CI-retired: I’m back (to the forum), having left the discussion to run for a while…
A little clarification: It’s a couple of years since I quit. I decided to try to get some of my experience fed back into ATC circles as the result of a conversation with a friend who suggested that I was wrong to just leave and say nothing. I did consider writing to wing HQ around the time I’d quit, I was surprised they don’t routinely contact leavers to ask why (exit interview). Since some of my minor gripes were with WHQ it would be all too easy for them to brush them under the carpet on the other hand they might have identified issues and chosen to address them, possibly persuading me to stay or at least taking steps to reduce the likelihood of others encountering similar issues.
There was no single big issue but a collection of, individually, minor ones. The standard response from a large organisation in those circumstances would be to address some of those minor issues, disregard any that are too difficult and completely ignore the underlying problem which is a general malaise and mismanagement because the responsibility for that situation goes right to the top of the organisation - and they’re probably not into beating themselves up.
For example I referenced the strange approach to travel expenses. My personal circumstances are such that I didn’t need them. I was trying to highlight two points, firstly that some CIs are on low incomes and every penny counts, secondly it looked to me like mismanagement at both squadron and wing level, some of the responses to my original posting confirm that. A management response to that would be to remind (and reprimand?) the individuals who made those decisions of the rules and perhaps try to back-calculate the under-payments and “problem solved!”. No it isn’t.
I got some kind of joining pack when I started as a CI. It was all about my responsibilities, things like bullying policies, child protection. I don’t recall anything about ATC responsibilities toward the CI, like a simple statement as someone has quoted “AP 1919 states emphatically no volunteer C.I. should ever be out of pocket for their contribution so whatever you undertake, as long as its authorised you should get compensation.” But that was now quite a long time ago so perhaps it’s been improved.
I was a senior manager in business. Major change is always difficult and is routinely resisted. Long running problems that have developed slowly over time are not challenged. It’s easier to gloss over and disregard difficult problems rather than to step up to the challenge. An outsider coming in at the top of the organisation and who is prepared to take an objective view will ask the difficult questions. That’s how some companies are saved from bankruptcy. A new group of investors come in, implement radical change, make the difficult decisions and a revived profitable business emerges from the ruins. It takes a very strong incumbent manager to implement that level of review and change without invoking an external review (and following through with its recommendations). With an organisation like ATC it’s easy for the guy at the top to be dropped into the role perhaps as a reward for time served in the RAF, perhaps as a way of sidelining the guy to a nominally “important” position with status but not power and somewhat more remote from “the front line”, maybe an example of the Peter Principle (I don’t know, that’s idle speculation and may be utterly wrong - I’m just drawing a parallel with situations I’ve seen in other large organisations). All he need do is pat a few heads make a few well-meaning public statements and let things slide… There is no incentive to implement radical change and a significant risk of alienating incumbents if he does" - so best choose the easy life…
I appreciate that my posting can be seen as unduly negative but that’s because I care. I have seen some excellent outcomes with the least promising new recruits despite the failings of the organisation and I can see how many more young lives could benefit equally were the organisation effectively managed.
I will respond to some of points raised by others in response to my original post but firstly a theme that emerged more than once:
That posting here is of little value, I should go up the chain of command
I know that the CO of the squadron I was involved with was an active internet user, locating posts by cadets and sometimes requiring them to be removed. I’m not altogether comfortable with the rights and wrongs of that policy but many major commercial organisations employ reputation monitoring services to track negative press and internet articles such that they can address them as appropriate - changed policy, public statements, take-down orders. Whilst that may be overkill for ATC, I’d be very disappointed if persons at or near the top of the organisation manage to totally disregard sources of valuable feedback such as this forum.
In marketing they say "for every customer who complains to you there are ten who instead choose to tell all their friends of their bad experience. Better by far to welcome and address complaints. Not only does the disappointed customer not spread news of his bad experience but, handled well, will become an unpaid ambassador for your business, telling others how well you responded, how seriously you take customer care."
If nobody in a senior position has any awareness of negative feedback then that is yet another example of failure - or perhaps they are modelling themselves on Admiral Nelson choosing to put the telescope to his blind eye - it worked out well for him. If you believe that senior staff are not kept abreast of negative feedback such as that here, perhaps you’d like to bring some pertinent postings to their attention.
@briank: That I should "detail specific examples and dates and send them to Wing Commander, XO, Regional Commandant and so on."
The individuals at squadron are decent well meaning people and we live in the same community. I’ve seen how heavy handedly the investigation of some transparently obviously malicious and unfounded allegations against someone in a nearby squadron were handled and have no wish to put anyone in that situation. They might become scapegoats to avoid addressing the real problem of failure of management, that is a top-down issue. Even if I had diarised specific instances they would only serve as a distraction and an excuse to scapegoat those individuals, to address the symptoms not the disease. Their only offence was to be inadequate to the task. I realise that the other side of that coin is that I am just providing the opportunity to dismiss everything as unsubstantiated hearsay, sour grapes. OK, do that, if you believe the organisation is perfect, let the decline continue.
@pEp: “Some of your points smack of not understanding how the world works today. Yes it might have been fine however many years ago to take all those people backpacking for 3 weeks with 1 staff member, but you must admit that is irresponsible?” The status quo 40 years ago may be regarded, with the benefit of hindsight, as too laissez faire but viewed from the perspective of 40 years ago the current regime is equally misguided - to the opposite extreme. That we all came away from that experience (and many others) unscathed and with a lifetime benefit is irrelevant. It is necessary to look at the wider context of all such youth-group activities. What would be useful is an objective analysis of how the overall risk:benefit ratio has changed over the past 50 years. Can we objectively demonstrate that it has improved or have we just put obstacles in place with little or no benefit? How many accidents per 1000 cadets were there then as a result of Adventure Training and how many now? Have we become so risk averse that we’ve lost the benefits too. Has the burocracy resulted in less participation in adventure activities (in my experience yes - was my squadron unique?). If the only acceptable level of risk is zero then the opportunity for life-enriching adventure also becomes zero. I suspect the highest adventure training risks are with school groups where some of the participants may not be there out of choice and standards of discipline are well below those expected of cadets, unruly and unwilling members represent a risk to themselves and others.
