senior's later promotion decision.  Once could assume they would be done impartially in the first place and used impartially later to make promotion decision, but anyone being honest would have to admit this never happens in any organization.  Performance reviews here would just strengthen the sterotype of the good ol' boys club.

Please - go listen to the first two files I suggested above about feedback - I'm pretty sure this exact idea is covered in them, it's been years since I listened to them.

[FlyTiger77]

There are betters ways to approach this when working with volunteers.      Probably the best way is to look at the various programs management within the unit and ask basically how are we (the volunteer in charge of each section) doing, what can be improved at, and what's our goals/plans    Actually it probably should start with the adult leader expressing of general expectations.
RM

Unless I am missing something, this sounds a whole lot like a performance review to me.


I don't believe anyone is advocating waiting 3 months or 6 months or a year, without giving any feedback. A periodic review has merit and documenting it can't hurt. Documenting it can go a long way towards preventing future misunderstandings. And we shouldn't assume that all feedback will be negative.

Obviously, a leader who uses the same standard for evaluating volunteers as one would paid employees will have problems; however, on the other hand, our organization has standards that must be maintained, even among the unpaid, civilian personnel.

[FARRIER]

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

[starshippe]

   i've never seen it described any better.

   there are different kinds of people.

bill

[JeffDG]

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

You spend a lot of time alone, don't you?

[Eclipse]

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

The above is feel-good for people who think they are "lone wolfs", need no guidance, and for whom "teamwork" is a 4-letter word.
They tend to bristle at authority or direction because "they know better", even when their experience or performance does not warrant
the arrogance.  Most people tend to believe they are more like Hawkeye Pierce than Frank Burns, when in fact the majority are somewhere in the middle like Henry Blake.

Who sets the standard?  The member or employee?  Who decides when the standard has been met? The member or employee? 

No.

Worse, the #3's in your example often tend to fall into the trap of assuming everyone else is a #1 or 2 but themselves.

Initiative is positive trait, self-actualization, in the absence of any other guidance or leadership is a problem, one CAP has in large quantity.

[Spaceman3750]

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

You spend a lot of time alone, don't you?

*rimshot*

[bflynn]

There are definately different kinds of people.  Everyone is motivated by different things.  One of the reasons for leaders to have a relationship with those they lead is so they can understand what motivates their people.  That is the key thing I'm talking about, leaders building relationships.  When the relationships are in place, paperwork doesn't enhance the leadership, it becomes an admin task.

[Larry Mangum]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

[Pylon]

I'll say it over and over again that I feel like I've gotten more from CAP than I'll ever be able to give back.  Specifically, Civil Air Patrol has refined and grown my own personal leadership abilities well beyond what I've gained in my civilian career or even as a grunt in the Marine Corps.  I constantly find myself drawing on the lessons I've gained from CAP.  If constructive and positive leadership feedback from a more seasoned CAP officer can help me grow, it not only helps the organization (because it'll make me a better volunteer) but it helps me as a person. 

Good leadership feedback is practically a membership benefit for those who want to take advantage, not a tool with which to beat members over the head, denigrate them, or give them extra work.

[FARRIER]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

The above is feel-good for people who think they are "lone wolfs", need no guidance, and for whom "teamwork" is a 4-letter word.
They tend to bristle at authority or direction because "they know better", even when their experience or performance does not warrant
the arrogance.  Most people tend to believe they are more like Hawkeye Pierce than Frank Burns, when in fact the majority are somewhere in the middle like Henry Blake.

Who sets the standard?  The member or employee?  Who decides when the standard has been met? The member or employee? 

No.

Worse, the #3's in your example often tend to fall into the trap of assuming everyone else is a #1 or 2 but themselves.

Initiative is positive trait, self-actualization, in the absence of any other guidance or leadership is a problem, one CAP has in large quantity.

The regulations are their for members to reference and comply with. The #1's wait for the regs to be read to them and the #2's can't wait to give their translation. That's micromanagement.

#3 knows the regs, doesn't need someone standing over their shoulder every second. #3's trust each other.

