Interesting, though I find it odd

[Private Investigator]

It does not seem from a rank and file members point of view, that Wing leadership is committed to recognizing its volunteers

I thought that at one time too. But the way it is, is different Wing Commanders have different expectations. Some give out awards freely and others email a "thank you" and that is it. We do have "OTY" awards but then some Squadron Commanders overlook that too.

In closing I would say, it is what it is ... 

Regardless of their expectations, if they are being recognized, they should be smart enough to flow it down.  Were I king for a day, I would reply all Commanders regardless of level to take IS-244 (Managing and Recognizing Volunteers) or a similar course.

AND ... 

If you give everyone a ComCom then it really does not mean anything. When I was at Group I had a Squadron Commander who had twelve (12) Cadets and he put each one in for a ComCom. Why? Because on his son's little league team everyone got a trophy so why not in CAP?   

I would agree, I'd love to see standardized award criteria.  By the same token, recognizing the leaders, without recognizing the subordinates who did the work, causes friction, resentment, and encourages further separation between (Wing/Region) and the subordinate organization.

Actually we do. It depends on the reviewer. I have seen basically the same act done twice, one got an Exceptional Service Award and the other a ComCom. The narrative on one 120 was strong and the other was weak.

[Alaric]

It does not seem from a rank and file members point of view, that Wing leadership is committed to recognizing its volunteers

I thought that at one time too. But the way it is, is different Wing Commanders have different expectations. Some give out awards freely and others email a "thank you" and that is it. We do have "OTY" awards but then some Squadron Commanders overlook that too.

In closing I would say, it is what it is ... 

Regardless of their expectations, if they are being recognized, they should be smart enough to flow it down.  Were I king for a day, I would reply all Commanders regardless of level to take IS-244 (Managing and Recognizing Volunteers) or a similar course.

AND ... 

If you give everyone a ComCom then it really does not mean anything. When I was at Group I had a Squadron Commander who had twelve (12) Cadets and he put each one in for a ComCom. Why? Because on his son's little league team everyone got a trophy so why not in CAP?   

I would agree, I'd love to see standardized award criteria.  By the same token, recognizing the leaders, without recognizing the subordinates who did the work, causes friction, resentment, and encourages further separation between (Wing/Region) and the subordinate organization.

Actually we do. It depends on the reviewer. I have seen basically the same act done twice, one got an Exceptional Service Award and the other a ComCom. The narrative on one 120 was strong and the other was weak.

If it depends on the reviewer it is not standardized

[Private Investigator]

It does not seem from a rank and file members point of view, that Wing leadership is committed to recognizing its volunteers

I thought that at one time too. But the way it is, is different Wing Commanders have different expectations. Some give out awards freely and others email a "thank you" and that is it. We do have "OTY" awards but then some Squadron Commanders overlook that too.

In closing I would say, it is what it is ... 

Regardless of their expectations, if they are being recognized, they should be smart enough to flow it down.  Were I king for a day, I would reply all Commanders regardless of level to take IS-244 (Managing and Recognizing Volunteers) or a similar course.

AND ... 

If you give everyone a ComCom then it really does not mean anything. When I was at Group I had a Squadron Commander who had twelve (12) Cadets and he put each one in for a ComCom. Why? Because on his son's little league team everyone got a trophy so why not in CAP?   

I would agree, I'd love to see standardized award criteria.  By the same token, recognizing the leaders, without recognizing the subordinates who did the work, causes friction, resentment, and encourages further separation between (Wing/Region) and the subordinate organization.

Actually we do. It depends on the reviewer. I have seen basically the same act done twice, one got an Exceptional Service Award and the other a ComCom. The narrative on one 120 was strong and the other was weak.

If it depends on the reviewer it is not standardized

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

[SarDragon]

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

That depends entirely on the task. Different people have different aptitudes and talents.

I know folks who are really smart who can't follow simple instructions on how to do things with a computer. Mostly it's because they don't really want to learn, and can usually find another sucker to do it. But some folks just "don't get it" in certain areas.

[Alaric]

It does not seem from a rank and file members point of view, that Wing leadership is committed to recognizing its volunteers

I thought that at one time too. But the way it is, is different Wing Commanders have different expectations. Some give out awards freely and others email a "thank you" and that is it. We do have "OTY" awards but then some Squadron Commanders overlook that too.

In closing I would say, it is what it is ... 

Regardless of their expectations, if they are being recognized, they should be smart enough to flow it down.  Were I king for a day, I would reply all Commanders regardless of level to take IS-244 (Managing and Recognizing Volunteers) or a similar course.

AND ... 

