i would argue that correct and proper (full) communication doesnāt make the organisation ābetterā either - but my word it makes everyone feel a little more satisfied weāve got the full picture and can appreciate the situation however right or wrong it might beā¦
the issuing being the volunteer is told to āget back in their boxā (see the comments on VoV as examples) or that Senior officers simply fob us off with non-answers
i donāt believe anyone is raising FOIs to āsolveā a problem - but they are to better understand what the problem really is or at least HQACs approach to it.
Oh I have. More than once. I like my glasses thanksā¦ they help me to see clearly., well beyond my own agenda.
Whilst we are all for getting things done to make the cadet experience better, do you think not getting the answer you like, then using influence through friends in CofC away from RAFAC helps mend the mistrust or make it worse? Or in your view does the outcome justify the means ? See my previous about being part of the solution.
This is very easy for you to say, because you clearly actually have an understanding of how volunteer organisations should communicate internally. However, there are many senior people people in this organisation who do not share that understanding.
Iāve gotten in trouble for emailing OC Wing because āI didnāt use the CoCā. There are too many people in this organisation who rigidly belive in the āmilitary wayā.
And this why the entire organisation needs to decide if itās a uniformed youth organisation or a military one. Any organisation has a hierarchy whether that be corporate, military, or volunteer. Whilst necessarily that command gradient is steep in the military, it should be much flatter in a volunteer environment, regardless of whether uniform and rank is worn, or not. Everyone should feel they have a valid opinion and have that heard.
This is where I think the defence and volunteer organisational cultures donāt necessarily mesh together well. Like any organisation the ābossā makes the ultimate decisions but a good one ensures that everyone is heard and can take people on the journey to that decision. Thatās good leadership and it can be achieved in organisations of great scale than RAFAC so why not here.
Iām trying to propose solutions to the perceived problems but we all need to recognise that we have to take ownership of our organisation to effect meaningful change.
Not my call. Thatās for @Cab to decide. But there was an opportunity to influence that conversation when the 2* came to this forum, the first to do so I believe. How do we think that went ?
His arrival shows willingness to engage and listen to opinions of those who he has no regular contact with. Itās a bold move and one that could been used positively to influence real change. I see an organisation that is trying, but a community that, in some aspects, doesnāt accept that it may be contributing to that cycle of decline.
There is no doubt that there are challenges on both sides of this argument but sometimes there needs to be an acceptance that some of those are shared problems.
I hope that peopleās frustration and mistrust donāt mean that the manner in which he was treated recently means he will not return. That would be a shame for all concerned.
This is drifting the thread a little but part of the issue itās that a portion of the organisation interprets the chain of command as a linear flow.
That means they view that all communication should filter through them.
This leads to blockers, trickle down Comms & single points of failure.
We see this in our cascade of information when something is stopped it goes to RHq, sits there for two days, then passed to wing, then passed to sqns. Itās a skeuomorph hangover when the Comms were all paper.
In a national interconnected organisation it doesnāt make sense particularly if the different chains can talk to each other direct.
We moved from a snowflake structure to a spiderweb in reality but officially our Comms method is unchanged.
Commandant Air Cadets did bypass this once by sending a letter direct to all Sqn cdrs about some of the issues that he was dealing with & behaviour that was going on. It was an excellent bit of Comms & exactly what was needed.
Itās the only real time it happened & I did hear a number of whinges from senior volunteers that āit wasnāt the way & undermined the chain of commandā so unfortunately it seems like the revolution was not to be.
Toxicity has built up like pus in a wound & it needs to be drained less we get sepsis.
This is going to require everyone to change a little. In some areas volunteers have way too much control & influence& need to let go. In others areas volunteers need to step up & stop being spoon fed.
And in the gaps we need the innovation, opportunities for new ways of thinking & ways of doings that can be tried & implemented.
Cabs post in response to the cadet question on the stable belt was heart warming & really nice to see. The cadet in question probably would not have known who AOC 22 group is let only that heās called Cab & would gone away with some positivity without being star struck.
I think the biggest thing that gets in the way of good Comms is rank. Rank is needed for command & control in quick time situations where you donāt know the people around you.