[FARRIER]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

The regulations are their for members to reference and comply with. The #1's wait for the regs to be read to them and the #2's can't wait to give their translation. That's micromanagement.

#3 knows the regs, doesn't need someone standing over their shoulder every second. #3's trust each other.

[RADIOMAN015]

error see below please, sorry 

[RADIOMAN015]

You can have a highly motivated self starters out the kazoo  and still need to provide guidance in order to make sure they are headed down the right path.

Some adult members do need more guidance than others.
Some in leadership positions get very frustrated when everything doesn't go the way they see it.
Unpaid volunteers will always be a leadership challenge.
Hopefully the senior/adult members who choose to remain in CAP will still be able to have some fun
RM

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Why would doing this for a senior member be completely pointless?  I'm not advocating we have a formal SM review policy nation-wide, but if a unit commander is implementing a more formal process and it works for his or her unit, I don't see the reason to deride it as a "waste of time". 

Oh, come on. You live for doing paperwork.

Having a paper trail is a valuable thing. Certainly, it can help if you seek a promotion for one of your members. Definitely, it can help when you have problems with a given member. It's hard to pursue disciplinary action against a member and make it stick if you don't have the paperwork to back it up.

There's nothing wrong with a formalized performance review system. The problem we might have in CAP with it is that sometimes personalities and unit politics can get in the way, and people will sometimes get evaluations that are colored by personal opinions rather than being truly objective. I've seen it happen more than once. How do we fix that that core-values issue to make such a review system truly accurate and equitable?

Maybe instead of having one person do the review, why not do a 360-degree review, where people who come in contact regularly with the reviewee can comment? It could be a lot more accurate than even a review board, and it would ensure that members know that their effectiveness, and that of those who serve around them, are interdependent.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

The lack of their requirement in CAP is a key factor in many of our personality-based performance issues.

Just prior to one of my "hiatuses" from CAP, when I was in the flying club senior squadron, I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He was familiar with CAP from having seen them on various bases, but beyond that, not much.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

[Private Investigator]

In regards to Toxic Leadership would the New Orleans Saints coaching staff be a good example?

"If you lose, don't lose the lesson". If someone listen to the Dalai Lama they would have $7.5 million and a job next year.   

[RADIOMAN015]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

The lack of their requirement in CAP is a key factor in many of our personality-based performance issues.

I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

There's plenty of yardsticks that can currently be utilized:
1.  We get an IG compliance inspection every two years, how is each functional  section doing and the unit overall?
2.   Are cadets progressing in the program, how many got Mitchell's etc?
3.  Are seniors progressing in the program?
4.  ES wise, who's qualified to do what & do they actively participate in training exercises?
5.  How is the membership doing overall, about the same, losing, adding members?
6.  How many IG formal complaints/investigations have been lodged against the commander and or other members in the unit?
7.  Are all of the unit's pilots currently active/qualified and participating in cadet orientation rides?
8.  Does the unit only do things to meet the regulations or does it do more in the community?
Also if something is out of the norm why is out of the norm.  Maybe it is explainable.

That's just right off the top of my head.  We don't need any additionally mumbo jumbo, wanna be AF personnel performance reports.   IF something isn't going right, the appropriate adult leadership needs to sit down with the other adult(s) and have a discussion face to face.  HOWEVER,  I am not against a memo for the record (with a copy provided to the individual) being given on an agreed up improvement/correction plan.

Regarding automatic promotion in my unit and at wing level, they are NOT automatically given to a senior member who meets the minimum requirement.   

Personally, I didn't join CAP to gain rank, or to specifically plan to try to win awards, or get any special recognition.  HOWEVER,  IF I do get some recognition (promotion, which I have) and awards (3 or 4 commander's commendations & couple of wing functional/section type awards of the year), than I'm happy I did get some recognition and appreciate those others in adult leadership that took the time to recognize me  -- thank you!

My experience in dealing with other CAP adult/senior members is that sometimes they are limited to what they can do (including attendance at weekly meetings or special activities) because of work, family, other personal circumstances, or even aptitude/education.   HOWEVER, most will try their best and need to be respected for what they CAN CONTRIBUTE to the organization. 

