I don’t quite get your point. It’s no different to ‘regulars managing regulars’, reservists managing reservists’ and ‘employees managing other employees’.
And long-term FTRS personnel don’t stagnate and decline?
Exactly the same as in the regulars and reserves or in any other civilian employment. This is where a common sift is employed to find the best people for the roles.
Volunteers that progress into ‘FTCS’ roles will provide the ‘new blood’ and they can come up with ideas too! Just because one is a volunteer, doesn’t mean to say that they’re automatically brain-dead. Remember, there could well be a mix of volunteers who have never served in the Forces but who know the organisation inside-out; and those that do have military service but have also served in the CF starting at Sqn level.
A lot of CFAV’s are already working at a senior level in their day jobs or have retired from senior-level jobs and some have extensive experience of managing people.
The paid staff know the parent org and how to ‘manage’ through round and over it - very few CFAV have the knowledge/currency (my time was quill and ink so a lot has changed ). So long as they are enabling for us to deliver and diverting th BS from us, then all should be happy.
Maybe it is the engagement layer that is missing. Because we are lost in this CoC mentality and those in the middle have been there for some time and are not always current with the coal face, perhaps the message is being throttled in the bottle neck (or single point of failure).
Perhaps we need the extra engagement between the enabling/management layer and those that do so that the knowledge transfer and understanding happens both ways - I think at the moment the ‘middle’ layer is just a (poor) information transfer service and is not doing top or bottom a favour
This is quite pertinent & the concept of “chain of command” is one of the biggest blockers in our current organisation. The principle that other act as gate keeper for others
The main trick for the paid staff is keeping the organisation running & delivering without spoiling the illusion
There is no chain of command amongst the volunteers in reality, no lawful orders, no court martial, being put on a charge etc it’s only while volunteers maintain the illusion of a chain of command that it exists.
In reality, paid staff will always outrank the volunteers regardless of rank. No volunteer is above the substantive rank of Fg Off & so can only give reasonable instructions rather than orders.
Any volunteer becoming paid staff would need to understand this illusion (bit like maintaining that Santa Claus exists) & utilise it maintain & engage the volunteers.
I think this is where ACC can be the most good. It is neutral ground & the anonymous nature mean volunteers & paid staff can debate without setting out formal positions. It completely dissolve the “chain of command” and actual allows to pool ideas. RC(North) regular reads on here & may even post. Other RCs may do also.
There has also been attempt to engage the volunteers directly by the VoV teams channel in a more public formalised version of this forum.
This is a good thing & leads to more matrix-leadership, parallel command streams & in short make us more complex & less linear.
Maybe they should institute the convent way of working in that the Mother Superior after a term of duty as such is returned to just being an ordinary nun. Teaches humility before they start moving up the ranks again.
That sounds an idea. Perhaps also have that if you have dual roles (e.g. Wng staff & Sqn Cdr) you adopt the lower of the possible two ranks.
Perhaps also for subject SMEs their ranks could be only situational e.g. a eg shooting officer is only a Sqn Ldr when on active shooting duties & all other times wears Flt Lt or Fg Off ranks.
Would mean that only Wng Cdrs, dep OC, WSOs & Sqn Cdrs would consistently wear their ranks & all others depending on the situation. It may even help reduce the VA expenditure a bit.
I think another good question would be, what was your journey to get here?. I personally have always found forums to be full of useful information, interesting characters and easy place to ask questions, vent and generally get information from a wide variety of experience.
Seems like a lot of faff, and a lot of changes to BADER so I doubt anything like that would actually work in practice, maybe on paper though. And all in attempt to solve what problem?
It’s not practical or likly to happen in the slightest as it would just lead to people leaving the lower ranking post & those who are ranked obsessed finding loopholes.
I’d like to see Wing staff (perhaps aside from OC Wing) do 1 night a week/half their time on a Squadron. So their ‘minimum’ monthly commitment would be 6hrs on Squadron and 6 for Wing.
Appreciate a lot of Wing roles take more than 6 hours but that’s the price of the rank.
And I think ACC is good for the Corps. Without some of the advice and support on here a while back I’d probably have quit.
I did think of that but I was thinking full squadron commitment, though I guess having some mandated wing commitment means the wing at least stays a bit proactive. Would you say the same should apply to region staff that are also squadron staff?
This should be the norm,
Along with them being available once or twice a month of an evening either at WHQ or possibility at different units within the wing.
I know of one WEXO that does this and it seems to massively beneficial.
I wish these rules existed in my line of work. Soooo many engineers coming out of university getting jobs to design fancy products, that get sent to us for manufacturing and they’re literally impossible to make. They seem to think we have a magic printer that can make anything. If they could spend a couple weeks in a machine shop they’d be much better designers!
I feel we’re quickly running away from the topic though at full speed. Unless we’re saying all perms have to spend at least an hour a week on ACC? Now there’s an idea…
Same as the BA engineering centre at Cardiff everybody has to spend time on the hangar floor even if it’s just hovering out and cleaning the aircraft post maintenance.
Any company that does this uses it to focus the mind of every employee on what the important function of the company ie the product. No output no company.
I know of one NHS chief exec who when the hospital was under immense stress went round the offices dragooning staff off their chairs even if it was just to move patients or take specimens to the labs etc.
). So long as they are enabling for us to deliver and diverting th BS from us, then all should be happy.