OC Survey on SharePoint - Keep Staff Cadets or Not

[Teflon]

This would have worked better if HQAC right back in 2000ish on when the process of binning of the old upper age started. We’ve had can’t promote them unless they tick boxes, can promote to FS unless they have an interview, the tosh of “be of value”, and the nonsense of high calibre and I’ve never, never understood what high calibre means. I’ve asked people and got vague non-descript from each, with not much commonality. The biggest fail was not having camps etc that are open to all 18+ and only 18+, where they are allowed to be as the law of the land decrees.

I don’t agree with the “adult” uniform (LAC etc) from 18, as that will morph into lots of people who never really grow up and still act like cadets when into their 30s and 40s, there are a number of these already. I think having CI as the only option would ensure the people who stay are doing so for the right reasons and not because of a desire / love (if that’s right word) of the uniform. I wouldn’t start ‘formal’ uniformed service “training” until 20. This gives them 2 years to do things on their terms as CIs and not as cadets. There should be no expectation of going into uniform. This has been a failing of the current system since its inception. I have told a few WSO to reel their necks in when trying to coerce my older cadets into uniform when discussions with me, have not mentioned them going into uniform.

HQAC won’t however address the elephant in the room of struggling to get people to actually volunteer and why some established CIs don’t fall over themselves to go into uniform.

[tsr3]

Spot on

[MattB]

Like the rank slides then?

[1993]

Not what the survey says. It says it’s an option that’s being looked at.

That will no doubt become a reality going on past experiences.This is another reason I left the organisation.I was fed up of being asked my opinion then ignored.

[Teflon]

I’m unclear why this is not open to all staff and even more so why seemingly just Sqn and Wg Cdrs. It could have been done as a survey monkey affair to all emails.

That will no doubt become a reality going on past experiences.This is another reason I left the organisation.I was fed up of being asked my opinion then ignored.

Exactly why I’m debating whether or not to respond, as you expect the decision has been made.

[pEp]

Maybe because it’s OCs and OC wings that sign them off?

[Teflon]

But more people have a say in what they do before and after and will have opinions on how good/bad they are. I’ve always personally felt if the cadets want to stay in the ATC and are prepared to go through the process, then they should be allowed to. If they don’t want to DBS they can’t stay any way, but if they do and it’s clear and do the other bits, who am I or anyone else to say they shouldn’t remain. By the same token what makes a sqn cdr or wg cdr’s view/opinion more valuable? Wg Cdrs especially as they don’t know them, other than a pen picture.

I don’t agree with all this “value” guff, as we don’t apply it to any other people over 18 joining as CIs. We apply a set of expectations to cadets that aren’t done to anyone else.

[wdimagineer2b]

Edited to add:

@Teflon

I don’t agree with all this “value” guff, as we don’t apply it to any other people over 18 joining as CIs

I do and I don’t… I think there should be something of value there but only to the extent that we apply to direct entrant CIs. We would hopefully not be taking Joe Bloggs off the street just for the asking if he has nothing of value to bring.
I certainly don’t agree with the requirement to have all the various boxes ticked before they turn 17 and a half.
That’s something we don’t require from people coming in off the street and, in my opinion, places an extra and unnecessary load on young people at a time when they are already getting bogged down with the pressures of work and college.

If they’re going to start altering cadet service beyond 18 then, in my opinion, they might as well do the whole thing properly and update/fix the entire CFAV structure and process.

The question of Cpl rank has been coming since the early days of the Laser Review. I don’t see there’s any need to appoint to substantive Cpl.

The Sea Cadets and Royal Marines Cadets system seems to work okay for them…
Ex cadet senior rates/NCOs can be appointed directly to Probationary Petty Officer/Probationary Sgt for a minimum probation of 6 months. Within 9 months (which can be extended to 12) they must complete their equivalent to the AVIP course.
Once they complete the minimum probation and the Induction course they can be appointed as Acting Petty Officer/Acting Sergeant.

Direct entrants start as Probationary Civilian Instructor and after the same probationary requirements can be appointed to CI or can apply for uniformed service.

APO/ASgt (whether having come from cadet service or direct via CI) have a period of 2 years in which to complete the required modular training, before attending the basic leadership course and can then be confirmed in rank as below.

That to me seems like a far better approach than the halfway-house of Staff Cadet that we have at the moment.
It also seems to be a better approach than the haphazard box ticking that we require within 1 year for our uniformed staff.
1 week at ATF followed by whatever local training each Wing does or does not provide isn’t really satisfactory to equip our volunteers properly if you ask me.

