A Commission?

[Dragoon]

I believe that the argument "everyone deserves to get promoted" is how we got to the system we have today, with all of its warts.

Imagine if the real military worked that way - every 2d Lt  regardless of job, talent or ambition deserves to be an Lt Col by taking some classes and hanging around.

It sure would make every officer happier, and that's what it's all about, right?



Seriously, we ARE different than the military.  But that's an argument to not use their grade structure at all.

But if we want to be LIKE the military, and gain their understanding and respect, it makes sense to stick as closely to their model as we can.  Using rank as a sign of education is not exactly the USAF way.  Not by a long stretch.  Military rank denotes responsibility and authority.

At some level we know this, and that's why we reserve the grades 0-6 and above to guys serving in critical positions.

Otherwise, don't I deserve to be CAP two star general just by taking courses and hanging around?


I understand the concept of the guys who live far from Wing.  But truthfully, if we want to be like the real military, or more specifically, like the real part time military (NG and Reserve) we have to accept that in order to promote you need a job at that level.  And if that involves a lengthy commute, so be it.  And if some guys choose not to promote because the commute is too far, so bit it.

The grade could either be temporary (which solves grade inversion) or only made permanent after successful completion of a full tour in an appropriate job (which would decrease grade inversion compared to today).

Or we can just stick with the box top system we have now.  Fine by me - I've got all the boxtops.

But what's right for me may not be the best thing for the organization.

I believe in giving every possible tool to the guy who's stepped up to the plate and volunteered to do the hard job.  I believe in motivating experienced guys to keep doing the hard jobs.  Grade, used correctly, helps in both of these areas.

While human nature may always value experience over grade, don't negate the conditioning value of having to call your boss sir and salute him, regardless of your experience.  This is one of the ways the military uses to reinforce the Lt's authority over the mid grade NCO.  When you're the new guy, every little bit helps.

Plus, since most people love to be on the receiving end , rather than the giving end of the salutes, it might motivate more folks to get out of their comfort zone and volunteer to do the hard work that needs doing.

Again, I believe that both of these effects are why CAP so jealously guards eagles and stars - to give the top guys seniority over the rest of us, and to motivate more good candidates to strive for those jobs.  One would think we could get a similar effect below the Wing CC level by jealously guarding other officer grades as well.

[Falshrmjgr]

Hmmm seems to me that if you don't think that rank should matter, go join an organization that doesn't use a military model.  And oh, by the way, nice example for the cadets.  These are the lessons that they carry with them.

But if you think it should matter, let's figure out a way to maximize the value it brings to an organization, not just treat the rank worn like so many baubles to be handed out.

Its not just a question of recruiting and retention, its a question of QUALITY recruiting and retention.  You make it matter, you retain better people.  You up the quality, you get better missions.  Seems like a pretty simple formula to me.

Is everyone gonna get everything they want?  Not if we are doing things right.  The real question here, and on the related NCO thread is this:

Should CAP do things better to accomplish our mission to the nation?

If the answer is yes (which I believe it is) then how can we effect that change that will maximize the value of the return on investment?  If we cook up some sacred cows in the progress, so be it.  But I for one believe that as an Auxiliary of our nation's military, we need to embrace our military culture.  Not cast aside the value of that culture because it seems difficult, or because "we're civilians and it doesn't really matter."

Now, I will admit that I don't know what the magic formula is, but I know when we get closer and I know when we move further away.  Doing away with rank is the wrong direction.  Making rank meaningful is the RIGHT direction.

So how do we do it?  Start with the military as our baseline.  Figure out what we CAN do to follow it's example.  Deviate when we HAVE to, and for good reason.  Re-evaluate those decisions over time, and correct as needed.

Our priority of emulation should be as follows:

1.  USAF
2.  Other DoD Branches
3.  Civilian Agencies with similar missions
4.  Friendly Foreign Militaries.
5.  Other high performing organizations.

That is NOT to say that original ideas are bad either.  Just that at the end of the day, we have a duty, not only to the nation, and ourselves, but for those who come after.  We need to do things the best way we can.  That will be our legacy.

And just for the record, I agree with Kach:  You may not be legally COMPELLED to followed the orders of those appointed over you, but you sure as heck should be culturally compelled to do so.  And if you find that onerous, you need to find something else to do.

[Short Field]

  You may not be legally COMPELLED to followed the orders of those appointed over you, but you sure as heck should be culturally compelled to do so.  And if you find that onerous, you need to find something else to do.

