December 02, 2020, 09:06:45 pm

Professional Development Changing Again

Started by culpeper, January 31, 2020, 02:53:40 pm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

There were a lot of people scrambling to get into the last (insert class here), especially RSC
before the sundowns and changes, I would guess that for most that plan is now "adjusted",
since even activities in later months are going to be impacted by this.

It will be interesting is NHQ extends the "pumpkin" date.



Hawk200

Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 pm....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

Eclipse

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 pmThat feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Yes is does, probably by design.  That's how it works in the military services
of which the grade is an affectation.

Serve at the unit, rise to Captain, smile for your retirement photo.
Why is this a problem?

Aspire to more?  Wave goodbye to the squadron, serve at a larger scope,
smile for your retirement photo.

Miss your buds at Flyover Composite?  You're welcome to come back, just without the
bottle caps.

The only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.



NovemberWhiskey

Even under the current framework, it was already tacitly the case that you had to operate above squadron level to reach Level 4 / promote Maj.

You have to staff a wing-level conference, and the requirement for the Master rating in a specialty track often brings in similar requirements. e.g. Communications specialty track requires planning and conducting a group-or-higher level exercise; ES specialty track requires an 18 month wing-level staff assignment in an ES role.

dwb

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 08:59:10 pmThe only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.

It's not broken! In what universe does "up or out" make sense for CAP?

There is a window of time you can enter the armed forces, and there is a window of time where you can serve. Once those windows have passed, it's over. The modal case is people entering between ages 18-25.

You can become a CAP senior member on your 18th birthday and stay until you're 108. Or you can discover it and join for the first time in your 60s. Or anywhere in between. Up or out doesn't make sense for our use case, but it hardly means CAP's rank system is broken.

etodd

Imagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

Holding Pattern

Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 pmImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL

It's called CERT. Go for it.

Holding Pattern

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 pm....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.

Eclipse

April 13, 2020, 10:14:14 pm #88 Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 10:17:45 pm by Eclipse
Quote from: dwb on April 13, 2020, 09:24:27 pm
Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2020, 08:59:10 pmThe only thing still broken is CAP doesn't have "up or out", which is why the
grade model makes no sense, and never will.

It's not broken! In what universe does "up or out" make sense for CAP?

The same one where Bird Colonels are reporting to Captains, and NCOs exist for "reasons".

Quote from: dwb on April 13, 2020, 09:24:27 pmUp or out doesn't make sense for our use case, but it hardly means CAP's rank system is broken.

The lack of "up or out" literally defines the reason why CAP's grade structure was broken
the day they disconnected it from any actual authority.

Perhaps "up or out", per se isn't a workable model when the organization intends for people to
join when they are 12 and literally never leave, but frankly I can see from this side of the 20-year fence
why "up or out" isn't such a bad idea.  It puts limits and time pressure on performance, reduces the
irrelevant but still bizarre appearance of 60 year old butter bars, and would force recruiting and
refreshment of the ranks.

With that said, perhaps the proper model is "up if you want promotion" (and demotion if you want to
go back down).  Yes, there would be ADY abuses, deal with the edge cases, but on the mean, everyone
would have something on their shoulder that at least kinda made sense.

With that model, members would be free to ignore PD that was unnecessary for their role, and focus
on Squadron operations and whatever their staff job is.

There is no perfect model because the "Military Affectation FieldĀ®" is too strong, but this would at least be better.

"Military Affectation FieldĀ®" is a registered trademark of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium.  All Rights Reserved.  Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!
Note: eClipseco is currently on reduced hours of operation during the Covoid 19 Pandemic, please be patient as we work to serve your rhetorical needs!



PHall

Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 pmImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL
Quote from: etodd on April 13, 2020, 09:54:30 pmImagine a CAP without a ranking system. Where we just have duties and positions. Want to be a Squadron manager? Here are the experience requirements and training it takes to be one. Start off as assistant manager. Would be simpler.  Wing Manager? must be a Squadron Manager first. Etc.

Imagine a CAP without uniforms. Would eliminate 90% of the online bickering and threads. What we would talk about? Missions and jobs?

Simplicity.

But yes, none of you would like it.  Just pondering for a moment. LOL


That's what the Coast Guard Auxiliary does. If that system appeals to you then maybe the Coast Guard Aux may be more to your liking.

etodd

Quote from: PHall on April 13, 2020, 11:56:10 pmThat's what the Coast Guard Auxiliary does. If that system appeals to you then maybe the Coast Guard Aux may be more to your liking.

Nah. I'm happy to be here.  Just noting that those two things seem to be the most contentious items among membership. Rank and uniform. Nearly everyone has a gripe about those things in one form or another. Imagine not having those two issues in CAPTalk.  It would be quiet ....
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO - ESO

sUAS MP - sUAS Instructor - sUAS Check Pilot

Hawk200

Quote from: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 10:01:18 pm
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 pm....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.

Yeah, I did acknowledge those.

NOT being productive goes against my nature. (Which is why I'm slowly going mad right now.)

