IMO this is part of the problem. A wing is only as good as the squadrons that it is formed from. I’ve seen a move towards centralised training in my wing - which sounds good, but the increased demand on the instructors means a reduction in the amount of training offered on a Sqn.
For example, I had a staff member with a BELA qualification who used to run day walks for our cadets, nav training etc. They were cooped onto the wing DofE team to deliver expeds. The results for my cadets was a significant reduction in the amount of AT we could offer them.
You could argue that more cadets benefited from their efforts at wing level, but it also weakened my Squadron output significantly.
This strategy has seen the amount of AT offered at a sqn level reduced throughout the Wing, and consequently DofE Expeds have reduced dramatically. When I first took command it was the norm for 3 or 4 squadrons to work together to run a gold exped once or twice a year. Now we have one Wing run exped if we’re lucky.
In a volunteer capacity you do not incentivise people by haranguing them to do something they are not interested in, happy with or want to do. People made to do things that meet these criteria never really engage. Anyone who’s been doing this for even a short time, should understand this.
Who said anything about doing any of that? Plenty of potential incentives and motivating factors have been reeled off by others here - none of which count as any of those things.
I’m with @MattB on this. If you don’t have the imagination to think of how you can incentivise and motivate people (especially after reading the suggestions above) then you’re a post turtle - I teach this stuff to cadet NCOs.
We shouldn’t be surprised really… We all know that Teflon doesn’t want actual answers, he just wants an excuse to grumble and tell us all how much cleverer he is than everyone else for seeing the real truth behind the facade.
Been there got the t-shirt on the haranguing etc when someone gets it into their head someone should be doing something else. It’s the ATC at it’s finest in terms of annoying people. This idea has all of that written all over it.
Where does it say I’m unable to incentivise / encourage people to do things or let them follow their desires, for Christ’s sake I’d still be doing it all myself if I couldn’t.
But if they flatly refuse in the first instance, I leave it well alone, unless they approach me.
What I have said is you don’t incentivise people with the suggestion of a move to another squadron,. If they say they want to that’s their choice and decision to make and accept any problems it brings up.
Also as I pointed out it’s bloody hard work cajoling people to become staff in the first place, so have some Big Brotheresque scheme looking at where people are and deciding where they could be, is a negative. Volunteering is all about personal choice and not tinkering based on postcodes, unless you are able to offer more than a warm fuzzy feeling.
Why people don’t think the onus should be on HQAC to make volunteering as staff appealing is lost on me, given anyone you manage to get in, soon sees what a cluster it is.
We volunteer for service with a particular squadron and cannot be moved without our consent but there is no reason whatsoever that Wing staff shouldn’t request volunteers to move to a struggling unit, or even actively encourage individuals who may be in a position to help to consider it.
If someone is in need of help - they can ask for help.
Your whole “they’re MY staff and I don’t care about any other squadron… You’re not having them unless they come up with the idea on their own” attitude is just one of the very many things about you which makes people wonder why you’re even still hanging around.
We are a CORPS - not 600-odd individual squadrons whether you like it or not.
Do you even wonder if maybe, instead of fighting against everything the world has become, it might be time to hang up those Flt Lt tapes and get out of the way for someone who is keen to engage with the ATC of the 21st century to take over?
I’m not here to force people to move, nor am I going to hold their reasons for staying against them.
This is an exercise to show our spread.
It’s also a way of looking into local trends.
Why do we have loads of staff from area A, but none from Area B? Is there a reason? Good recruiting? Maybe a forces link?
My work place has loads of ATC personnel, as its an aviation company, and offers good support to CFAVs (up to 10 days extra leave). I’ve even recruited two staff into the organisation, both with no previous cadet experience.
when planning an activity, am I asking staff who live the furthest away from a squadron, to travel early morning or late at night, sometimes in the opposite direction? Can I plan better?
I live 5 miles from my AEF and 5 miles from my VGS, but I would always be the staff member who would drive 25 miles the opposite direction and stupid o’clock to collect cadets, then drive right past my house an 1.5hr later, to have a full day’s gliding, to then drive past my house…etc.
A long term solution is to raise a feature request to the bader team. This would add a dashboard for wing accounts that could turn on an overlay of staff location based on Unit / Status (Officer/SNCO/CI) / distance travelled in excess of X / within X miles if unit Y
I don’t wish to be rude, or overly combative, but if your Wing Commander doesn’t know why staff are at one Sqn and not another, where the gaps are and who he/she would like to fill them with, then your Wing Commander ought to think about exploring other challenges in the booming fried chicken retail sector.
I have no objection to WHQ trying to even out provision - I’m effectively a sector asset rather than a Sqn one - but WHQ’s and Sector WSO’s should know this stuff purely by dint of doing their jobs.
If they need to ask you to stick pins in a map, then they are very obviously not doing them…
Talk to people. You’ll find out very quickly if people are prepared to move - or float - if you ask them to help you. You’ll also find out very quickly if people are avoiding particular Sqns and are happily commuting longer distances in order to keep it that way - at that stage you should concentrate your fire on the Sqn’s that people would rather avoid.
To back this topic up a little and show some support, in the past 5 years I have directly supported 3 other units at different times - once as full supernumerary for 12 months on a once-a-week basis, another intermittently as supernumerary including 5-6 weeks in a row, and another just occasionally without going the books.
One of those units was further away, but they were in dire need of an NCO figure having only an OC in uniform, the other two I pretty much sit in the middle of a triangle of them and my “home” unit.
Now, I’ll admit I’m blessed compared to others wrt the time I can give, and the supernumerary Sqns were parading on different nights to my own.
However, I wouldn’t have done it if someone didn’t pose the question.
Locally, we have units that are incredibly rich in staff, but do very little to support others, and units that are poor in staff despite their best efforts that are constantly on the scrounge. It’s improved a bit in recent times.
IF we can avoid a postcode lottery (as much as possible) then why shouldn’t people be assessing the feasibility of a shuffle, temporary assistance, or supernumerary posts?
If you pose the question in the right way then most wouldn’t get offended, the worst that can happen is you get a “No, because…”, and there is no haranguing.
Because none of that addresses the main issues of why squadrons are struggling.
People volunteer for, and leave, squadrons for many reasons, and IME, the distance between the home address and the unit is usually the last reason on the list.
If you live closer to another Squadron, you might not object to helping out on a temporary basis, but I dare say that you would also agree to help out at one further away as well.
Targeting individuals based on location does not take into account skill sets, personal circumstances, transport etc.
If sqns are desperate for staff, why not just send an email out to squadrons? Or in WROs? Or social media?
There’s always room for that down the line, but if someone can fill the gaps in the meantime then those options should be explored.
True. We lost 6 staff in about 18 months a few years ago - one to work, one to another time-consuming non-work organisation, two moved, one lost childcare options, one for family reasons.
No, it doesn’t, but it’s still a factor to consider - if you’ve got 2 SAAIs in your area, one is between two units and one is 15 miles the other side of one, then which one are you better off approaching?
To me, this is “last ditch”. The power of networking and the personal touch can generate a far more understanding and positive, mutually beneficial relationship. There’s no real harm in exploring options and using any and all tools and metrics to do so.