Relief of CAP commanders

[RiverAux]

I recently read "The Generals" by Thomas Ricks.  The main thesis of the book is that the Army has suffered since WWII as it has become very rare for generals to be relieved after failures in combat.  During WWII it was extremely common for officers at all levels to be relieved of command very quickly after failures but that over time the relief of a commander became to be seen as a failure of the organization rather than of the individual and that because of that it became less common. 

This got me thinking about CAP.  CAP has always had a military-style system wherein at most levels of the organization unit commanders are appointed by the person at the next highest level and basically serve at their pleasure.  Obviously, this is not unique to the military as it is how business and most government organizations are run.

However, in order for this sort of system to work most efficiently you have to be willing to fire people (relieve them of command) if they aren't doing a good job.  For the most part, businesses still do this a lot, but you don't often see it in CAP. 

As I have stated in many other threads, I favor a system wherein our leaders are elected by the members (but lets not discuss that further in this thread), but if we are to stay with the current system, which seems likely, shouldn't it be utilized as intended?

Most of us who have been around a while most certainly have known of a few people relieved of a command for cause (and not just because of good-old-boyism), so its not unheard of.

Why don't you think relief is used more in CAP?  Are our selected leaders just that good?  Are higher level commanders afraid to fire someone because they don't think they can find someone better in that unit to take their place?  Do higher level commander really know enough about what is going on down below that they don't realize when someone is doing a bad job? 

[RiverAux]

Interestingly, one of the quickest ways to get canned in the military today is sexual misconduct (accounting for 40% of the firings of those of Lt. Col. rank and above since 2005).  While this isn't unheard of in CAP, it makes you wonder....

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/01/ap-sex-major-reason-military-brass-fired-012013/

[Pylon]

The sexual misconduct correlation you've made barely applies to CAP.  There are plenty of things prohibited in the military that just don't have an equivalent prohibition in CAP: all adultery, relations between officer and enlisted or even between SNCO/NCO or NCO/non-rates, (prior to last year) prohibition on open homosexuality, prohibited sexual relations in combat zones, nor do we have the same situation of working and living in the same quarters/base as other fellow personnel nearly 24/7, etc.   So that analogy bears little applicability to CAP.

I think CAP does a fine job of rotating commanders who commit fraud, waste, or abuse, fiscal irresponsibility, or other major violations of regulation.  We don't relieve people often (at least in my experience) because they're not as super-hard-charger-effective as we want them to be, especially if they're getting the job done within regs.  We don't have unlimited personnel or a deep bench to draw from; we don't have limited billets or an up-and-out system, we don't have requirements that personnel of a certain grade hold down a certain level of billet, and we don't have the contractual obligation for people to stick around.  So making personnel changes like removing someone from command has quite different implications, effects, and potential outcomes than the same personnel action in the military does.   I think the analogy is neither apt nor warranted.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Not to mention some disgraceful acts on the part of MTI's with their trainees...and what position is a young trainee at Lackland in to actually come forward and say that an MTI did wrong?  I don't know how it is now, but years ago I remember MTI's (the ones I knew, anyway) held themselves up to be THE examples to emulate and THEY didn't make mistakes; YOU were mistaken for thinking so.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/12/air-force-mti-misconduct-lackland-120412w/

But the difference is that they have the UCMJ.  CAP does not.

River, I doubt CAP will ever go to the "elected" system that CGAUX, for better or worse (it can become too much of a popularity contest, and people who are not outgoing and more reserved are too often not considered for Flotilla Commander and above).

I think a lot of the reason unsuitability/incompetence/misbehaviour/whatever is not dealt with by relieving a person of command is precisely because of the GOBN.  Squadron commanders usually know Group commanders usually know Wing commanders usually know Region commanders usually...in many cases these individuals are friends and/or business associates outside CAP.

It happens more in business, but remember that this is an almost-uniquely American construct - the concept of "employment-at-will."  Most other Western nations do not have this.  In most other Western nations if you can't find a good reason to fire for cause, you can be looking at a lawsuit or even criminal charges.