I would prefer my children/grandchildren to enjoy adventurous activities with the guiding hand of experience. Teenage boys in particular actively seek out challenges, take risks, look for adventure. Frankly I’d rather see them accompanied on a hike in the Welsh Mountains by Jimmy Saville, with no MLC than with no adult supervision. I have confidence in the good sense of the Air Cadets I knew, they would have no difficulty handling the risks inherent in having Jimmy as companion. We do cadtes no service by teaching them navigation and survival skills then ducking out of the responsibility of providing opportunities to put those lessons into practise. Their alternatives for getting an adrenalin rush include driving a (not necessarily stolen) motor vehicle at excessive speed or urban activities like skateboard, BMX, parkour, all of which are done without adult supervision and injuries are common. Or should we be satisfied to sit them down with their X-Box games and forget about real life experiences? I know of cadets who chose to put two fingers up to the ATC who they felt had let them down. They went hiking and camping in the mountains unsupervised and independent of the organisation. Is that a desirable outcome? In some respects perhaps the answer is yes, but is it the best outcome? No. Doing their trip accompanied by someone with appropriate experience would have been the best result. I give them credit for initiative and I agree with them that the ATC let them down and by doing so contributed to the risk they chose to take.
@briank: “I think in perspective if your going to use examples they should be relevant and current.” This sounds defensive, dismissive and complacent to me; let’s disregard everything because some of the examples may date back 3 or 4 years. So the situation has improved beyond all recognition in the intervening period has it? Really? That’s not what I’m hearing.
@anon72613902: writes “Is CI (Retired) not TiredOldMan from the previous (archived) forums? There’s a lot of similarities in the style of writing and content (ex-scout and cadet, always organizing things, semi-retired, gentle but wordy criticism of the CoC, how the cadets loved him etc etc etc).” No, I’ve not looked up that post but from your summary the implication is that he may have made some similar observations - which only serves to underline mine.
@briank: “We recently had an Xmas meal for staff. The first one on the squadron and sadly we had to pay for it ourselves but significantly all the staff were there with their spouses. It’s just one way of showing appreciation and gelling the unit.” FYI my squadron told me it was not acceptable to invite my wife to the Xmas meal (regardless of who paid) as she had no involvement with the organisation. Another explanation might be that my wife is a looker and the squadron female officers and officer’s wives were at the other end of that spectrum! Anyway: no wife, no me either.
@mattB: “This does seem a little unfair to sergeants and flight sergeants, who have to undergo a selection process to get where they are. I certainly wouldn’t see a CI as being higher in rank or status than a sergeant.” I can understand where you’re coming from however it disregards the life experience, history and value of some CIs. Especially with the older CIs whose position in civilian life would have “outranked” WO and SNCOs viewed not from a military meaning of “outranked” but from their socio-economic status. It’s a tricky issue and one which would take this thread too far off topic but the organisation would be well advised to have an awareness of their CIs background, especially retirees, some will be reticent about letting it be known they were, let’s say, on the board of a major household name PLC or a senior academic. On the other hand the situation of a former Cadet who signs up as a CI at 21 is different. BTW, I was told that if I accompanied cadets to Annual Camp I would use the officers mess so maybe there is some flexibility. I never tested that, I had no wish to spend a week away from home as an unpaid child minder, the only enticement seemed to be inexpensive beer. (On the other hand I’d gladly have given up 3 weeks to do something I’d value like accompanying a group of cadets on a backpacking trip were it not for the requirement for an MLC and a cubic yard of paperwork).
@ - I don’t recall who (found it: @briank again) but as regards referencing some aspects of the issue to Maslow/Herzberg - yes, and a wider grasp of some other successful management strategies/theories would not go amiss.
Another mildly amusing anecdote: I felt there was a gap in the information we were providing so I wrote a document to cover it. It must have been good because the CO adopted it verbatim - except authorship changed from my name to that of the CO, doubtless earning credit at Wing HQ. I didn’t mind, it was as close as I’d ever get to acknowledgement that I’d done a good job!
Some contributors have used terms like “CI … progressing into uniform”. To call it “progress” is to diminish the value/role of a CI. Uniform doesn’t make you a better person. I was surprised by the assumption at my squadron that I might want to go into uniform. I was also surprised when they had checked out the possibility despite my lack of interest and found that by the time I would be able to “progress” I’d be too old - really? there’s still age discrimination for a voluntary role? I’m not the dinosaur here, the organisation is. I predict extinction.
@Racing Stick: “CI courses in my wing last a weekend. Nowhere near long enough. Lets get the CI’s on a course which is a number of weekends long, or get them to complete distance learning. Either way, we are sure we get the right people in as CI’s and they are certain of their responsibilities and necessary commitment.” I don’t recall a CI course at all but requiring “several weekends or distance learning” may sound fine on paper but in practise: for volunteers giving up their own time? I think not.
Having read all these postings I realise that “CI” covers two very different communities of volunteer - or perhaps a broad spectrum of volunteers ranging from recent cadets offering to be CIs as an extension of their time as cadets and at the other end (old fossils?) with a different level of maturity, a lifetime of experiences and time on their hands having retired from full time work. The appropriate stance for the organisation is to exercise flexibility and discretion, operate more on a case by case basis rather than try to impose rules which must cater for the “worst case scenario”.