Surely one can get very frustrated with some members, and I think this feeds those that are always talking about "consequences".   We have enough 'consequences' already available to us .  The Adult leadership also has some responsibilities e.g.   Well the first thing is to be sure the member has the available time to commit to a functional area/projecgt.  They have the appropriate aptitude/education to understand what needs to be done.  Proper attitude, no one should be forced to do something they don't want to do (e.g. functional/section management/special projects).   If things go astray than they can basically be removed from the primary position to an assistant role (I don't think CAP wants to see anyone unassigned/assigned to no duty)  and denied any further advancement.  IF things get even worst they can be suspended with a request to come back with an improvement plan.  Finally they can dismissed from the program OR meet a membership board that can make recommendations on what the member needs to do so stay in the program.

The key to this is we are in the Civil Air Patrol, which is not a military services, and any policies developed need to be more aligned with how other non profit organizations manages their unpaid volunteer forces/resources.     Realistically, no mission in CAP can get done without the unpaid volunteer force and I think we need to be sure that the volunteer force is happy overall with policies & procedures, and are afford the protection from financial loss, personal legal liability, and are properly recognized when they/we do good things in service to communities :angel:
RM 
         

[abdsp51]

We have a basic system for cadets why not have one for seniors as well.  Any feedback can/should be good feedback.

[davidsinn]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

The lack of their requirement in CAP is a key factor in many of our personality-based performance issues.

I told my supervisor at work (retired AF) some of the "issues" going on.

He asked me "Don't you guys have PE's?"  I said "no."  He said, "Then what do you use for a yardstick on whether or not someone's got their act together or not?  I'm surprised you don't do it more like the Air Force."

I didn't have an answer.

There's plenty of yardsticks that can currently be utilized:
1.  We get an IG compliance inspection every two years, how is each functional  section doing and the unit overall?
2.   Are cadets progressing in the program, how many got Mitchell's etc?
3.  Are seniors progressing in the program?
4.  ES wise, who's qualified to do what & do they actively participate in training exercises?
5.  How is the membership doing overall, about the same, losing, adding members?
6.  How many IG formal complaints/investigations have been lodged against the commander and or other members in the unit?
7.  Are all of the unit's pilots currently active/qualified and participating in cadet orientation rides?
8.  Does the unit only do things to meet the regulations or does it do more in the community?
Also if something is out of the norm why is out of the norm.  Maybe it is explainable.
       

Not one thing on that list deals with individuals. Those are all unit metrics. We need to give feedback and track that feedback to each member.

[Eclipse]

+1 Metrics are tools, not leadership.

Surely one can get very frustrated with some members, and I think this feeds those that are always talking about "consequences".   We have enough 'consequences' already available to us 

Having them available, and using them properly, if at all, are not the same thing.

Same goes for the responsibilities mentioned.  Every member carrying an active card has them, only a small percentage acknowledge them.

[bflynn]

We need to give feedback and track that feedback to each member.

Maybe this is semantics, but feedback should not be tracked.  The purpose of feedback it to reinforce good or correct bad behavior.  Feedback is about improving future behavior.  It is a demotivator to say that you're going to correct a problem and then record the error so you can hold the member accountable for it again in the future.

+2 metrics are not leadership. 

Leadership is about relationship that are used to motivate the people.
Administration is about tracking resources, including people.
Managing is about leading and administering.

[Eclipse]

So then where is the accountability for errors?

[bflynn]

If a mistake is corrected, why should there be accountability for it?

I'm not talking about "he crashed an airplane, let's teach him to fly better and forget about it."  That isn't feedback.

Feedback is about the future, not history.  "When you wear your nametag 1/2 above the pocket, your uniform looks different and it makes the unit look sloppy/make you look sloppy/impairs your ability to get promoted/....  What are you going to do to fix that? ...well gosh, I'm going to lower my nametag..."

Feedback is immediate, done and then forgotten about.