I'd do the work. I want to do it the right way, according to appropriate publications, and don't want anyone impeding me. I've seen some good people go to wing, and end up quitting because they basically weren't allowed to do the job right. (Which, to be honest, is probably my biggest fear.)

Seems like most groups don't do as much as I feel like they should. The Group commanders I dealt with tried to wield power that wasn't really theirs, or the one who blocked any promotion higher than himself. (He'd been a Captain for over ten years, couldn't promote because he didn't get ECI 13 done.)

Maybe I'm just cautious about the horror stories, but don't see much about higher headquarters making anyone a better officer.

PHall

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 01:50:54 am
Quote from: Holding Pattern on April 13, 2020, 10:01:18 pm
Quote from: Hawk200 on April 13, 2020, 08:14:44 pm
Quote from: slicek38 on March 10, 2020, 04:50:12 pm....
Note: In order to achieve Level-5, the new requirement is that a member must be in a staff position for at least 3 years, with a minimum of ONE YEAR AT THE GROUP-LEVEL OR HIGHER.

That feels like a lock out. Don't go higher than squadron, you don't promote.

Higher level does not necessarily grant some type of education or experience that can't be gained otherwise. Dealt with a number of useless types at group and wing before that shouldn't have even been there. Of course, knew a few that wanted to get out of there, but couldn't and were too dedicated to leave. (Eventually, they burned out and did.)

Oh well. Guess I'll try an upper job for a year, go back to a unit.

FWIW, I know plenty of people that have sat at wing and done absolutely nothing for a year. You could literally choose something like Assistant to X and have to send 10 emails and attend 3 web meetings.

There is no requirement to be PRODUCTIVE, sadly.

Yeah, I did acknowledge those.

NOT being productive goes against my nature. (Which is why I'm slowly going mad right now.)

I'd do the work. I want to do it the right way, according to appropriate publications, and don't want anyone impeding me. I've seen some good people go to wing, and end up quitting because they basically weren't allowed to do the job right. (Which, to be honest, is probably my biggest fear.)

Seems like most groups don't do as much as I feel like they should. The Group commanders I dealt with tried to wield power that wasn't really theirs, or the one who blocked any promotion higher than himself. (He'd been a Captain for over ten years, couldn't promote because he didn't get ECI 13 done.)

Maybe I'm just cautious about the horror stories, but don't see much about higher headquarters making anyone a better officer.

Totally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?

Hawk200



Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 02:42:16 amTotally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?

Assistant wouldn't bother me, as long as I'm doing useful work.

Not a fan of going to a Director position immediately, anyway. Got to learn stuff first. Trial by fire is not a good way to start a position. You can wreck a good program pretty quick. I certainly don't want to be one to do that.

Maybe I hate the idea of moving to wing and never going back. I like to be involved where things happen.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk


PHall

Quote from: Hawk200 on April 14, 2020, 04:25:43 am
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 02:42:16 amTotally depends on what your position is. Are you the Director or an Assistant?

Assistant wouldn't bother me, as long as I'm doing useful work.

Not a fan of going to a Director position immediately, anyway. Got to learn stuff first. Trial by fire is not a good way to start a position. You can wreck a good program pretty quick. I certainly don't want to be one to do that.

Maybe I hate the idea of moving to wing and never going back. I like to be involved where things happen.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk



Nothing says you have to move to wing and do wing stuff only.
I would say the vast majority of wing staff positions in California Wing are filled by people who are doing it IOAD, In Addition to Other Duties. And I've seen this in other wings as well too.
They do their wing job and still participate in the local squadron too.
There's only a few positions like Chief of Staff and Director of Operations and jobs like that that are really "Full Time" positions. The rest are at best part time positions.

TheSkyHornet

Being a squadron commander isn't a prerequisite for any other staff position, just as any other staff position isn't a prerequisite for being a commander. There are always pros and cons to each.

You can go from being a professional development officer to emergency services officer to wing staff to chief of staff to wing commander, just as in the military you can go from being a platoon sergeant, earn a commission, become an operations officer, become an executive officer for a company, move into being the executive officer for a battalion, and be appointed the battalion commander.

There are preferred qualifications and experience, but those aren't necessarily doctrine. You don't want to corner yourself into "Must have" and then you don't have people who have that resume.

Spam

Boy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Vr
Spam

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 pmBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."

PHall

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 pm
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 pmBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."


And many of those "we really need someone" cases don't end well.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2020, 06:42:03 pm
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on April 14, 2020, 05:01:18 pm
Quote from: Spam on April 14, 2020, 03:56:16 pmBoy I sure wouldn't pick a Wing Commander (or a BN Commander) who had never held any prior command. I hope I'm not reading that into your suggested experience flow. I would agree with your other points though.

Didn't say I support that notion. But writing it into stone removes flexibility in cases of "We really need someone."


And many of those "we really need someone" cases don't end well.

Major truth. Colonel truth even.

But it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or the person who doesn't meet the normally-expected criteria is a better candidate than those that might.

Being a commander doesn't mean you were a good commander.