In a volunteer organisation rank effectively indicates the level of responsibility someone has currently volunteered for.
However it is often used as a way to try & control things & people and dehumanise them so they are only defined by their rank & not the individual creative soul that they are.
Whilst the forum is pseudo-anonymous it does allow everyone to drop ranks & be more on a level with each other, making the flow of Comms easier.
Cab on here is cab & it puts a human face on the person at the top & allows a way of dealing with some of the jadedness & frustration that has come about head on rather than letting it fester.
Likewise in the small amount of direct Comms Iāve had with Tony K, he has been polite, personable & reasonable.
Sometimes I think we forget that weāre adults & allow the teenager cadet mindset to creep in with playground politics & ways of treating people.
Feel free to ask the question at the upcoming RAFAC Town Halls which will be held fortnightly TFN as a mechanism to improve direct comms and transparency. The FOI approach is hurting RAFAC and Air Cmd. It is having minimal positive outcomes for anyone but of course I support the FOI system as a mechanism for accountability. For my part, the new Town Hall battle rhythm will enhance direct access routinely. Ask the questions you might FOI at the Town Halls which might be a quicker method. I admire to seeing the number of FOIs reduce commensurate with this enhanced accessibility via fortnightly Town Halls.
On the specific question ref car parking, it comes down to my personal judgement. Untrained children who have no familiarity with how motor vehicles work should not be used for activities such as car parking / marshalling. The risk associated with RTC is my highest safety risk (severity and likelihood). Using untrained children in such a way is an intolerable risk. This is my personal judgement and I do not feel I need to explain any further beyond the words āuntrained childrenā. I personally could not offer a credible a credible defence to a coroner should the worse ever happen.
I note the points on fundraising and I am sympathetic to the challengeā¦but find another way where cadets could offer assurance to the show / fete etc. I saw one comment on here which questioned the risk associated with a cadet showing the way for traffic to flowā¦I question why this isnāt be done by using a sign and letter the cadet enjoy the show / fete etc.
And, once more, please donāt question my risk appetite. Where the outcome justifies a risk to be taken then I will make a positive decision eg ACPS solo, adventurous training etc.
Without getting into the specifics, it was less about my opinion & more that I would choose to answer at all. The joke of it was that the Q&A was so benign and by-the-by that I was genuinely shocked at the email. I had simply treated it like an exchange with any colleague: reasonable question asked, reasonable answer given.
I feel this comment as I would have described to my kids growing up as āDecision madeā; with that, itās done and wonāt be discussed further, so as we advanceā¦ whatās next on the possible chopping block so we have a heads up, and donāt get too excited planning this or that?
The visual presence of Cadets shows our children being given a visible and responsible role where a sign will be ignored, or if a person misreads a sign, that sign can not redirect the person. I get from the moment we are born, risk is a factor in life. But as the cadets are often under my care, they are my responsibility to make sure they arenāt hurt or worse. I have worked in dangerous situations and as an adult, I know the risks and have often not been fully trained and only been given a very brief, brief.
I would never allow a cadet to do something I would not do and I certainly wouldnāt put them in a dangerous position. For me pointing where a vehicle or person goes, or even an outstretched arm isnāt on my dangerous list as I would be watching them like a hawk. Also note I would be using senior cadets who are nearing adult age, 18, and not some nervous new face who has just rocked into year 8 of school.
But as Iāve said, with that, for me itās a done decision.
Iām looking forward to such town halls, but as prime example for lack of communication, I only know about the fact these will be be happening as Iāve seen it on here. Nothing seen āofficiallyā. I assume itāll be in this weeks brief though.
I certainly agree on this point. Iād always rather have 8 cadets on the water or a load out climbing rather than driving a minibus. However the HQ GRA for MT only has the risk at a 6/25, which I have questioned previously, but itās not been changed.
I do however think there is a nuance between MT or transport risk vs car parking risk. Iād strongly argue the risks associated with cadet car parking are far easier to manage compared to driving a minibus down the road. But youāve made clear thatās not up for discussion.