[abdsp51]

If a mistake is corrected, why should there be accountability for it?

I'm not talking about "he crashed an airplane, let's teach him to fly better and forget about it."  That isn't feedback.

Feedback is about the future, not history.  "When you wear your nametag 1/2 above the pocket, your uniform looks different and it makes the unit look sloppy/make you look sloppy/impairs your ability to get promoted/....  What are you going to do to fix that? ...well gosh, I'm going to lower my nametag..."

Feedback is immediate, done and then forgotten about.

There should always be some degree of accountability, how else do people know that they will be held responsible for their actions?  That is a big problem with society these days is that "it's somebody else who is at fault not you..." syndrome. 

Situational dependent  feedback may not be immediate and should never be forgotten.  The example you gave is informal feedback which would be immediate and done.  Formal feedback should be documented appropriately and be as clear and concise as possible, and always end on a positive note. 

[RADIOMAN015]

+1 Metrics are tools, not leadership.

Surely one can get very frustrated with some members, and I think this feeds those that are always talking about "consequences".   We have enough 'consequences' already available to us 

Having them available, and using them properly, if at all, are not the same thing.

Same goes for the responsibilities mentioned.  Every member carrying an active card has them, only a small percentage acknowledge them.

I'm confused by some of your statements

Effective leadership normally means good inspection results.
Proper selection of staff to manages unit programs leads to good inspection results.
Effective leadership has the entire unit working well and this shows up in the metrics.

As I said before even active members may have limitations that can prevent weekly meeting participation (lets face it there's some position that must have the member there at every meeting), and its' up to the adult leadership to work with the member to find where they can be effectively utilized to assist the unit.

I think the majority of members want to do the right thing in CAP.  I think there's a minority of members that join for the wrong reason, but generally they are gone quickly (e.g. a pilot joins because he/she thinks there's lots of free flying).

I don't think it is an easy task for a volunteer unpaid adult leader to leader other volunteer unpaid staff members.  The volunteer leadership needs to stay positive at all times.  IF the leadership turns off the members (for whatever reason), they will cut back their participation or transfer to another unit and the volunteer leader will become an army of one.  So ineffective leadership also has its' consequences :angel:
RM           
     

[FARRIER]

We need to give feedback and track that feedback to each member.

Maybe this is semantics, but feedback should not be tracked.  The purpose of feedback it to reinforce good or correct bad behavior.  Feedback is about improving future behavior.  It is a demotivator to say that you're going to correct a problem and then record the error so you can hold the member accountable for it again in the future.

+2 metrics are not leadership. 

Leadership is about relationship that are used to motivate the people.
Administration is about tracking resources, including people.
Managing is about leading and administering.

We are in agreement on this one.  My first full-time job a manager explained it to me perfectly, "if you were in trouble, I would have documented this session". In the hands of a manager that is toxic (if you are toxic, you are not leading), the system can be detrimental to ones position, or career if in the paid/corporate world. The standards can be changed from manager to manager, in which you can go from being one of the better employees to one needing improvement, without changing your work/participation tempo.

Both bflynn and RM are right. Reviews are demotiveators. CAP is based on volunteer participation, therefore commanders really have to lead. A commander would be more of an indicator to a substandard unit, since members may not want to spend their discretionary time with CAP and that unit. The opposite can also be the case.

In a case of a corporation, they can also be abused if the manager knows the system only looks fondly on positive reviews. You can have two different departments, similar duties, but the one manager firewalls his reviews for everyone, knowing that if they leave his department, it will benefit them.

[abdsp51]

So you are basing good/effective leadership based off of inspection results?  How about unit moral and mission efficiency/results? 

Documented feedback can serve two purposes creating a paper trail of documented sub par performance and the paper trail of document outstanding performance. 

For example I had a problem airmen years back who began a down hill slide for one reason or another.  It went from not showing up to work one day and no one could get a hold of him to disobeying orders to blatantly violating the standards set for him.  He committed an offense resulted in a Art 15 action against him which included a separation for him.  Without the paper trail created it would have been more difficult to conduct separation action against him than it was. 