When I find things in the squadron that onerous, I normally do find something else to do.  They tend to realize I am pissed about something when I cut the days I work in the squadron each week in half and don't volunteer to help run mission base on the next SAREX.  Yes, it might be their game - but it IS my ball and I can go home any time I want.   

I am a VOLUNTEER - and will be treated with the respect a volunteer in a volunteer organization deserves.   If people who feel the need to COMPEL volunteers to do things instead of using their leadership ability to positively motivate the volunteers find that onerous, then they need to find an organization that doesn't use VOLUNTEERS. 

Just FYI - granted we have a VOLUNTEER force in the RM, however, once you sign the papers and take the oath, you CEASE  to be a VOLUNTEER for the term of that contract - and maybe longer depending on the needs of the service.

[Short Field]

All organizations have two types of leadership - formal and informal.  In the RM, the formal leadership is always the chain of command - and the people in it are always hand-picked by their chain of command.  The informal leadership may be the almost senior NCO, that old passed over Lt Col in the corner, or a super sharp Capt - always decided on by informal and unspoken group consensus.  The best organizations are the ones where the formal and informal leadership are the same people.  Good formal leaders try hard to become the informal leader by winning the respect of their people.

CAP is very different from the RM.   I never saw a RM unit where a former commander was still in it (not counting the few who were stashed away in a vacant office awaiting orders, getting ready to retire, just got fired, or were facing charges).   Most CAP squadrons have numerous former CAP squadron commanders as active members - and possibly a few wing commanders as well.  That automatically creates a very large body of informal leaders whose opinions a smart formal leader is going to pay very close attention to – because his unit is going to be paying attention to them as well.    Unless CAP is going to cull the former commanders out of the units like the RM does, it doesn't matter what rank the current commander has or the former commanders currently wear.   

[Dragoon]

CAP is very different from the RM.   I never saw a RM unit where a former commander was still in it (not counting the few who were stashed away in a vacant office awaiting orders, getting ready to retire, just got fired, or were facing charges).   Most CAP squadrons have numerous former CAP squadron commanders as active members - and possibly a few wing commanders as well.  That automatically creates a very large body of informal leaders whose opinions a smart formal leader is going to pay very close attention to – because his unit is going to be paying attention to them as well.    Unless CAP is going to cull the former commanders out of the units like the RM does, it doesn't matter what rank the current commander has or the former commanders currently wear.   

You're absolutley right that having former bigwigs hanging around affects the interpersonal/decision making dynamic.  They may work for you now, but you both know that you used to work for them.  This is not something CAP can completely correct.

But.

I think the concept of position based grade does help make this a bit better.

First, it makes the old guy salute the new guy and call him "sir".  Much like the formal change of command ceremony, this reinforces to everyone in the unit who's in charge.  And every time the old guy salutes the new guy, it reinforces to HIM that he's no longer in charge, and that he owes his full obediance to the new commander, even when he disagrees.

Second, if the old guy liked his rank, he might be more interested in moving up to Group or Wing if that was the only way to keep wearing it.  This would have some the the "culling" effect you you mention above.  We need more of our talent working hard at the higher levels if we ever want a better CAP. 

[Eclipse]

The old guy should call the new guy "sir" because he's the commander, and the new guy should call the old guy "sir" because he out ranks him.  The example shoudl be set by both.

"Sir" is not a 4-letter word.

[Dragoon]

Well, under today's rules the commander calls the old guy "sir", and the old guy can call the  commander "Bob".

It might be nice if he used a more polite term of address, but that ain't what  the CAPP requires. 

"Sir" is certainly not a four letter word, but in the military it's a sign of deference.  As a lieutenant, a wise sergeant broke me of the habit of referring to subordinates as "sir."  I was trying to be polite and respectful, but it became clear that the word has a very particular meaning in the military - it means "you can tell me what to do."

It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

[Eclipse]

It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

Deference to a subordinate is not the same thing as being polite or courteous.  I am both to my subordinates who have a higher grade, but I don't leave any room for doubt as to who is in charge.

The RealMilitary® seems to be able to deal with this situation, as it is not unheard of, especially in reserve and Guard units, I think we can.

The authority imbued in RealMilitary® grade assumes a standard of training, execution, performance, and responsibility you simply will never achieve in a volunteer environment where a large percentage of the members, including commanders and leaders, have t-shirt that says "you're lucky I showed up at all..".

The reality is, in a lot of cases, that is a true statement.

[Dragoon]

It simply doesn't pass the common sense test for a unit commander to defer to a subordinate - it should be the other way round.    Again, if we want to be military, we're missing a key part of the military culture - the authority inherent in grade.