I think it's a combination of commanders simply not knowing and turning a blind eye when they do know.

Major Kieloch: The sexual misconduct parallel does exist in CAP, largely but not exclusively in CPPT.  However, as a rule of thumb, and as a married man, I do not allow myself to be alone with another female senior member (the "Billy Graham rule").  It's too easy to become a target so I don't place myself in the situation.

[RiverAux]

I think CAP does a fine job of rotating commanders who commit fraud, waste, or abuse, fiscal irresponsibility, or other major violations of regulation. 

I would agree with that.  If you get caught in serious misconduct, you will get fired.  However, thats not really what I was primarily getting at.

This is:

We don't relieve people often (at least in my experience) because they're not as super-hard-charger-effective as we want them to be, especially if they're getting the job done within regs. 

Lets assume that most CAP commanders are going to get the job done within the regulatory framework -- they'll turn in the proper paperwork at the proper time, etc.  Is that good enough for the organization? 

Look at the Wing level for a moment  -- should we be relieving wing commanders with poor performances on the compliance inspections?  Of course this assumes that we haven't rigged the CI system such that everyone passes (which seems to be the case based on the results posted here: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/inspector_general/inspections_schedule.cfm )

[Pylon]

If someone is running a program in complete compliance with the regulations, then yes, I think they should stay.  If you want them to be better at their billet, you provide training and encouragement and support; not pink slips.

[RiverAux]

There is so much about running a good, or even mediocre, CAP squadron that isn't covered by the regulations that such a blanket statement seems to be overly broad given the leader selection method used by CAP (which seems to have very broad support on CAPTalk). 

Complying with the regulations is just one small aspect of being a good commander. 

[Private Investigator]

Look at the Wing level for a moment  -- should we be relieving wing commanders with poor performances on the compliance inspections? 

When I was at RSC I believe they quoted the average Wing Commander does 23 months. That is because the poor performing ones are out in less than a year and that brings down the average.

[Майор Хаткевич]

There is so much about running a good, or even mediocre, CAP squadron that isn't covered by the regulations that such a blanket statement seems to be overly broad given the leader selection method used by CAP (which seems to have very broad support on CAPTalk). 

Complying with the regulations is just one small aspect of being a good commander.

To follow the regulations is to run all of our programs properly.

[Pylon]

There is so much about running a good, or even mediocre, CAP squadron that isn't covered by the regulations that such a blanket statement seems to be overly broad given the leader selection method used by CAP (which seems to have very broad support on CAPTalk). 

Complying with the regulations is just one small aspect of being a good commander.

I guess I'll just repeat my point.  I said:  You take the commanders who are doing the job by the regs, and if you want to make them better you provide training, encouragement, and support.  You don't fire them.


Do you think CAP has an endless supply of people wanting to be mistreated and abused for giving their best efforts?

[Private Investigator]

However, in order for this sort of system to work most efficiently you have to be willing to fire people (relieve them of command) if they aren't doing a good job.  For the most part, businesses still do this a lot, but you don't often see it in CAP. 

Most of us who have been around a while most certainly have known of a few people relieved of a command for cause (and not just because of good-old-boyism), so its not unheard of.

Why don't you think relief is used more in CAP?  Are our selected leaders just that good?  Are higher level commanders afraid to fire someone because they don't think they can find someone better in that unit to take their place?  Do higher level commander really know enough about what is going on down below that they don't realize when someone is doing a bad job?

When I was a Squadron Commander and like usual I got Command a month before a SUI. The results were so poor I fired the DA, DC and the SE. The former DC turned out to be exceptional as SE, I found a new guy who was a great DC and the former DA makes great coffee and does well as an assistant.