Their candidates for commissioning must be at least 21 years old and must have minimum one year service as a substantive PO or Sgt.

They are also in a far better place regards promotion of CFAV. Whereas we seem to promote willy-nilly as a “well done” for being basically no better than any of your peers at the same rank, they have more tangible requirements, which better reflect that fact that we should be able to expect those of higher rank to be more experienced and capable as leaders of subordinates.

[Teflon]

There is still the element of having had to do things, which in any volunteer setting is haphazard due to the frequency and or number and or location of courses. Which still means you don’t get away from the eager pup types who may be as much use as choccy teapot, but they have ticked the boxes and in the frame.

I do think that “adult training” comes a poor second to “cadet training” as
1 cadets are more malleable and suggestable, although parents seem less keen when you say your job to get them there and back
2 adults have work and family commitments which supersede all other things, something that Wing and HQAC seem able to square away.

We have area based things for cadets but only wing based things for adults and the wing based things are generally miles away and the appeal of an hour plus drive on a Sunday to get home has little appeal.

[wdimagineer2b]

Yes, I’ve long felt that our biggest failure is with staff training.

We expect more of our cadet NCOs in some areas than we do of our staff, which is madness. Even more so since the updated Staff Cadet approach. We need to better equip our staff since it is they whom we are expecting to lead and train the cadets (and, crucially, the other staff subordinate to them).
In my area of responsibility I aim to provide at least the same, but preferably better, training to the staff as that which the cadets receive.

The minimum requirements need absolutely to be accessible to staff, with the additional optional opportunities as easily accessible as is practical.
I think the Sea Cadet modular approach to this and more realistic timescale is a good way to go.

There will of course always be the area of division between those staff who have more time available for courses, camps, and training than those who have busy home lives.
I don’t feel that should necessarily be a problem. Though, my personal opinion (which is unpopular in some circles) is that if staff can’t commit to the training and additional responsibility which really needs to accompany advancement of rank, then they shouldn’t advance.

There is nothing wrong with a keen Sgt or Fg Off who does their bit dutifully and brings value, simply remaining as Sgt or Fg Off, if they are unable to take the step necessary to progress.

[themajor]

Has anyone been told about this survey via the CoC or has it just ‘appeared’ on SharePoint?

[MattB]

That to me seems like a far better approach than the halfway-house of Staff Cadet that we have at the moment.
It also seems to be a better approach than the haphazard box ticking that we require within 1 year for our uniformed staff.

Agreed - I think that we shouldn’t have things that require doing within a certain timeframe - just as a pre-requisite for promotion.

2 adults have work and family commitments which supersede all other things, something that Wing and HQAC seem able to square away.

We have area based things for cadets but only wing based things for adults and the wing based things are generally miles away and the appeal of an hour plus drive on a Sunday to get home has little appeal.

Seems a bit of a having your cake and eating it scenario there. Running things at wing level mean that they will happen more frequently than if they’re run as an area, which means that they’re easier to fit around commitments. Perhaps they could move the location around, but that’s going to be dependent on having somewhere suitable anyway, and may not be worth it if there’s a decent central location.

[Teflon]

We expect more of our cadet NCOs in some areas than we do of our staff, which is madness

Some of this IMO it to fill holes because in some instances the lack of staff and it’s easier to lean on teenagers than staff and because of the promotion matrices.

There have been a slew of cadet drill courses and the FS on the sqn I run said “oh yeah x and y are looking to get their WO, so are doing it to tick the box”.

I don’t think that because someone has or hasn’t done extramural courses makes them any better or worse / conserved or not considered. But then I’m more inclined to look at the person than the CV / application when interviewing at work.

[Teflon]

What you find is the staff on squadrons near to attend more and others don’t. The location thing has been raised at staff conferences and several alternatives have been suggested and not taken up. The cynic would suggest it means the delivers have to travel and have a longer day.
A central location has been used and diverse squadrons attended, but this doesn’t happen anymore.

[wdimagineer2b]

I would say that where general training is concerned it is far more about the individual and their skill set than about mandatory attendance at a course (other than the baseline things which we are required to deliver) but I am very aware that many of our staff don’t possess those skills by magic, yet we seem to expect them to.
Which is why I feel we should have more training available for those staff who need or want it.

