Did you get an exit interview/questionnaire? Don’t think I ever asked!
I did not; just a letter saying goodbye.
An exit interview would suggest that the big wigs give a monkeys on what we have to say.
3 Likes
@JoeBloggs with Cab now being tagged in, I thought I’d share a little further. This is all stuff we’ve discussed before, but IMHO it goes a long way to demonstrate where there are failings that can be fixed to improve retention.
My experience of the short time I spent with RAFAC this time around:
- Given OiC a week after commission, but absolutely zero training, no discussion of expectations of the role, no option to ask other CFAVs to support despite only having 1 other CFAV on squadron. Support from Wing CFAVs was very low, and the support that was received wasn’t always clear.
- After building the squadron up again, and genuinely preventing a squadron held in high esteem from closure, I had to step back due to work commitments. All of the times Wing had essentially blackmailed me into putting the squadron ahead of my paid job (by, for example, demanding that I was there to meet contractors who would only operate during office hours) had just gotten to be too much. The squadron had a stable core CFAV team of 6 at this point, more than doubled cadet numbers, and had a new CivCom (it didn’t have one when I took over).
- With all the above, plus the increase in workload from paid work and the stress of receiving an eviction notice, I went NEP. We had a BBQ on squadron as my goodbye and I received some kind gifts from the cadets, but no thank you from above at all.
- At no point during the 3 months that I was NEP did anyone from RAFAC conduct any kind of welfare check, despite me being very open about my reasons and them indicating a high probability of potential mental health concerns. When I went to take myself off NEP a Wing CFAV even commented that they “didn’t expect to see me again”
- Whilst I did start parading again (at another unit, as I was informed by Wing that they wouldn’t accept me volunteering at the unit I had rebuilt), my previous experience meant I limited the time I gave. I estimate I was volunteering for less than 20% of the time I had given before.
- When I quit earlier this year, I was genuinely and seriously touched by the response of some of the cadets. A few very firm handshakes and a few years actually made me realise the positive impact I’d been able to give, in spite of (and not because of) support from on high.
- Excluding the goodbye letter from HQAC, the only comms I received from anyone involved in RAFAC was a WhatsApp message asking me to send that person a photo of my chopped up MOD 90.
An organisation that cares about its people and wants to ensure that it improves would implement a continuous improvement culture that gives adequate mechanisms for feedback. Exit interviews and check-ins for NEP CFAVs could be the very first way to begin working towards this culture, but whilst they don’t exist on any kind of consistent basis I must conclude that the organisation, despite the positive engagement from Cab, that all of the wording in the right direction is an absolute load of tosh. If it wasn’t, we’d already be seeing the actions to match the wording, instead of seeing a record decline in adult volunteering within the org.
From my first stint within the ATC, I know that squadron volunteers at that time felt supported and as though the functions up on high were enablers of delivery. I’d really love to know when, why and how the flip to the current system happened.
@Cab - your engagement here is a positive step in the right direction and I commend you for stepping into the lions den, but I must now challenge you to demonstrate your caring for the people on the coal face that go beyond writing pleasant things on a forum
7 Likes
This should be a primary function of the sector commanders written within their job spec, it’s not difficult or hard to pick up a phone, not just drop an e-mail or WhatsApp. Words have resonance
2 Likes
Absolutely agree; my point with including this theme is aimed at HQ ensuring there are assurance checks taking place for such items. Evidently, it can’t be concluded that this is happening.
To put it into Project Management terminology, the sector commanders are responsible, but HQAC is ultimately accountable.
4 Likes
@Cab
Sir, you might want to get your IT people to amend the No.22 Group page on the RAF website. This bit;
Personnel
22 Group directly employs 3,800 military and 1,900 civilian personnel. The Air Cadet Organisation has approximately 41,000 cadets and 12,000 adult volunteers.
Since 2840 CFAV (24%) have walked away, it should now read;
Personnel
22 Group directly employs 3,800 military and 1,900 civilian personnel. The Air Cadet Organisation has approximately 41,000 cadets and 9,160 adult volunteers.
1 Like
Is it ACO or RAFAC?
So many different names still being used.
Mad the number of people and places that still use ACO. It’s been years since we changed that.
3 Likes
ACO was dropped in favour of RAFAC a clear decade ago.
Oh i know.
But people on here still refer to ACO. 22 Grp still refers to ACO.
Well of it was a decade ago isn’t it due refresh & perhaps for a rebrand back 
1 Like
It is obvious to me that everyone in this thread is hugely passionate about the organisation but it makes for some depressing reading. IMHO, any well led volunteer organisation needs to do 4 things well to succeed. Attraction, Recruitment, Training, and Retention.
These four simple headings are actually in the wrong order, retention should be first. Because if you don’t get that correct, the work you do on the other areas is wasted. In this thread I think I have seen abject failure in all of the areas, at varying levels. The coming months offer an opportunity for change that I feel is desperately needed.
The first thing everyone needs to acknowledge is that this is largely a volunteer organisation. Without those volunteers, the organisation fails and their time is discretionary and the organisation has to earn that through several mechanisms. Too many to mention, but ‘reward’ is a method and I don’t mean VA here. Also feeling valued is something that is very personal but mechanisms to thank people for going above and beyond aren’t difficult to implement.
What’s needed is whole scale review of everything. Focus on changing what’s not working now, before implementing anything new. A structure change is something I’d advocate for, a Senior CFAV that actually leads the organisation, not a ceremonial role, supported by regional Senior CFAVs. They would be an integral part of the command board. Valued equals with a voice and seat at the table. This will deepen understanding of the challenges on both the RAF and RAFAC sides, improving communication, trust, and starting to change that top down culture of parent-child.
