New CAP Governance Structure

[Dragoon]

Since most "squadrons" are USAF flight sized at best (and many are really just element sized), adding real world USAF officer education and training requirements is a bit silly.  Plus adding in the fact that we often can't find a good squadron CC volunteer, and we can put that idea to bed.

Finding a single, qualified guy to be National CC won't be hard.  Lots of folks want that job.  Adding in some extra "hoops" (like level V or a bachelor's degree) isn't going to leave us with no viable candidate.  And if we ever find the legendary self-educated, multi-millionaire  genius executive who runs his own 50,000 person company, I'm sure we'll get him a waiver (of course, that guy will likely be too busy running his company to want a second non-paying job...)

The National CC has to be credible to USAF.  He's wearing two stars - the other GOs and SESs need to seem him as a "real" general to treat him (and by extension, the CAP) as competent and qualified.  And they, not us, decide what to judge as "qualified."  We have to fit into their world.

[Walkman]

(FYI, I have 60-ish credit hours, but no college degree. I've had a successful career in adverting and design for 22 years)

Why all the hate toward college? "4 years of jumping through hoops"? Really? There are a huge number of professions that there's no way you can work in without college.

Case in point: I work for an architecture & engineering firm. Are you going to trust the entire infrastructure of the nation to people that didn't study civil engineering and then were certified and licensed?

I don't want to trust that my water will be clean, the roads & bridges won't collapse and that there won't be flooding every time it rains to anyone who just has a raw talent for numbers and spatial thinking. I also would never buy a home that wasn't designed by a licensed architect, so I can be sure that it won't collapse on my head, the foundation won't sink or that I'll actually be warm enough in the winter because its properly insulated and the HVAC is tuned.

As much as I respect the hard won wisdom about animals that someone might learn from growing up on a farm with livestock, when my dog needs to be spade, I'm going to a Vet that went to college.

I'm not even going to touch the medical profession.

What about teachers? I got a adjunct position at a college once because of my experience, BUT just because I was a "subject-matter expert" didn't automatically make me a great teacher. I've had to learn things about teaching, which looking back would have been nice to have done in a college setting. My children have ADHD, I'd like to think that their teachers have had an education on human development and some child sociology and psychology and not just how to add 2+2.

Any hunters here? The state biologist that helps manage the game's health across the state has a degree.

A person with a good head for math can do the books for a small business and taxes at home, but if I'm running a company with 100+ employees, I want someone with an accounting degree.

YES, there are those that are successful that don't have a degree. YES, that are a good careers out there that don't require a college education. BUT to make the assertion that higher education of any sort is worthless isn't true.

The argument that a degree = leadership holds water. I understand that, and I agree. Just because someone attended college doesn't mean they are automatically leaders. One could argue that those that attend the service academies receive a formal education in leadership. Aside from that, there are few places to learn the aspects of leadership in a formal setting.

But let's get off the college = worthless train, it's not true.

[Larry Mangum]

So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

And if you want a job at either one of them....you better have a degree.

Not true at Microsoft.

[Pylon]

Not true at Microsoft.

Your statement is actually what's not true.  Of course any company will have jobs that don't require college education.  But if you want any managerial position or job in administration, you will need a degree at Microsoft.   All of these job categories at Microsoft require a degree, and they have a whole category of jobs that also require an MBA post-grad degree just to be considered:  http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx

[Devil Doc]

The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

[Eclipse]

Your statement is actually what's not true.  Of course any company will have jobs that don't require college education.  But if you want any managerial position or job in administration, you will need a degree at Microsoft.   All of these job categories at Microsoft require a degree, and they have a whole category of jobs that also require an MBA post-grad degree just to be considered:  http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx

My experience has been that what an employer "requires" is also a product of market forces.

The word "required" becomes much less firm when the pool of otherwise qualified applicants is small. 

These days we have Ph.ds stocking shelves at Walmart, so companies can pretty much "require" anything they want.

[Eclipse]

The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

I think when the "Person Makes the Degree" you get in trouble for that.

[Garibaldi]

The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

I think when the "Person Makes the Degree" you get in trouble for that.

So...my Master's in Starship Engineering and Bachelor's in Klingon History from Starfleet Academy are meaningless? 

[Ned]

Finding a single, qualified guy to be National CC won't be hard.  Lots of folks want that job.  Adding in some extra "hoops" (like level V or a bachelor's degree) isn't going to leave us with no viable candidate.  And if we ever find the legendary self-educated, multi-millionaire  genius executive who runs his own 50,000 person company, I'm sure we'll get him a waiver (of course, that guy will likely be too busy running his company to want a second non-paying job...)

I know you were speaking primarily to the BA requirement, but some of us on the BoG are actually somewhat worried about having sufficient qualified national commander applicants in the future.