As a Group Commander I fired a few Squadron Commanders usually at the six month mark. Others resigned so they would not look bad being fired. I told all Commanders it was a 3 year tour and no one should expect to be extended like some of the other Groups do. (I did extend one, that's another story)

I think why the higher CC does not fire people is because most people think, "if it is not broken, why fix it?" Most people do not want to hear bad news. As a retired policeman, by nature I ask questions. The other thing is if you think that is a bad apple, it might be a good orange.

I think when a Commander job comes up the higher CC needs to interview three people for the job and not just take the former Commander's choice. All that does is make the GOBN stronger and dumber. 

[Private Investigator]

Do you think CAP has an endless supply of people wanting to be mistreated and abused for giving their best efforts?

Are you talking about Squadron Commanders or Senior Members in general?

Because I "know" we do not mistreat or abuse our Cadets.

[lordmonar]

Well first things first.

And this does tie in to River's point a little.

By what yard stick to we measure our commanders?

It is easy to say "in WWII" they fired commanders after the failed in combat.....because there was a lot of combat going on and the objectives are very very clear.....plus they had a lot of officers to choose from.

Since WWII that has not been the case.....ergo it was lot harder to use "failure in combat" as a way of getting rid of bad officers.

In CAP and in military during peace time.....the yard stick of failure is not as clear cut and not as immediate as in combat.  Tell Patton to take Bastone and relieve the 101st by Jan 15 and don't decimate your own army doing it.....clear, conceice, easy to measure.   Tell Wing Commander X to run his wing well........not so much.  We all know that the SUI's and the CI's are a paperwork drill.  Even the Graded SAREX (or what ever they are called) is not a very good indicator of if a commander is doing well or not....because there are no published standards.  No readiness standards (as in the military sense).  No performance standards.  No go-no go points to show that Wing X is able to do it's mission.

So.....in order to fire more failed officers for not doing their jobs.......we have to first establish exactly what that job is, how we are going to measure those standards and when we are going to measure those standards.

Once you have established the standards....now you have to be ready to pay the piper.   CAP can't just transfer the right person to the right job.  If commander X failed to do his job.......are you ready to just close down squadron X?  Are we ready to ask Major Y (who lives 50 miles away in the next town) to drive two hours both ways 2-3 times a week to fix Commander X's screw up and train a local replacement?  Who's going to pay for the gas?   What about the time away from his family, job, local squadron?

It becomes a trap.  Especially so because we are a volunteer organistion.

Having said that......yes commanders/leaders at all levels should be prepared and willing to fire their subordinates if they need to.  They need to be prepared to pay for it as well.

[Critical AOA]

So what it eventually comes down to in many instances is having someone willing to do the job but not necessarily qualified or capable of doing the job well.  Not the ideal situation but unfortunately perhaps the nature of the beast.   

[ZigZag911]

Relieving a commander should be the last resort, not the first action...it is the duty of higher echelon CC's to mentor and guide their subordinate commanders.

That said, there are always those who are set in their ways, will not cooperate, or even refuse to adhere to regulations...eventually a group, wing or region commander needs to assess the situation honestly and determine that a change is needed for the good of the unit.

[Private Investigator]

So what it eventually comes down to in many instances is having someone willing to do the job but not necessarily qualified or capable of doing the job well.  Not the ideal situation but unfortunately perhaps the nature of the beast.

That is very true.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So what it eventually comes down to in many instances is having someone willing to do the job but not necessarily qualified or capable of doing the job well.  Not the ideal situation but unfortunately perhaps the nature of the beast.

That is very true.

And is the case with so much of what happens in the rubber-meeting-the-road aspect of CAP.

[Spaceman3750]

Even the Graded SAREX (or what ever they are called) is not a very good indicator of if a commander is doing well or not....because there are no published standards.  No readiness standards (as in the military sense).  No performance standards.  No go-no go points to show that Wing X is able to do it's mission.

The standards are in Attachment 7 of this document: http://capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_USAFI_10_2701.pdf

[Eclipse]

I know of several times wings were stood down because of failing an Eval.