Now I have also have had airmen who went on and excelled due to the positive feedback conducted and documented on them.

[bflynn]

May I point out again that everyone is different.  You are different because you value different things.  Then because you value different things, you hold different things to be important.

Following rules?  Getting good grades on inspections?  Unit morale and mission results?  Yes, you'd like to do all of these, but they are not the purpose of good leadership, they are the result of it.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

We don't need any additionally mumbo jumbo, wanna be AF personnel performance reports.

The key to this is we are in the Civil Air Patrol, which is not a military services   

Great Bog in Devon, you just never stop, do you?

Some of the suggestions on your list were informative.  Why beat your favourite drum again, insulting your fellow CAP officers and telling us something we already know?

I have always followed the maxim "praise in public, admonish in private."  These days I add "admonish in private with at least one witness, especially if the one you are admonishing is of the opposite gender."  CYA.  It's a cruel world.

When I was a Boy Scout, one of the troops I was in had very toxic leadership.  The Scoutmaster scared me so badly a couple of times that I feared going to meetings and campouts.  Finally I actually ran away from one of the campouts (it wasn't far from home); my dad had enough and (verbally) cleaned his clock (he's lucky that verbally was all my dad did).  The guy's son was the Senior Patrol Leader and acted like he was a deity.  I don't want to see any CAP cadet have to go through that.  Of course, that was back in the '70s where things like that were often looked away from.

Inspections, whether it's SUI, IG, etc. can be a good thing, but just because you've got all your ducks in a row to meet an inspector's predefined standards doesn't necessarily mean that things are going well in a unit, especially on an interpersonal basis.  Just because the uniforms are pressed, the shoes are shined, and form A is in folder B doesn't mean all is well.

There is a need, I think, for a commander (I have never been a commander but I have been a deputy commander) to sit down now and then, in a non-threatening way, with his/her people and just have a give-and-take over how things are going:

Are you satisfied with the unit?
Do you think you slot in well?
What would you like to see change, if anything?
Are you progressing in your speciality track?  Do you find it interesting, or not?  Why or why not?
If you are not satisfied with your contributions to the unit, what do you think you could improve on?

Not trying to be a ribbon hog here, but those (along with rank) are our only tangible "pay," and often there are those personnel who don't fly the planes or get dirty with the ground teams, and may not even be known above squadron level.  They should be recognised.  I am kind of a sceptic toward the Commander's Commendation (even though I have one!), because I've seen it handed out simply for knowing the "right" people at Group or Wing, but wasn't the Achievement Award created to partially fill that bill?

As far as negative feedback goes, that should be sparingly used, and only in the sense of when someone is actually being disruptive or just doesn't seem to care any more.  I say "sparingly" because if you press too hard, nothing's stopping someone from shooting you the bird and walking out (I've seen it).  In the first sense, it may be that something needs to be documented in a personnel file, especially regarding promotions.  I don't want someone promoted who has a behaviour problem.  In the second sense, it may be that counselling using some of the above questions could be helpful.  Of course, there may be the need for stopping someone from renewing or (in very rare cases) Form 2B.  A 2B should be a very, very last resort.  I personally think the 2B should be either reformed or axed, because it's too often a guillotine blade on someone that a higher-up simply doesn't like.

Will any of these suggestions make sense?  I don't know...I'm as big an idiot as the next guy, and often bigger.

[a2capt]

I wonder if any of the others over at Westover have caught wynd of being called "wanna be's" ..

[RADIOMAN015]

I wonder if any of the others over at Westover have caught wynd of being called "wanna be's" ..

This discussion has to do with overall polices and not ANY individual unit.   Overall policy dedicates what ANY local unit can and can't do.  As with ANY unit we come into contact with adults that are "wanna bees" and I believe at least to try to  understand the why of this and in some instances there's good individual reasons.           

With CAP it appears at times that policy takes the "Worst of the Air Force" as far as policies not affording the membership the same protections that are afford in the USAF by policy.   The way I see it, it shouldn't be a one way street.