This needs to be run like in most aspects as a volunteer organisation and not a branch of the military. I’ve been outside the military for many years and worked in corporate management alongside leading change in national volunteer organisations. There needs to be a realisation that the current system isn’t working. This isn’t because of the risk appetite of Cab as some have mentioned; I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this is skewed from any corporate norm. There will always be somewhere the ‘buck stops’ and it’s entirely correct that person sets the boundaries. But little of what’s been suggested as push factors in this thread relate to that risk appetite. It’s appears to be the mechanisms which are problems that can be solved.
RAFAC isn’t the only volunteer organisation to be seeing a decline in volunteer numbers. There has been a significant shift in how volunteering is viewed by many. GenZ are particularly fickle in how they used their discretionary time and volunteering for uniformed organisations isn’t necessarily top of the list, or on it at all. This is why we need a review and rebrand of the organisation to reflect something that does attract capable and relevant volunteers that the cadets can relate to. I’m a 50 yo white male and I recognise I’m not that person but I may be equipped to be the driver of that change.
I’m a glass half full person and I’m confident that the organisation will change in the next few years. Because if it doesn’t, then it will become a huge white elephant that will be unable to function with the decline in CFAVs.
Stealing some words from the Donald, “Let’s Make RAFAC Great Again” but in a new vision, not a clone of the past.
It’s been said that I have “rose tinted spectacles”, maybe so but I seriously believe that this is an amazing organisation that just needs to pivot its focus.
12 Likes
Well said @Hercules but solving the problem between those on FTRS and CFAVs will depend very much on who is appointed CRAFAC and that is through @cab at 22 Group. Breaking the perception of a them and us attitude is required. Many have not worked in the civil or and as you rightly point out in the volunteer sector. RAF officers and usually junior ones are the ones who deal with the voluntary sector as a secondary duty or with CFAVs as ACLOs.
The person appointed has to be the right fit to take the organisation forward for the long term as @Cab only has at most 2 years before he tourex’s into his next post, unless he is short toured for some reason and then the whole change cycle starts again. The change has to be embedded now rather than later.
As for rewards the first instance would be taking the awarding of medals such as the BEM out of the military list and transferring to the civil one, which would mean CFAVs could be put forward by external agencies as well as the CoC. How many CFAVs who do Stirling work and give many hours to the organisation are not even recognised even by sector commanders let alone higher up the food chain. That would mean the mindset change from if ‘I haven’t got that medal, why should they get it’. Go back to the Coronation medal thread about cadets on parade on the day who qualified for the medal and some senior officers being upset that they could wear it when they hadn’t received one.
Maybe there needs to be a ‘shadow’ CFAV structure in that each person at HQAC on the permanent staff has as a shadow a CFAV that ideas, suggestions, orders etc can be bounced off to see if what is suggested is actually in reality achievable on the Squadrons. In the modern age of technology this could be quite possible and with the slowness of HQAC achievable. These posts could operate on a tour system so there is an overlap between postings. New permenant staff member new CFAV shadow is appointed eighteen months later so that fresh minds would continually circulate and reduce the risk of mindset ‘capture’ by HQAC and work continuity continues and the wheel is not re-invented. Those undertaking such a tour would have to released from other duties within their respective Wings and a appointment board instituted and favourites eliminated from the process maybe at Regional level by cross Regional selections system of Region A interviews for Region B and use blind interviews where the candidate is only known by a number not a name.
2 Likes
Good call. CAS has a shadow board and I know two JNCOs who’ve been on it (one regular, one reserve). They had access to all the briefing papers seen by the exec board and discussed them and provided a report ahead of each exec board meeting with representative views from across the rank range.
2 Likes
A possible quick win is to revamp the role of the CI.
Rightly or wrongly becoming a CI is seen as a path to being a uniformed volunteer, and I don’t think that was how it was meant to work.
They should be specialists who come in to teach or support, at Squadron but also at Wing level. (See the Cyber thread).
This could be aligned with the idea of micro volunteering.
- Simplify the mandatory training. Remove some of the responsibilities (CIs could take these courses if they wanted to take on a different role later - the idea is to get more people purely to instruct).
- Allow Wings to ‘hold’ CIs at that level so they can directly support the SME.
- Introduce a separate pre-uniform pathway (acting Sgt, PI, whatever) so those who want to do that can without being a CI first.
- Design a better polo shirt (ok this is slightly in jest, but small things matter)
I’m sure others could add to the list.
3 Likes
Id be up for seperating the CI from the potential uniform.
However, should they need to be activity commander (due to their role as an SME), then they need to have a specified level of mandatory training.
1 Like
Not to poo poo the idea completely but CIs back when the ATC was formed were actual SME in relevant fields eg. Engineer, Radio Technician.
Are all the present day CIs SMEs or are some volunteers without any particular expertise but more than willing to assist?
I wouldn’t consider myself a SME on anything particular relevant to the RAFAC so not sure I’d be much help I’d be as a designated expert.
Edit: on re-read not sure if I’ve misunderstood and you’re saying CIs would be at Wing level to support other SMEs?
My thought is an option for CIs to be on Wing establishment specifically to be part of a delivery or training team. At the moment CIs can only be ‘At Wing’ if they are the SME I think?
It would remove the need for specialists to get involved in squadron routines, or units having to ‘host’ CIs who are really there to run wing activities.
The idea’s to open up more paths to volunteering.
1 Like
I’m thinking of how to allow a smoother ‘on ramp’ so we’re not training people to be activity commanders from day one. Avoids issues like we have with fieldcraft: everyone has to train to be an ECO, but most just want to instruct or assist.
A specialist instructor would be just that. Someone else (the SME, Uniformed WSO) would be activity commander. If someone wants to take on AC roles, have a training package for that, or get them to commission at that point!