As a particularly organised person who is involved in cadets & takes on the given role with all I have, coming across staff who don’t clearly want to be at squadron & just mess about is very frustrating.
If we wish to have respect from the cadets and to have them act as we would like then clearly staff should be setting an example. Not acting like primary school children.
As a non uniformed member of staff I feel very limited in what I can do apart from go to the Boss. I’ve got to the point of thinking I might change squadrons but will I just jump from the frying pan into the fire?
The only time I’ve ever seen that was with a couple of just turned 20 ex-cadets, who went a bit overboard with the extra freedom being a member of staff offers. One realised that to be put forward for courses they wanted, they needed to prove that they could be trusted. The other refused to do what they were asked, got sidelined, and got bored of not being allowed to do stuff with the cadets, and left.
OP - being non uniformed is not a disadvantage - on the contrary, it allows you to speak frankly without fear of the “I’m more senior than you, therefore I’m right” brigade hiding behind rank.
Don’t be afraid to say anything. Sometimes peer pressure is enough to change behavior. Failing that, speak to the boss. I’m sure, given the choice of losing a committed CI, or keeping a childish immature CFAV, I know which one I’d choose.
You can do a bit of the peer to peer ‘oi mate sort your nuts out’ chat. If you’re not happy tell them. Think about what you would do at work if someone wasn’t "pulling their weight’, would you say something or go to a line manager?
Experience has taught me “giving” someone a role in voluntary setting, unless it’s something they have an affinity fo,r they are looking for a way out from day one. Playing in a costume like us, makes no difference. Do you really think an adult being “told off” by someone in a pretend uniform role or higher rank makes the slightest difference to being told. You may tug a forelock but that’s it.
The chairman of a group I’m part of has a knack of cajoling / persuading people to do things and they do, for as long as it takes them to say ‘not for me’. I do what I do on the group because I volunteered to do it.
That’s why I said a role that fits their time that they can give to the organisation. Yes, I agree that when someone is told to do something that they do not want to do then they often walk away. However, 99% of us are in this for the right reasons, so a proper talk should sort out that issue by keeping said member of staff busy with something that they want to do.
If they don’t want to do anything and then they walk away after being told to do something… is this a bad thing?
But I like to think the CO has a responsibility to ensure everyone is working toward the same goals. Therefore, everyone should have a working role to play in order to achieve this shared goal.
If someone does not wish to be any part of that, then so be it. If they walk away, no one loses anything. I’d much rather have a total of 3 staff working towards one goal than 5 staff with 1 or 2 not wanting to participate. Having more staff may look great on paper, but in reality it means very little.
The crunch comes when there is an event and you need people on the ground, so would it be better to have more staff with some who don’t do a lot, but turn out for things, or a smaller group of staff who struggle to do the things. In an ideal world everyone doing everything, but it’s not an ideal world, so we have to accept the trade off.
Having done the “one man and his dog” bit and being absolutely knackered at times, I know what I’d sooner have.