Toxic Leadership

[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.