If you give everyone a ComCom then it really does not mean anything. When I was at Group I had a Squadron Commander who had twelve (12) Cadets and he put each one in for a ComCom. Why? Because on his son's little league team everyone got a trophy so why not in CAP?   

I would agree, I'd love to see standardized award criteria.  By the same token, recognizing the leaders, without recognizing the subordinates who did the work, causes friction, resentment, and encourages further separation between (Wing/Region) and the subordinate organization.

Actually we do. It depends on the reviewer. I have seen basically the same act done twice, one got an Exceptional Service Award and the other a ComCom. The narrative on one 120 was strong and the other was weak.

If it depends on the reviewer it is not standardized

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

That is totally based on the task and the aptitudes of the individuals, I know Ph.Ds who have absolutely no practical skills and H.S. dropouts who could build you a house.  Sorry if you're ignorant enough to believe that academic degree = aptitude; that's sort of like saying CAP grade = competence.

[SarDragon]

That is totally based on the task and the aptitudes of the individuals, I know Ph.Ds who have absolutely no practical skills and H.S. dropouts who could build you a house.  Sorry if you're ignorant enough to believe that academic degree = aptitude; that's sort of like saying CAP grade = competence.

Ah, but CAP grade does indicate competence, at something. Maybe not always at CAP specific things, but something. Could be as a pilot, or a lawyer, or as a military officer, or even as a CAP staff officer. This extends to cadets, too. They become competent at increasingly more difficult and complex aspects of the cadet program.

As members increase in grade, their competence increases, until they fulfill the Peter Principle, a proposition that states that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."

[Alaric]

That is totally based on the task and the aptitudes of the individuals, I know Ph.Ds who have absolutely no practical skills and H.S. dropouts who could build you a house.  Sorry if you're ignorant enough to believe that academic degree = aptitude; that's sort of like saying CAP grade = competence.

Ah, but CAP grade does indicate competence, at something. Maybe not always at CAP specific things, but something. Could be as a pilot, or a lawyer, or as a military officer, or even as a CAP staff officer. This extends to cadets, too. They become competent at increasingly more difficult and complex aspects of the cadet program.

As members increase in grade, their competence increases, until they fulfill the Peter Principle, a proposition that states that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."

Being a member of the corporate world I am familiar with the Peter Principle, I should have said CAP Grade = CAP Competence, just because you are a CFII, doesn't make you knowledgeable about CAP

[SARDOC]

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

That depends entirely on the task. Different people have different aptitudes and talents.

I know folks who are really smart who can't follow simple instructions on how to do things with a computer. Mostly it's because they don't really want to learn, and can usually find another sucker to do it. But some folks just "don't get it" in certain areas.

I usually find that if you give the Harvard grad the manual and the task, they sometimes tend to overthink the task and focus way too much time focusing on rewriting the manual than the task that was assigned.

The Eighth grade education guy is going to do the task to the best of their ability, which might not enough to satisfy the task.

Ultimately, the different people have different aptitudes and talents is the absolute point.  Know your audience.

[Private Investigator]

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

That depends entirely on the task. Different people have different aptitudes and talents.

I know folks who are really smart who can't follow simple instructions on how to do things with a computer. Mostly it's because they don't really want to learn, and can usually find another sucker to do it. But some folks just "don't get it" in certain areas.

I usually find that if you give the Harvard grad the manual and the task, they sometimes tend to overthink the task and focus way too much time focusing on rewriting the manual than the task that was assigned.

The Eighth grade education guy is going to do the task to the best of their ability, which might not enough to satisfy the task.

Ultimately, the different people have different aptitudes and talents is the absolute point.  Know your audience.

Well one good example is; Facebook and a phone number written on a match book cover. Guess which one was done by the 8th grade education guy?   

[Alaric]

I can give two people a manual and tell them to do the identical task. Who will do better, a Harvard grad, magnum cum laude or a person with an 8th grade education? Saavy 

That depends entirely on the task. Different people have different aptitudes and talents.

I know folks who are really smart who can't follow simple instructions on how to do things with a computer. Mostly it's because they don't really want to learn, and can usually find another sucker to do it. But some folks just "don't get it" in certain areas.

I usually find that if you give the Harvard grad the manual and the task, they sometimes tend to overthink the task and focus way too much time focusing on rewriting the manual than the task that was assigned.

The Eighth grade education guy is going to do the task to the best of their ability, which might not enough to satisfy the task.

Ultimately, the different people have different aptitudes and talents is the absolute point.  Know your audience.

Well one good example is; Facebook and a phone number written on a match book cover. Guess which one was done by the 8th grade education guy?   

Without details your example makes no sense.  I have Facebook and I have written a phone number on a matchbook.  I also have a Master's Degree and a Phi Beta Kappa Key from my Undergraduate days, so el punto es?