BTW for those that are bit lost in this thread we are the Civil Air Patrol, and according to Air Force Regulation 10-2701, para 1-3:

..... Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members......

RM 

[niferous]

We have this going on in our Squadron right now. We have a commander that wants to run the squadron his way and his way only. He's run off various great senior members and cadets alike. Recently he moved the DCC out of her position and put in his best friend's wife. The DCC has been in CAP for 13 years and has started a color guard, a Red Ribbon Leadership, and many other programs. The woman that replaced her has attended two CAP meetings since joining CAP in 2009 and sat in the office and played solitaire at both. Her total experience is knowing the squadron commander since high school (about thirty years).

Numerous parents, senior members, and cadets have made their objections known. In response the commander sent out a blurb and actually said that "all members serve at the pleasure of the squadron commander and that his decision had been made". He has yet to even offer an explanation why he did it and simply said that his decision had been made. Some parents are even calling the wing commander and group commander.

Oh and all the senior members who were in the cadet program have resigned from the squadron over this, four total. So now the new DCC is on her own. This has all happened since Tuesday nights meetings so we'll see if anything changes. As it is right now I don't think I'll be attending meetings there anymore. I was the leadership officer and was very active in the squadron. I'll be either just keeping my group position or moving to Wing. But I'm done at that squadron. The ADCC is moving to another squadron. She has not missed a meeting in two years and gave lots of weekends to the program. The DCC is moving to wing. She also never missed meetings and gave at least one weekend a month to the cadets. In fact she spent every Sunday afternoon for the last year working with the color guard. The exception was when she had drill. She's an officer in the Air Guard. Finally our past leadership officer completely quit CAP over this guy and let everyone know why. Not even a response from the commander.

Toxic leadership is everywhere. I think in volunteer organizations it's even worse though as it alienates members and spoils the program.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I wonder if any of the others over at Westover have caught wynd of being called "wanna be's" ..

This discussion has to do with overall polices and not ANY individual unit.   Overall policy dedicates what ANY local unit can and can't do.  As with ANY unit we come into contact with adults that are "wanna bees" and I believe at least to try to  understand the why of this and in some instances there's good individual reasons.           

With CAP it appears at times that policy takes the "Worst of the Air Force" as far as policies not affording the membership the same protections that are afford in the USAF by policy.   The way I see it, it shouldn't be a one way street.

BTW for those that are bit lost in this thread we are the Civil Air Patrol, and according to Air Force Regulation 10-2701, para 1-3:

..... Status of CAP Personnel. CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ. CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions. CAP membership does not confer upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired. While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized. Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members......

RM

RM, I just don't get your angle.  This overzealousness to remind of us of something we already know and don't need to be reminded of borders on obsession.

You are not the only one conversant with AFI 10-2701.  I keep a copy in my CAP binder.  I was in the ANG.  I know well the difference between military service and CAP service.

Frankly, I find your constant mischaracterisation of other CAP members who do not think as you do as "wanna bes" to be not only redundant, but insulting.  Just what are you trying to accomplish with your repeated mantra of "we are in the CIVIL Air Patrol?"  I have never, in almost 18 years of CAP, in two wings, encountered the "wanna be military" mindset you seem to think is so pervasive, except in a joking manner.

Just what are you trying to accomplish, other than pissing your fellow CAP members off?

[davidsinn]

Just what are you trying to accomplish?

You answered your own question.

pissing your fellow CAP members off.

He brings nothing positive to the board in my opinion.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

He brings nothing positive to the board in my opinion.

I wouldn't go that far.  His list of suggestions is pretty good...but why does it have to come wrapped in a personal agenda?

[manfredvonrichthofen]

When it comes to the "wannabe" issue, many of us have been there and done the real thing. You can settle it down, it really seems as though you are saying that EVERYONE who wears the USAF style uniforms is just a wannabe. I wear it and I have been in the military, why am I a wannabe? And what is your issue with it?

[RADIOMAN015]

When it comes to the "wannabe" issue, many of us have been there and done the real thing. You can settle it down, it really seems as though you are saying that EVERYONE who wears the USAF style uniforms is just a wannabe. I wear it and I have been in the military, why am I a wannabe? And what is your issue with it?

