New CAP Governance Structure

[Walkman]

I have no problem with debating whether Nat CC ought to have a degree, but I believe that's a different argument than the value of a college education generally.

That's where I was trying to go. The debate should be about whether the degree requirement is appropriate for the NatCC position, NOT about if college is worthwhile. Two very different lines of thinking.

That being said, in all my years online I don't recall ever seeing a forum debate where anyone's mind was changed. From my view, it always devolves into a "I'm right!' "No, I'm right" circus. Everyone spends all their effort defending their platform to the death, usually without a hint of the notion that other other person might have some valid points. It happens here on a regular basis.

[MSG Mac]

I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

But he will...through because he controls the COO who controls the paid staff.

No, the COO is the Executive Director who reports to and answers only to the Board of Governors, Not the CEO aka National Commander

[lordmonar]

I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

But he will...through because he controls the COO who controls the paid staff.

No, the COO is the Executive Director who reports to and answers only to the Board of Governors, Not the CEO aka National Commander

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

It's like being on deployment....your Deployed Commander owns your butt....but your supervisor writes your EPR.  Which makes it 100 times better then what it used to be...where the National CC was....the commander....but the EX was the CEO....so who was in charge?
Now...while it is still not a 100% clear supervisor/subordinate role.....it is clearer then then it used to be....which is a goood thing.

BoG->National CC(CEO)->COO->Paid staff.
BoG->National CC->Regional CC->Wing CC->Group CC->Squadron CC->Member.

[Ned]

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

[FW]

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

[bosshawk]

Fred: I like it, too, and think that it is the single most-positive thing that has happened in the governance of CAP in the 20 years that I have been watching this process. 

Eliminating the NEC and the NB is nothing but positive, IMHO, because it puts all that poliltics right where it belongs(in people's minds).  You now have 8 Region Commanders and 52 Wing Commanders whose focus should be on their people and their local areas, not on who is getting elected to what position and other bits of nonsense.

I am sure that there is a lot of wailing and nashing of teeth on the part of some of them: their political pull has gone away.  Now, the attempts at moving around these roadblocks will begin.

[davedove]

The value of a degree is in the eye of the beholder.

The derision works both ways, and I don't think an academic (pun intended) discussion of whether or not having a BA, in and of itself, would make you a "better' National CC should be considered "derision" of college degrees as a concept.

As you say, college is one option for education.  It isn't the only one, and depending on the career field, isn't necessarily the best one.

It's a subjective decision and should be treated that way.

I've heard from many hiring personnel that the value of the degree isn't so much what individual field it is in or what specific knowledge it imparts.  They said the real value of the degree is that it shows the individual can complete a long term project. The individual took the time and effort to complete all the requirements to get the degree, no matter how uninteresting some of the requirements may have been.  Nobody wants an employee that doesn't complete a project.

[RiverAux]

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

The "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

[Eclipse]

The "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

Administrative authority over the offices and people is not the same thing as authority over their functions.

I read this as the NHQ CC having directive ability over what the paid staff does, but the BOG having directive authority over the people and the offices.

BOG - hire / fire / reviews.

NAT CC - "pick up this box and put it over there..."

[lordmonar]

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

The "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

Let me explain the concepts of OPCON and ADCON.

OPCON means that you do what I say......or the guys with ADCON over you will fire your.

It is that simple.  The National CC is the CEO....hired and fired by the BoG.  He is the "boss" of the COO who is hired and fired by the BoG.   This is exactly how many corporations are run.  If the CEO and the COO are not working together well then the BoG will make the changes.

Also......if you think that the NHQ staffers are just "admin" you are mistaken.  You don't see what they do at the squadron or even wing level very often.....but they do in fact do a lot of "operational" tasks.

The also do a lot of "admin" tasks (i.e. shuffleing paper, paying billes, data entry) but they are also makeing a lot of operational calls (no we won't/can't support that mission, securing funding from customers to make missions go).

Oh....and by the way the military runs in the ADCON/OPCON mode all the time particuarlly with deployed and detached operations.
As does CAP.....here is an example......when you report to a mission base for a SAREX you are OPCONed to the IC, OSC, GBD, GTL.....but your unit commander still maintains ADCON.

Simple concept.  The GTL can't promote you, can't fire you, can't 2b you.....but he can tell you what to do....and if fail to follow his orders then your ADCON will take care of the appropriate actions.

[RiverAux]

Nope, in this case the National Commander cannot tell the Executive Director or any of the paid staff what to do except for those small number of individuals directly involved in prosecuting ES missions.  That is like the CEO of Pepsi having to go to the Board to get his Chief Operating Officer to tell the Accounting Department to do something. 

It is also not at all like the military model.  They ultimately report to 1 person even though at various times units may report to someone else for operational purposes. 

[Ned]

Nope, in this case the National Commander cannot tell the Executive Director or any of the paid staff what to do . . .

You keep saying that.

But it's simply not true. 

That's one of the whole points of the new governance structure -- unity of command.

The CEO is the CEO.

[RiverAux]

A CEO is in charge of ALL aspects of the organization.  Our CEO is not.  He does not control "administrative" matters under the authority of the Executive Director.  Therefore he is not a CEO and there is no ultimate unity of command. 

[Eclipse]

A CEO is in charge of ALL aspects of the organization.  Our CEO is not.  He does not control "administrative" matters under the authority of the Executive Director.  Therefore he is not a CEO and there is no ultimate unity of command.