Deference to a subordinate is not the same thing as being polite or courteous.  I am both to my subordinates who have a higher grade, but I don't leave any room for doubt as to who is in charge.

The RealMilitary® seems to be able to deal with this situation, as it is not unheard of, especially in reserve and Guard units, I think we can.

The authority imbued in RealMilitary® grade assumes a standard of training, execution, performance, and responsibility you simply will never achieve in a volunteer environment where a large percentage of the members, including commanders and leaders, have t-shirt that says "you're lucky I showed up at all..".

The reality is, in a lot of cases, that is a true statement.

Thank you for cluing me in on how the Real Military works.

But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?  In other words why would we say "I'm sorry, you're too screwed up to wear fake railroad tracks, but we're willing to trust you to command a unit." ??

This, of course, is insanity.  If the guy's that bad, the correct answer is to get someone better, or shut down the unit.  (Note, I know CAP doesn't do this right now - but that's another problem we need to fix)

But if you are willing to trust the guy with the responsibility and authority of a captain's job, why wouldn't you give him the symbol of the office?

If folks want rank to be real - this is a critical part.  The guy with the rank is in charge.  If you're not the guy in charge - you don't need the rank.

By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

[Eclipse]

But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?

Because he or she is the onlyh person willing to do the job, and in the abcense of that person stepping up, the unit folds.

By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.

Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?

[Dragoon]

But that said, if a guy is too clueless to be a Captain, why the heck should CAP make him a squadron commander?

Because he or she is the onlyh person willing to do the job, and in the abcense of that person stepping up, the unit folds.

I believe I specifically addressed that as a CAP problem in the same post - if we want a professional organzation, we should not allow incompetents to command.  Better to have no unit than an embarassing unit.

By the way, can you please provide me with the designation of a military unit and it's location where you know that a officer is assigned to supervise and rate officers senior in grade to him on a regular basis (and not for a short duration task force - we're talking for a real unit assignment)  I've never actually seen that happen.  If you have, I'd like to call that unit and find out what's up.

I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.

Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?
[/quote]

I'm still waiting for a specific unit and name so I can check this out. War stories don't count.

I believe the situation your state director referred to concerned a specific short duration temporary thing, as in "Okay everyone, Captain X is flying lead today."  That happens.  And that's alot like CAP in ES - where you choose temporary leaders based on things other than grade.

But that's not the same as "Hey Colonel, Captain X is your commander.  He'll give you orders and write your evaluation report."

I'm not saying it doesn't happen somewhere - but honestly I've never, ever seen it.  Not in 21 years of doing this stuff full time.  So I'm interested in verifying it's existence myself.  My guess is that if it does occur, either (1) it's such a wacky situation that it's not something CAP should be emulating or (2) it occurs so verrrry infrequently as to be an aberration, and is not something CAP should be emulating.

But I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Standing by.....

[DogCollar]

Well, I've now read all 9 pages of this thread, and in my own pea brain, I don't see a workable solution between grade and position.  I would submit, that the importance of grade should be maintained in the cadet ranks and between senior member and cadet.  The senior member side of things, when no cadets are hanging around, the model that might best work is the model of professional collegiality.  We recognize one another as volunteers with gifts, talents and training for the good of the "cause."  I don't see how the RealMilitayr grade structure can work among senior members.

[SAR-EMT1]

Would the matter of a CAP Commission - such as might be signed by the Air Force, be acceptable to everyone if the commission were worded as such to name us simply as CAP Officers, and not necessarily a CAP 2nd lt, Capt, lt Col
Or if it did, to merely remove the phrase "obey the orders of superior officers" ...

just thinking.

To me, something like this, from the Air Force would mean a heck of alot, and I wouldnt confuse it to mean I have power or authority, that I shouldnt have.

.........................

To answer another bit, Dragoon, back when the Navy Reserve was called up for Gulf War One, I know for a fact that some  Reservists were setup in "assistant" posistions - such as JOOD- under some lower ranking AD personnel.

[RiverAux]

EMT, that would be perfectly reasonable, but the folks pushing the commission issue seem to actually be interested in transforming the nature of CAP entirely, so I doubt it would satisfy them. 

[Dragoon]

To answer another bit, Dragoon, back when the Navy Reserve was called up for Gulf War One, I know for a fact that some  Reservists were setup in "assistant" posistions - such as JOOD- under some lower ranking AD personnel.

I'd call that a crisis situation, not normal ops.  The question remains, is anyone doing it right now.  Someone's gotta be -it's a pretty big DoD out there.  But I've yet to find such a setup.