Hmm, I have no issue with our teenagers cadet members wearing the USAF type uniform.  I'd like to see the Air Force take a much better look at the distinctiveness of the AF style uniforms they are currently allowing CAP adult members to wear.   I would like to see initially senior member training Level I emphasize and yearly reminders to CAP senior personnel about specifically what the AF policy is concerning CAP, as specifically stated in AF Instruction 10-2701, since this may head off many of the wanna bee issues that crop up.  CAP needs to tighten up/police better when uniforms can be worn & when a member can use his/her CAP rank and the proper identification of this whether in writing or verbally.     

For those of us that are retired military, that is what we are.  For those of you that are former military, that is what you are.    Military veterans of all services may be allowed to wear their appropriate uniforms per their appropriate military services regulations.

Surely part of the enjoyment of membership for some of us might be watching this "wanna bee" action. :angel:

RM

[NCRblues]

When it comes to the "wannabe" issue, many of us have been there and done the real thing. You can settle it down, it really seems as though you are saying that EVERYONE who wears the USAF style uniforms is just a wannabe. I wear it and I have been in the military, why am I a wannabe? And what is your issue with it?

Hmm, I have no issue with our teenagers cadet members wearing the USAF type uniform.  I'd like to see the Air Force take a much better look at the distinctiveness of the AF style uniforms they are currently allowing CAP adult members to wear.   I would like to see initially senior member training Level I emphasize and yearly reminders to CAP senior personnel about specifically what the AF policy is concerning CAP, as specifically stated in AF Instruction 10-2701, since this may head off many of the wanna bee issues that crop up.  CAP needs to tighten up/police better when uniforms can be worn & when a member can use his CAP rank and the proper identification of this whether in writing or verbally.     

For those of us that are retired military, that is what we are.  For those of you that are former military, that is what you are.    Military veterans of all services may be allowed to wear their appropriate uniforms per their appropriate military services regulations.

Surely part of the enjoyment of membership for some of us might be watching this "wanna bee" action. :angel:

RM
     

Your sir, are a master Troll. I would give you an award, but that might seem like I am a "wanna bee"

[Eclipse]

Let's bear in mind that this is a person who advocated CAP being trainspotters.

[EMT-83]

When it comes to the "wannabe" issue, many of us have been there and done the real thing. You can settle it down, it really seems as though you are saying that EVERYONE who wears the USAF style uniforms is just a wannabe. I wear it and I have been in the military, why am I a wannabe? And what is your issue with it?

Hmm, I have no issue with our teenagers cadet members wearing the USAF type uniform.  I'd like to see the Air Force take a much better look at the distinctiveness of the AF style uniforms they are currently allowing CAP adult members to wear.   I would like to see initially senior member training Level I emphasize and yearly reminders to CAP senior personnel about specifically what the AF policy is concerning CAP, as specifically stated in AF Instruction 10-2701, since this may head off many of the wanna bee issues that crop up.  CAP needs to tighten up/police better when uniforms can be worn & when a member can use his/her CAP rank and the proper identification of this whether in writing or verbally.     

For those of us that are retired military, that is what we are.  For those of you that are former military, that is what you are.    Military veterans of all services may be allowed to wear their appropriate uniforms per their appropriate military services regulations.

Surely part of the enjoyment of membership for some of us might be watching this "wanna bee" action. :angel:

RM

When I was at the squadron at Westover a couple of months ago, I didn't see a single "wanna bee". Nor have I seen one in any of the five Wings I've visited.

Does this creature exist only in your imagination? Is your commander aware of the distain in which you hold CAP members?

[RADIOMAN015]

When I was at the squadron at Westover a couple of months ago, I didn't see a single "wanna bee". Nor have I seen one in any of the five Wings I've visited.

Does this creature exist only in your imagination? Is your commander aware of the distain in which you hold CAP members?