You're either misinterpreting the situation or misrepresenting it.
Regardless, the Nat CC now has defined authority over the Ex Dir in all matters of consequence to the membership.

As to this idea of not being in charge of all aspects of the organization - this is not uncommon for a CEO or other executive officer.  For example,
few Mayors have hire / fire authority over police and fire personnel, that's generally charged to a PD/FD Commission (etc., etc.).

[RiverAux]

Who said I was talking about member-issues? 

We are not using CEO as understood throughout the business and non-profit world.  Sure, we can keep calling him National Commander, but he is not a CEO based on how the new structure of CAP has been described. 

All comparisons to the military and civil organizations are irrelevant.  We made a decision to move the organization more fully into the way most large non-profits are run, but we failed to go all the way. 

[Pylon]

Who said I was talking about member-issues? 

We are not using CEO as understood throughout the business and non-profit world.  Sure, we can keep calling him National Commander, but he is not a CEO based on how the new structure of CAP has been described. 

All comparisons to the military and civil organizations are irrelevant.  We made a decision to move the organization more fully into the way most large non-profits are run, but we failed to go all the way.

I actually disagree with pretty much every word of the above and your last few posts.  It seems almost as if you haven't read the last handful of direct replies to you, and then just keep re-posting the same assertion with a shuffled order of words.


The CEO (aka: NHQ/CC) has full control over the COO and the paid-staff.  He can say "Do this." or "Stop doing that." or "Here's our new strategic plan for next year. You're on board; this is how you'll change things."  The only thing he can't do is hire/fire, for which he needs approval from the BoG.


This is not a departure from corporations.  There are plenty of instances where a non-profit executive needs board approval to hire/fire senior staff positions.


You keep repeating that the comparisons are "irrelevant" and we're "moving away" from the corporate/non-profit world, but have cited not a single source to suggest that's true.  At least I have experience working full-time, paid in non-profit executive positions and sitting on actual non-profit boards of directors — and my first hand knowledge of non-profit organization & governance says that what CAP has done is indeed best practice, is not unique, and is perfectly normal.

[RiverAux]

No, I did not say that we are moving away from corporations.  The changes will actually move us much closer than we were to most normal corporations.  What I said is that the National Commander/Executive Director relationship is not one you would find in corporations. 

At the top level nothing has essentially changed in terms of the relationship of the National Commander and Executive Director, at least not as described in the press release which constitutes all the details we have of the situation.   Perhaps when the actual documents come out, they will show something different. 

The CEO (aka: NHQ/CC) has full control over the COO and the paid-staff. 

No, he has "operational" but not "administrative" control.  No matter how you slice it, he does not have "full" control.  Perhaps what is meant by "operational" includes all day-to-day activities, but it isn't "full" control. 

I said comparisons to the military and civil government are irrelevant.  We are not either and we don't actually have elements of either in our top-level organization (which is what we are discussing now).  With the glaring exception of the Executive Director and paid staff, the new structure is extremely corporate in nature. 

[ol'fido]

My .02 on the college degree issue:

BG Heinie Aderholt,aka Air Commando One, did not have a college degree and considered most USAF officers to be "over-educated". I think that he is one of the best leaders and organizers that the USAF ever had.

Col. George "Bud" Day, aka Misty One, had a law degree and was considered one of the most highly educated officers in the USAF during his career. I think he is one of the best leaders and organizers that the USAF ever had.

I've known Ph.D.s that were complete nitwits outside of the classroom and a backroads welder that told some engineers from a very popular tractor company how their piece of farm equipment was going to fail and how to fix it.

My .02? On this forum we too often try to make general statements about specific things. Whether someone has a college degree or not doesn't automatically make someone competent or incompetent at any given task. It is the sum total of a person's environment, education, experience, personality, and confidence that make someone a success.

The overwhelming trait of any successful person in my very humble opinion is the ability to focus on setting a goal and striving continuously to meet that goal. In other words, working hard and never quitting.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I went to college because...everyone told me to. School teachers, counselors, parents, CAP SMs, etc.

Did I enjoy it? Not really. I did find a field I found interesting and challenging however.

Now that I'm done? I plan on getting a well paying job, at least $19-24/hour to start (as opposed to a cap of around $13 you can find without a degree through a staffing company). It was hard to come to grips as to why someone would pay me basically double or more of minimum wage JUST because I went to college. But now I realize that while most of my classes (I had about 2/3rds of a year of Fin, and maybe a year of various business classes) were BS college money pits, it's the fact that I DO see the world differently, I DO think about issues differently, and I believe it did make me a better thinker and decision maker that I "deserve" a better paying job.

There's a lot of talk that investment firms would prefer Liberal Arts majors and Philosophy majors over Business students. Why? Because they are creative, thinking people. The company will have to train you to do things their way anyway. They don't really care for the four-years-of-business-courses-omg-I-am-so-awesome-at-business kids. They want thinkers. Idea people.

That's the value of a degree. Proof that you can stick with something that may not be your interest, but also get it done. I could have probably been a straight A Management degree guy. But I found the field to be boring. I ended up being a B student of Finance, but it was challenging and rewarding at the same time.

Here's hoping I didn't waste four years of my life!

[flyguy06]

I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

He will control the paid staff THROUGH the COO. If I'm a Commander, I dont have to have direct contact with my subordinates. Thats what subordinate management is for. The CEO of Delta Airlines is responsible for the guys that load bags on the airplanes,but he doesnt directly supervise them does he?