Staff Assignments

[Larry Mangum]

I ask this question, because I see a lot of comments on captalk about how people who server at the wing or a higher level are only there for their own glory.  I have worked at the squadron, wing and region levels and have seen hard chargers at all levels. I have served at the wing level as a Supply Officer, Emergency Services Director and Chief of Staff. At the Region level I have served as a Training Officer, Director of Information technology and now as the Assistant Director of Emergency Services.  At no time while serving at the wing or region level have I encounter a person on staff, who was in it for themself. I have run across such individuals at the squadron level.

When you get to that level, it is like being a squadron commander, for to run a successful program, it becomes another 40+ hour a week job.

[Larry Mangum]

If you have served on a wing or higher staff, can you please post what it is like for those who have not?  Explain what the rewards were and what the challenges here.

As a wing ES Director, I constantly struggled to develop qualified rated personnel, while trying to balance the expenditure of limited funds against SAREX's, proficiency flying, pilot clinic's, and schools.  High lights were the wing getting an Outstanding during an Eval, low points, were trying to get people to stay current or to send in necessary paperwork.

[RiverAux]

I've been part of Wing staff in various roles and can't say that anything about it is glorious.  The only perk seems to be that wing staff members are more likely to get the "of the year" awards at wing conference.  Not sure if that is because they're really that great or that not enough squadrons are submitting names for their to be a good competition. 

If you're on wing staff, be prepared to concentrate a lot on paperwork, especially if you've got a compliance inspection coming up. 

[FW]

Larry, in the 20 or so months I've contributed to CAP-TALK, I don't think anyone has seriously taken the stance that members serving at the "wing and above" levels are glory seekers.  

I've served at every level from squadron to NHQ.  The "work" has always been fun and challenging.  And, yes, many many hours.  I would say however, my current assignment is not that time consuming.  Maybe 10-20 hours a week, not counting NEC, NB and BOG meetings.  My colleagues are all hard workers and no one thinks of "glory"; just aspirin

I think every active member works hard at CAP, enjoys the work and, for the most part has some fun.

[Larry Mangum]

I agree, especially to the aspirin part.  There is an audience out there however within CapTalk that believes that wing or region hq's are where ideas go to die.  The sad thing is that while I have seen more than one good idea die at the wing level, it was almost always due to either a funding or lack of manpower to accomplish the goal.  My goal in writing this poll and the responses, was to hopefully open a dialogue with members, who have been told over and over again "Wing is a black hole, don't even bother communicating with them"  and let them see that wing headquarters have the same challenges that their units do.  Not enough people and tons of paperwork.

[Rotorhead]

If you have served on a wing or higher staff, can you please post what it is like for those who have not?  Explain what the rewards were and what the challenges here.

As Assistant Wing PAO, I have observed that the objective of Wing staff is (or should be) to make everyone else's job easier. A facilitator, in other words.

It is less doing of the job for which you hold the title than it is helping the squadron members with the same title get their job done.

[Camas]

Larry, in the 20 or so months I've contributed to CAP-TALK, I don't think anyone has seriously taken the stance that members serving at the "wing and above" levels are glory seekers. The "work" has always been fun and challenging.  And, yes, many many hours.  I would say however, my current assignment is not that time consuming. My colleagues are all hard workers and no one thinks of "glory"; just aspirin I think every active member works hard at CAP, enjoys the work and, for the most part has some fun.

I was recruited to my current wing assignment kicking and screaming. Okay - maybe not! But for my part I though it an honor to have been considered as there were those who felt I could handle the assignment. Joining the wing staff turned out to be a good decision on my part. I truly feel that I've been of assistance to units throughout my wing and I've had a great time with all of it. I've had the privilege of meeting and working with squadron-level members along with assisting with wing conferences and other activities such as SLS and CLC. I'm also a member of my wing's IG team so that's given me an appreciation of what's involved with other areas of CAP with which I don't necessarily specilize. Bottom line, my work at the wing level has been a very positive and rewarding experience.