Now that we have clarified that the National Commander is the CEO in both name and function, we will be looking for folks with a "CEO skill set" to apply.  And I am a little concerned because the CEO skill set is substantially different from the "Operational skill set" displayed by successful wing and region commanders, and this may make the pool of qualified National Commander applicants smaller than we would like.

I would expect that most of our future national commanders will have aquired and displayed the necessary skills as successful business persons or key executives at large non-profits or government agencies.  As distinct from "merely" being a highly successful wing or region commander.  Mostly because even the largest wings and regions are rather unlike the organization as a whole.  (E.g., wings or regions have relatively few employees when compared to the nearly 200 that work for the corporation as whole, etc.)

And as you have all noticed, it is not as common as we would like for highly successful business persons or key executives in large non-profits or government agencies to serve as wing or region commanders.  There are undoubtedly a lot of reasons for this, starting simply with the limited number of hours in a day to both run a wing and a business / agency.  Oh, and tend to a family and community responsibilities.

Looking forward, I would like to challenge our PD folks to come up with ways to inculcate and grow strategic skills into our best and brightest volunteers.  We can probably do a better job of teaching leadership and management as academic skills at each level of our professional development.  CAP-specific skills and knowledge are critical, of course, but on the upside, management and leadership training in general will be transferable back to the volunteer's "outside life" (if any of us really have one of those.)

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

[edit - spelling]

[jeders]

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

I would think that this would be an integral function of the Staff College program, particularly NSC. I don't know when the last time the curriculum was updated for NSC, though apparently RSC is going through some updating now. I think that at RSC we need to add some basic managerial course work. Then revamp NSC to build on what is learned at RSC and expand on it for strategic level stuff.

I also think that the OE track, or something like it, could be used to focus training on strategic level planning and organization for those individuals who have expressed a desire to lead CAP at the wing and above level. If this were done I would probably make this specialty track, or at least active participation in it, a requirement for wing commanders. Since you have to be a wing commander to become Nat/CC now, this track wouldn't have to be made a requirement for Nat/CC. By having the wing commanders continue in some sort of "commander grooming" track, you hopefully create a much larger pool of potential applicants.

[Eeyore]

I think our Senior Member PD program needs to be more challenging as a whole and needs to include more classroom time. I've been a Senior Member for five years now and the only item I am missing for my Level 5 is National Staff College which I don't currently qualify for as I am not a Major yet. I have a full time job, a family and I was still able to fly through the PD levels.

CAP seems to be stuck in a mode of allowing everyone to progress no matter what, all you need to do is show up and sign in to receive credit. Why are the courses not more in depth? Instead of a weekend SLS/CLC, turn them into multi-weekend activities and really delve deeper into leadership and management skills and actually grade the coursework.

You shouldn't pass and progress just because you showed up and paid for your share of the donuts and coffee.

I'm sure I will get blowback for my comments, but if we want to be taken seriously we need to increase our standards and those that don't meet standards for PD ascension don't move up. We can't expect anyone else to take our "officers" seriously if they are lacking in education and professional training.

I do believe that the BA/BS requirement for the National Commander is great, honestly it should be more.

[FW]

Looking forward, I would like to challenge our PD folks to come up with ways to inculcate and grow strategic skills into our best and brightest volunteers.  We can probably do a better job of teaching leadership and management as academic skills at each level of our professional development.  CAP-specific skills and knowledge are critical, of course, but on the upside, management and leadership training in general will be transferable back to the volunteer's "outside life" (if any of us really have one of those.)

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

Revamping the RSC to include wing and region commander operational skills and, NSC to include more stratigic planning and organizaional leadership skill sets may be helpful.  We have an "Organizaional Excellence" program which could use some real meat.  It could be developed more with an in residence CAP "Graduate Leadership" School; to help develop the further skills necessary to be, not only a successful senior leader but, to serve as National Commander, Vice or, at large BoG member.

Now this is something worth discussing...

[arajca]

I think our Senior Member PD program needs to be more challenging as a whole and needs to include more classroom time. I've been a Senior Member for five years now and the only item I am missing for my Level 5 is National Staff College which I don't currently qualify for as I am not a Major yet. I have a full time job, a family and I was still able to fly through the PD levels.

I've there for a few years. Last year, when the stars aligned and I could afford to do NSC, my application wasn't accepted.

CAP seems to be stuck in a mode of allowing everyone to progress no matter what, all you need to do is show up and sign in to receive credit. Why are the courses not more in depth? Instead of a weekend SLS/CLC, turn them into multi-weekend activities and really delve deeper into leadership and management skills and actually grade the coursework.

You shouldn't pass and progress just because you showed up and paid for your share of the donuts and coffee.

Multi weekend courses cause all sorts of heartburn, in part due to the lack of weekend time available for most volunteers with families. I think making SLS/CLC multimode course would be better - online reading/testing components and discussion groups with a weekend capstone in person session required to complete the training. We got this new Learning Management System, let's REALLY work it.

