Of course the dynamic at a squadron is different from that work as there is not the same compulsion to actually do the job or even sometimes an understanding of what that job really is.
Volunteers have the capacity to be totally obstructive and cause serious harm to the functioning of a unit if they choose to and it is not so easy to control them once they are part of the organisation.
Angus is spot on, Iāve seen it happen at other Squadrons in my Wing, heāll Iāve seen it happen at work some wand turns up ruins the dynamic and everyone else leaves.
Yes we are there for the cadets but a) itās my hobby too and Iām not interested in tolerating twats on my spare time Indo that enough at work b) the casdets are best served by a harmonious staff team who work well together.
At the end of the day said wand can always go to the ACF or the SCC or the Womenās Auxillary Balloon Corps. My day job is people and first impressions, gut instincts call it what they want generally turn out to be right.
youāve clearly never met my (former0 OCā¦let alone worked with them!
(and yes i have moved to another Sqn because of their attitude and know of another who is aiming to leave too)
We had a change of supervision at work, with 3 days 13 or 25 had applied to transfer!
How many of the 13 transferred?
Maybe Iām of a different character, but I couldnāt get that bothered. A move to another sqn is a lot of aggro and the grass isnāt always greener, you could move and find the same situation, which then raises the question is it you as you are control factor and everyone else is a variable?
you DEFINITELY havenāt met my former boss.
universally recognised as not a āpeople personā he treats Staff and Cadets with the same disdain
moving to a new Sqn has proven to me an OC doesnāt have to be a &!"$ and is a role which IS proactive
13 left and those that stayed didnāt hang around, with 12 months that ten had only 2 of the original Offocer left.
The point is that established and happy people will leave if someone comes in who disrupts the team already in place. As an OC one of the things I look for when I interview potential volunteers is whether they will be compatible with the team in place, if they arenāt I wonāt take them on. Not rejected anyone for that reason yet, but I would.
Surely that is rather difficult to establish until they have been observed working with the existing team? Anyone can answer questions with āYeah mate, I can get on with everyone, Iāve got a very flexible attitudeā¦ā
The adverse comments concerning a ānew arrivalā generating bad feelings & associated staff moves seem to be pointed at higher-level CFAVs rather than CIs, the topic in question.
We have deviated a long way from the original topic, my initial point was that I support getting a WSO down to talk to new CIās to effectively backstop the OCās and ensure that people are suitable (ie are they Jimmy Saville or not) and that Iām happy that we can make an initial judgement. Itās not an exact science and some people may slip through but itās better than nothing.
The deviation was that I added I was also willing to bat people off before we got to the Wing Staff Officer interview if I deemed them unsuitable and I would view unsuitable beyond just āhe might be a Paedophileā to āheās a throbberā. Now in some cases this view will develop over time,as it did with the guy I bounced who had been suggested by a Senior Wing Staff Offixer. However some people walk through the door as potential staff and they are quite clearly throbbers from square 1 and I would have no issues with jogging them on straight away as they would be a disruptive influence on my established team.
Please tell me daws, have you actually ever turned many people away because of this? What was the outcome of said individuals? I really would not care if they were throbbers as long as they could prove themselves to be useful to the kids then surely thatās enough for the ever need of staff?
As I said higher up the thread I have turned away 2 people who applied to be CIās, one was recommended to me by a Senior member of Wing Staff who had known him as a cadet he got his DBS and interview out of the way but I then kyboshed his paperwork and told him where to go as he was starting to disrupt the staff team, I had caught him out in a few lies etc and I just didnāt trust him.
The other was a minor celebrity on a soap and I told him no at the first sit down we had, I didnāt like his attitude in general and his motivations were unclear. (There was something wrong, I couldnāt put my finger on what but I deal with people for a living and I trust my instincts).
Never heard from either again, the first one I also warned the other OCās in the Wing that if approached by or about him I had information which might be of interest.
Being useful to the cadets is not ALL that itās about, a staff team has to be able to work together and if you get a bad apple destroying morale you wonāt have much of a staff team left. This is a hobby and people will not spend their spare time working with people they despise.
You cannot get a situation where all staff are having one constant massive love-in.
What happens when people fall-out? Do you have group hugs or similar?
You cannot expect new people to just fit in and like and be liked by all all the time, or, they may well be liked initially and then brass people off. You cannot control or determine emotions and emotional response.
You would have to be extremely lucky to have a small group of staff who do everything required or such a large group that you are able to turn people away.
I have built my team from 1 person (me when I took over) to 11 in a combination of uniform and CIās. That group contains 4 people who just walked in off the street in one way or another.
Iām not saying they have to a perfectly crafted individual ideally suited to a nice round hole that I have for them. What I am saying is that I look at more than just there suitability to work with cadets. Iāve worked very hard to build the team I have and if they are a tool then I wonāt take them, now I may figure that out on day 1 or as with the one I boshed it may take a month but if I do come to that conclusion then the ACF are just over the road.
Well I did in the same situation (and backed up my WO at the time) and was later proven right.
So what were you later proven right about? No point in a sweeping statement to indicate a 6th sense, if you arenāt able to elucidate. Any thing in the local press to support it or was it just hearsay?
Some people here operate like masons and other organistions do with their āblack ballā system. Something that is frowned upon and treated with derision.