I don't have any personal distain for ANY CAP member in ANY unit, even if they are a "wanna bee" (and as I've said before some of them have very good personal reasons for this :angel:).  Lets just say certain things are said/ways of thinking that gives me pause, and I will at (very rare) times say something (privately to the individuals) because I know the individuals involved are dedicated members, and I would hate to see them get in some trouble. :angel:
RM
           

[abdsp51]

Sigh face palm.

[SarDragon]

BTW, folks, it's disdain.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Hmm, I have no issue with our teenagers cadet members wearing the USAF type uniform.  I'd like to see the Air Force take a much better look at the distinctiveness of the AF style uniforms they are currently allowing CAP adult members to wear.   I would like to see initially senior member training Level I emphasize and yearly reminders to CAP senior personnel about specifically what the AF policy is concerning CAP, as specifically stated in AF Instruction 10-2701, since this may head off many of the wanna bee issues that crop up.  CAP needs to tighten up/police better when uniforms can be worn & when a member can use his/her CAP rank and the proper identification of this whether in writing or verbally.     

Yes, we know.

However, I don't think the Salvation Army is going to release the rights to their insignia to CAP any time soon.

Were you a member back when we wore the blue epaulettes and hard rank?  That must have been bloody gruelling for you.

I don't know where you see all these "wanna bes" cropping up out of the woodwork.  Is it being a "wanna be" when I return a salute from a junior officer or initiate one to a senior officer?

I agree that Level I doesn't go nearly far enough, but it shouldn't be ground into a new member's head that any misstep they make is going to tick the Air Force off or instill a guilt complex in them about wearing the uniform: "legally you can wear the modified CAP uniform, but you really shouldn't, because that makes you a wannabe, and you'll feel a lot better about your CAP membership if you just forgo it."  That would be TOXIC LEADERSHIP.

Policing about when uniforms can be worn?  I'm not going to stand for having someone follow me into the john at a gas station on the way home from a squadron meeting and count down "30 minutes, 29, 28..."  It's ludicrous, especially if you live more than 30 minutes away from your meeting site.

If you are wishing for a situation where we can get gigged for just having CAP ID on us outside of a CAP function, or if I happen to mention to someone "I'm a Captain in the Civil Air Patrol, the volunteer auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force," keep wishing, because I can safely say it's not going to happen, and if it somehow did...CAP isn't the only game in town.  The CGAUX, USAC and NSCC don't treat their members that way.

Surely part of the enjoyment of membership for some of us might be watching this "wanna bee" action. :angel:

RM

Maybe for you, but not for me.  First of all, because I haven't witnessed it in almost two decades of CAP.  Also, I don't consider it my responsibility to lurk in the shadows and tell a CAP member who just made second looie that going up to military personnel and starting a conversation, telling them about CAP, answering their questions about CAP or considering yourself to have any commonality with other Americans serving in uniform (in CAP, CGAUX, NSCC, USAC, SDF, Active, Reserve, Guard) that they're treading dangerously close to "wanna be" territory.

I have other reasons for being in CAP.

[bflynn]

BTW, folks, it's disdain.

Well said.

The term wanna-be is negative.  I cannot think of a single positive use of it.

Besides which I looked at the numbers during our recent region conference.  About 30-40% of our members at all ranks are veterans.  To me, that's a BTDT status.  But you don't know who is who.

[PHall]

BTW, folks, it's disdain.

Well said.

The term wanna-be is negative.  I cannot think of a single positive use of it.

Besides which I looked at the numbers during our recent region conference.  About 30-40% of our members at all ranks are veterans.  To me, that's a BTDT status.  But you don't know who is who.

RM is quite aware that the term is negative, that's why he uses it.

[EMT-83]

BTW, folks, it's disdain.

Can't believe spell check didn't catch that one.

[SarDragon]

BTW, folks, it's disdain.

Can't believe spell check didn't catch that one.

Well, some folks still haven't gotten spell check figured out, or they don't have it available on their "posting device".

[Spaceman3750]

This may have been mentioned already, but in addition to toxic leadership, toxic personalities in followers can send a unit up in smoke just as quickly.