I'm sure I will get blowback for my comments, but if we want to be taken seriously we need to increase our standards and those that don't meet standards for PD ascension don't move up. We can't expect anyone else to take our "officers" seriously if they are lacking in education and professional training.

I do believe that the BA/BS requirement for the National Commander is great, honestly it should be more.

I suggested a dual track system - Warrant/Flight Officers for those staying at the squadron or group staff level, with limited PD (current system?) requirements to progress and Commissioned Officers for those going to command any level or wing/region/national staff levels with a more intensive PD system that fully incorporates the current system and adds more leadership/management/planning training.

[jhsmith400]

On a point I keep hearing about college, ...well some of the most successful business owners don't have a college degree.  On the other hand the amount of folks who are under and unemployed does tend to be much much higher among those with a HS degree or less, kinda offsets the few who are very very successful without a degree.  Here in Ohio the state militia has required a degree above HS for years,for officers, and you can't tell me their units are larger then those in CAP.  I'm not sure CAP could survive requiring a college degree for officers, to do that we'd have to have a good NCO program, which we don't.  I'm glad to hear that the CAP/CC is still  being called Maj/Gen, better then cutting off the upward mobility of members at Col.  Of course since the Nat/CC picks the Vice, and I'm sure being Vice would help with the BoG picking that member for CC, that'll mean that the sucking sound you will soon hear anytime the Nat/CC is near will be the Wing Kings and Region Kings sucking up.  In this CAP has finally come closer to the AD USAF.

[jimmydeanno]

I think some may be looking at CAP in its current state, instead of where the organization is/should be going.  If we want to continue to progress and grow, we need to look at the future.  This means getting a CEO for our non-profit that can think like a CEO.  That, in 99.9% of cases comes from someone with a degree and experience - not a nice guy that feels the organization owes him upward mobility because he was successful as a unit testing officer.

I envision a scenario where our organization grows and changes to the point where the wing commanders would need a BA/BS because of a need for those skills at the state level.  At the local level, I don't foresee a need for anything huge in terms of executive experience, because the scope is smaller, and its a management position. 

In reality, I doubt that many of our current Wing or Region commanders don't have a degree of some sort anyway...

[Eclipse]

On the other hand the amount of folks who are under and unemployed does tend to be much much higher among those with a HS degree or less, kinda offsets the few who are very very successful without a degree. 

Not really.

A HS diploma, for all its current issues in some parts of the country, is still considered the societal minimum to be able to function.

[Eclipse]

In reality, I doubt that many of our current Wing or Region commanders don't have a degree of some sort anyway...

The "some sort" raises an interesting point.

In more rural parts of the country, unit cc's required to have a degree are likely to be hanging something regarding "animal husbandry" or "farm economics"
on their walls.

The real "fix" for this, assuming you acknowledge there a problem, is for CAP to provide the training - just like the military.  Basic Training, tech schools, officer schools, the works.  Clearly that breaks the economics of "bring what you have" that is CAP's strongest ROI, but that is the only way to compare
military officers with CAP officers.

I guarantee we'd see a huge spike in both recruiting and higher education if CAP started popping for college.

[Garibaldi]

I guarantee we'd see a huge spike in both recruiting and higher education if CAP started popping for college.

Heh...I'd love to see that happen.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Then we'd need some other grade structure for those w/o a degree.

Bring back warrant officers, as I've suggested before.

Before going further:

• Yes, I know the USAF doesn't have them!
• Yes, I know that the Flight Officer grades are quasi-warrant(ish)...but the USAF doesn't have those either!

I would gladly trade in my train tracks for CWO-3 bars to be able to focus on one thing, since I'm really too introverted to consider myself (or want to be considered) "command" material (though I have been a Squadron Deputy CC).

I'm the "red shirt" from Star Trek type.

For the record, I have an A.A.S. degree with honours (GPA 3.735) in Computer Information Systems...but that was so long ago that it's virtually meaningless now.

I also have college-level psychology and logic courses (4.0, Dean's List) but not a full BSc.

None of that plays into what I do with CAP.  I've been offered the post of IT Officer at various levels so many times it's silly but I don't want it...I left that career for a reason (burnout) and have no desire to jump back into that snake pit.

[Eclipse]

Unless the entire paradigm of CAP was changed, including adding about 50-75% more people, the grade you're wearing will never,
ever, have any bearing on what you're actually doing.

Being a CWO-3 will not allow you to "focus" any more then being a Captain forces you to be a manager.

Absent lots more people, everyone from SMWOGs to Maj Gens will continue to be generalists, allowed to focus anywhere they want.

Implemented correctly, and with a multi-year phase-in, I'd probably be in favor of a structure that allowed specialization,
but it would also have to limit access and benefits for those who choose to specialize, just like the military, and inn a volunteer
paradigm, that's as sure to foster sour grapes as an NCO structure would.