[Chappie]

The rewards that I have seen from serving at Wing and Region levels is that it gives one more opportunities to serve...as well as opportunities to meet/network with some outstanding people.

[Capt Rivera]

I don't believe there is  a general feeling of this type... But I do believe that some individuals can set a bleak picture on a topic. The picture sticks longer and is more pron to be discussed.

IE the affect of one person at a given level acting in said self promoting way and others not correcting it, might make every person appear to share that self motivation, or at least condone it.

I think the biggest issue with correcting this train of thought is the lack of correcting a self promoter due to the feeling that no one else will do the job if he/she does not do it...

The other part could be a lack of transparency in the selection process.
-Jobs should be advertised in advanced if possible with a application close date set
-Jobs should have a term limit (automatically open for application again on X date)
--Don't make someone feel like - "I have this job till I die or find another job or get fired"
--Yes the current person can reapply
---Should not be automatically given to said individual. select the best person for the job at this time.

Hire assistants whenever possible!!!
-give clear expectations of an assistant for that specific job

[Larry Mangum]

The other part could be a lack of transparency in the selection process.
-Jobs should be advertised in advanced if possible with a application close date set
-Jobs should have a term limit (automatically open for application again on X date)
--Don't make someone feel like - "I have this job till I die or find another job or get fired"
--Yes the current person can reapply
---Should not be automatically given to said individual. select the best person for the job at this time.

Hire assistants whenever possible!!!
-give clear expectations of an assistant for that specific job

Most wing headquartes I have visited or been part of are so undermanned that the wing is lucky if they have half the needed staff positions filled.  I think it is getting better, now that it is possible to telecommute in some cases or conduct wing business reliably through eServices or conference calls. 

Think of how hard it is to keep up with  all of the paperwork at the squadron level; then  multiple that by the number of squadrons in a wing; then handle the load from all of the squadrons with the same number of people, who do so  in your squadron.  That is why wings become known as "black holes".

Wings need to be more flexible in how they recruit people.  The larger wings like Texas and California need to share their techniques for managing the wing, when it is not possible for all wing staffer to travel to wing every week.  They should be open enough to tell us what worked and what did not.

[AirAux]

One needs to remember that squadrons and individuals work missions and that everyone above the squadron level is there to support the squadrons and individuals under them.  It's not the other way around.  All upper levels should search for ways to shorten or decrease reports from lower units, not increase them.  Sometimes it appears that everyone at Group, Wing, and National thinks their area is of utmost importance.  Wing PAO requiring monthly PAO reports, even if negative reports, and the squadron not having a PAO officer, adds more problems and makes more work for the already overworked squadron commander..

[Larry Mangum]

While I agree that there is a lot of apparently unnecessary reports and paperwork generated at times, when you attempt to eliminate it, you often find out that there is a valid reason for that report.  Without PAO reports for example, how does the wing PAO, know that units are sending news about events to the local media?  If a unit is not sending articles to the local media it is probably not growing. After all how do people join a unit if they do not even know it exists?

Am I defending all the reports units above the squadron level ask for, well no, because some may no longer be valid or can be automatically obtained through other means such as WMIRS or eServices.

To answer your first statement, I have never met someone at the wing level or higher who thought the individuals and squadrons below the wing level existed to serve them, just the opposite. I would counter, that that if an individual or squadron feels that way, then wing has done a poor job of explaining why they need the report or paperwork.

[Chappie]

Wings need to be more flexible in how they recruit people.  The larger wings like Texas and California need to share their techniques for managing the wing, when it is not possible for all wing staffer to travel to wing every week.  They should be open enough to tell us what worked and what did not.

What worked for me was to:

1) use e-mail;
2) have everything sent to me for review, then I would send it to Wing HQ;
3) have an admin officer on my staff who could be at Wing HQ more frequently than I who would guide the paperwork through the proper channels;
4) have a good working relationship and line of communication with the Wing CC and COS.