[Dragoon]

Would the matter of a CAP Commission - such as might be signed by the Air Force, be acceptable to everyone if the commission were worded as such to name us simply as CAP Officers, and not necessarily a CAP 2nd lt, Capt, lt Col
Or if it did, to merely remove the phrase "obey the orders of superior officers" ...

just thinking.

To me, something like this, from the Air Force would mean a heck of alot, and I wouldnt confuse it to mean I have power or authority, that I shouldnt have.

I think this is a fine idea.   Of course, we'd have to get by the "we're only USAF Aux part of the time" problem.  Proper wording might get us there.

[Dragoon]

Well, I've now read all 9 pages of this thread, and in my own pea brain, I don't see a workable solution between grade and position.  I would submit, that the importance of grade should be maintained in the cadet ranks and between senior member and cadet.  The senior member side of things, when no cadets are hanging around, the model that might best work is the model of professional collegiality.  We recognize one another as volunteers with gifts, talents and training for the good of the "cause."  I don't see how the RealMilitayr grade structure can work among senior members.

There seem to be at least semi-workable alternatives to the way we do things today.  All have good and bad points.

1.  Use USAF grade and tie it to position.  Since we can't order folks to serve at a given level, officer grade would be rather temporary.  But at least the guys in charge will have the highest rank - just like in USAF.  Upsets people who want grade without work, feel they deserve to be promoted to the top regardless ability to serve in high level jobs (for reasons like long commutes), or feel that they should be able to hang looking important and resting on past laurels without working hard any more.

2.  Award permanent grade only AFTER completing a tour in a job at the appropriate level.  This is the current system for Wing CC's and above.  This wouldn't ensure that the guy in charge has the most grade.  But it would at least insure some appropriate level of performance out of those with grade, which would raise the quality of our officers.  Same complaints as #1, except it allows for resting on past laurels.

3.  Use a non-USAF grade system which specifially denotes experience and training, but doesn't involve any deference (saluting, "sir", etc).  Keeps things collegial, it's easy to train, and it avoids comparisions with USAF officers.  Keeps incentive to do PD.   Makes it easy to interact with the military (no grade confusion).   Upsets those who are hung up on being "real officers."

4.  Eliminate USAF grade.  Keep the uniforms, but wear them as USAF volunteer civilians.  Makes it easy to interact with the military (no grade confusion).  Decreases incentive to do PD.  Use position titles instead of grade  REALLY upsets those who are hung up on being real officers. 

And you can combine several alternatives.  I like a hybrid of #1 and #3 - flight officers for most, and temporary commissioned grade (based on position AND PD level) for current leaders.  I think #2 is the easiest sell.

We'll never do it the RM way - we are unpaid part timers who never really retire and move up and down the heirarchy throughout our "careers."  The RM doesn't deal these issues.  But we could to a better job of using rank in fashion that reflects well on our parent service AND helps make a better functioning CAP.

[star1151]

I'm still waiting for a specific unit and name so I can check this out. War stories don't count.

According to a friend, he can top out as an O-4, maybe O-5 and stick around forever just flying and being commanded by an O-3.  I'm not mentioning the unit on a public board, but according to him, it DOES happen.

[Eclipse]

I believe the situation your state director referred to concerned a specific short duration temporary thing, as in "Okay everyone, Captain X is flying lead today."  That happens.  And that's alot like CAP in ES - where you choose temporary leaders based on things other than grade.

I asked the question specifically in reference to the exact situation of permanently assigned personnel in "real" unit situations.  We have discussed this more than once and his response has always been the same.

I do not have a specific unit number for you to call and confirm, sorry.

Edited for tone.

[Short Field]

[I've discussed this exact senario on numerous occasions with our State Dir, who is also an O-5 reservist and F15 pilot, and he has indicated that it is not unusual for older pilots, not on a command track, to be commanded in a flying squadron by Capt's, etc., that has been backed up by statements of others here and elsewhere.
Hmmmm... that sounds lot like CAP, doesn't it?

As a 1st Lt, I had a Capt assigned to me for almost a year.  I didn't write or sign his fitness report, but I was the Chief and he was one of several that worked for me.  I was always polite, and he always did what I asked.

Years later, I had numerous reservists assigned to my team - I was the team leader.  I remember chewing out a O-6 one night for seriously screwing up an action request.  I gave him a direct order to NEVER pick up a phone again - and he didn't.   

So it is not just a CAP issue.   By the way, I outrank our squadron commander.  I call him "Sir" in public and salute him first at meetings.  In private, I use his first name - and am quite free with my opinions.