With regards promotions I think that the current “matrix” misses the point entirely…
“Accompanied cadets to AEF”… How does that really help?
“Attended an annual camp”… I’ve had people attend camp and be less than useless for 7 days! Yet they go away with a tick because all it requires is “attendance”.

Promotion really should, in my opinion, be a simple case of determining:

1. Does this person have the minimum time served and skills required?
2. Does this person stand out above their peers?

If the answer to 1 is “no” then they shouldn’t be sat in front of a board yet.
If the answer to 2 is “no” then they shouldn’t be promoted.

If someone has no particular expertise in any area and is much of a muchness with the other Sgts (for arguments sake) then what about them deserves promoting to the next rank?

If they need to, and are prepared to attend training courses to develop themselves then we must ensure that the opportunity is there; though there is no need to spoon feed them.

The whole structure of the Corps seems to be currently based around the idea that one does ones time, ticks the minimum boxes (along with everyone else) and then feels that one should be rewarded after 4 years with a promotion, for simply doing the barest of jobs that one signed up to do.

We should, I think, be looking at the rank structure as a means of placing those with greater skill and competence in a position to lead, control, and develop those below them.

I can look around the Corps now and see a plethora of FS and WO underperforming in their chosen “trades” (for want of a better word); and a host of Sgts outperforming not only those of equal rank, but in many cases those already senior to them.
In which case, what’s the point of even having a rank structure?

[Foley]

In which case, what’s the point of even having a rank structure?

Ah ha! I’ve been lurking on this thread waiting, hoping for someone to say this! What is the point of having a rank structure in a voluntary youth organisation? Other than the (very) vague similarity to the RAF, why can’t you just have volunteers helping run a unit? Individuals get the qualifications they want and are responsible for whatever they are interested in. Rank gets in the way of a huge amount of stuff. It’s already been discussed here and on other threads about making the decision between CI, NCO or officer, and trying to work out what you are interested in (ie drill or paperwork) - why not just have a generic volunteer who can do whatever interests them? And there’s no reason why that can’t start at 18 years old…

[wdimagineer2b]

I think there is a need for a rank structure - if implemented correctly.

On the Sqn things operate differently of course. We all pitch in and we all know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

At Wing level and when away the rank structure should provide a simple, easily recognisable, and equivalent system of line management. So that those with the skills and experience are in positions to manage those below them.

It does also then provide a means of recognition for those people who are deserved of it. Which, no matter how many say “I’m only in it for the Cadets” does make people feel more valued.

[1993]

“Attended an annual camp”… I’ve had people attend camp and be less than useless for 7 days! Yet they go away with a tick because all it requires is “attendance”.

Oh I met lots of them in my time.It never used to be a big problem before all the box ticking took over.That said I look back at old camp photos from the 1990s and early 2000s and wonder how the hell all the staff found a job to do. Theres a lot of "I have to go to a blues/green camp to tick the matrix box now.Personally I went to camp because I enjoyed it and you were busy all through the week and made some great contacts and friends.

[wdimagineer2b]

Agree.
I’d far rather have people volunteer for these things because they genuinely want to, rather than to grudgingly satisfy a box-ticking exercise to give them the promotion that they think they “deserve”.

If someone doesn’t want to go on camp - they don’t go to camp.
Those who want to and can do so, will volunteer anyway.

If someone then applies for a promotion having volunteered for nothing save the barest minimum, it should be easy to say “Where is this person’s commitment to development and service?” without looking at a list of ticks.

Further, it can be quite possible for someone to put themsevles out for weekend events, training, and be taking an active part in the delivery of their chosen field at Wing level or above, but be unable to take a whole week off to attend annual camp.

Who is the more deserving of promotion?
The matrix is a pointless exercise… (and it isn’t even an actual matrix! )

[Teflon]

At Wing level and when away the rank structure should provide a simple, easily recognisable, and equivalent system of line management. So that those with the skills and experience are in positions to manage those below them.

What happens if the people with the skills and experience are CIs?

I don’t consider myself above or below any staff, I have no control over what other think. I remember one sqn cdr who would almost table thump with comments like I’m the senior Flt Lt, I’ve given you an order etc, we all Flt Lts would look at them and just get on with whatever we were doing. They even tried it with an old CI who when running a climbing wall told exactly where up was.

The only reason we have a rank structure is for people to play at RAF (and play do you know who I am), to be able to apportion blame or dodge responsibility. How many times have I heard phrases like not my problem or that’s what Officers do, just because we have a rank structure that many stick to like a limpet, as it helps them avoid things or address their inner “little man” issues.