…and it wouldn’t be a difficult fix.
It will just require a tweak of mindset away from “we’re only here for the cadets” to “let’s look after our staff as well and give them something to make them feel valued”.
The current approach to making staff feel valued seems to be public “thank you” and occasional certificates. That’s all well and good but that’s not what makes someone feel truly valued and fulfilled.
Developing oneself… Learning new skills and becoming good at them - that’s fulfillment… Then using those skills to contribute something of worth is what makes people feel valued; and where we’ve got people who would be great at developing junior staff let’s use them!
I’ve always said it would do no harm in stopping off Sqn cadet training for 12 months and purely focus on giving staff quals such as fieldcraft instructor, radio, cyber, classification training etc…it would send a positive shockwave.
1 x RCO with SA(SR)07 or higher
2 x FPSS with SA(K)17 or higher (1:3 ration as detailed as the standard for inexperienced firers)
1 x First Aider with AFA or FAAW
1 x Ammo Orderly - Fully Appointed CFAV
If you are a shooting sqn you are likely to have cadet coaches, so could really deliver something effective.
This thread has really made me think about the next (first) SNCO / Officer promotion recommendation that I need to make as an OC. I’m not overly worried about qualifications per se (I think this is already covered by the matrix) but could this person effectively mentor a new CFAV and act as a role model to the cadets in their new rank. The boxes are the minimum but I don’t want a box ticker.
Whichever way you look at it, & regardless of all the desirable qualities / skills / attributes / progression routes as outlined very eloquently, whilst RAFAC remains a “volunteer” organisation with a few permanent staff, it will be very difficult to make any of this work. Local initiatives might be of use, but rarely are they permanent.
Look at the personnel in the RAF; everyone has a designated job / role & is expected to work to that & achieve certain standards. As such, these are recorded in each person’s annual performance review; poor reviews = limited promotion & / or posting options. Depending on rank / trade / branch, there are also specific trg / experience requirements, etc, mandated for onward / upward progression.
No such luxuries in RAFAC = unfortunately, it will always be a hodge podge of circumstances, often dictated by wg participation (or not), local CFAV expertise (or not) & local facilities (or not). Shooting / flying are especially relevant to availability of expertise / facilities.
Who measures the “success” (or otherwise) on any specific RAFAC “unit” - such as trg teams, SATTs, whatever? Who then pulls them up if they are not working properly? Not so simple as the RAF.
Yes. You’re talking a minimum of 6 staff members. I don’t have 6 staff members, let alone 3 with range quals. A lot of squadrons in my wing would struggle to provide that.
Sqns need staff who have a vested interest in their unit. A long term interest. They don’t need staff who are treating it as a stepping stone to the next role.
If you want to encourage personal development (and why wouldn’t you?), and link that in to rank requirements, then it needs to be able to enhance squadron training, not encourage moving to wing. Yes, some people will be suited to staff training, or wing level work, as they are now. But that doesn’t mean they make a better NCO/deserve promotion over someone only gets involved in Sqn stuff.
We cant even manage the admin for the ‘simple’ set up we have at the moment - months for simple paper exercises to be signed off/approved/actioned, constant ‘do this or you are suspended’ threats for even basic requirements
Do you really think we could manage a sustained staff development structure to cover a CFAV career over many years?
We have enough trouble just getting keen candidates with a pulse and the basic common sense to start with, without putting massive training/skills requirements in their path like we were a regular service.
It is just a hobby…
…even if we do try to give cadets the best we can
Sure, but that’s a local consideration. The Corps as a whole needs more than that. To consider that the needs of 900+ individual Squadrons are more important than the needs of the Corps as a collective is only going to lead us where we’ve always been - disjointed.
Those 900+ Sqns need training and direction so that we’re all pulling together and working to a comparable standard.
Some people will only remain on their Sqn and that’s fine - they’re working on one facet of the plan. But others will be drawn to a higher level - that’s fine too because they’re working on another facet.
Anyone who sees the progression of staff beyond the boundary of their unit as a negative is, in my opinion, misguided and potentially selfish.
Your choice of wording there - “treating it as a stepping stone” - hints at an underlying feeling that anyone who looks beyond the Squadron is somehow a lesser CFAV; not committed to the ultimate outcome, which is providing the cadet experience; or “in it for the wrong reasons”.
I’m saying that’s not a fair assessment. At all.
I also find it massively ironic given that in the post above you state that you don’t have sufficient staff on your Sqn to run a range… Nor do most of us. That’s exactly why we need people who are prepared to go beyond just the local stuff to provide all these opportunities which Sqns can’t do locally.
Will it?
The Sea Cadets are making it work just fine.
Most of the “luxuries” you say we are lacking could be put in place - and that is exactly what I’m suggesting.
Let’s proactively train people so that we’ve got more local expertise. Let’s place people under the tutorship and management of more experienced SNCOs, so that their development and success can be measured; let’s encourage them to improve and sure, let’s “pull them up” if they’re not working properly. Find out why, help them get back on track if we can; or in the case of those who are just lazy, chin them off to a role where they’re not letting people down.
Yes, I do - If we put the right people in place and we shift the collective mindset around what it is to be a RAFAC CFAV.
The problems we have with current process is mostly because we expect it to all “just happen”.
We’ve got a potential pool of volunteer people who would be happy to help make it happen, but we don’t tap that resource.
Maybe if we gave them something to look forward to and a sense of achievement along the way we might get more keen candidates.
Instead, we take them in with promises of “making a difference” and then we leave them to fester on Squadrons. We don’t make any concerted effort as an organisation to develop our staff. Sure, there are “pockets” around the country - if you happen to be in a Wing with a good training team in an area of interest; but in general we just expect people to turn up at their Squadron and ‘get on with it’ without any training, assistance, or backup outside of the basics.
We place mandatory requirements in front of them - necessary in some cases but dull - but we don’t help them to find their own enjoyment in the Corps.
Even where there are opportunities available we don’t push them - we just let staff slide into lethargy and then we reward that with promotion.
Cadets see this and it’s no wonder why fewer and fewer of them have any desire to become CFAVs themselves.
Indeed. So let’s give our volunteers more opportunity to do something which they particularly enjoy and help them to get better at it - we’ll end up with better, happier, staff.
Happy is a personal subjective perspective.
As long as “happy” is allowed to be the whole range of personal “happy”, and not someone else’s happy. A lot of people get the hump as they are happy doing whatever it is at whatever level, then some sticks their nose in as they think they should being doing more (never less).
There are some who want to do more and the organisation isn’t capable of delivering. If the organisation demands it then it’s down to them to deliver or pay for it centrally not as currently Civ Comms covering costs.
None of that is in any doubt. I just don’t think that those that are in a position to do that are a better quality of NCO and therefore should be promoted to FS.
Recruiting, promoting, and maintaining a training cadre of wing level SNCOs (Or Officers for that matter) is just not possible. Sure, if the Corps was at 150% manning, then releasing people to train consistently at Wing level would be fine. My wing has currently something like 45% of the staff it’s scaled for, and that will not improve anytime soon. Maintaining a consistent presence on a squadron, as well as being active at wing level just isn’t sustainable in the long term. Making Wing level participation compulsory for personal development reasons will force people out of squadrons.
Personal development, and therefore promotion, must be available to everyone, regardless of role.
Activities wise, we need better collaboration at local level, rather than centralisation - there are too few staff and too many cadets to make it worthwhile.
True.
Though, I guess this is again where we approach the subject from differing angles.
I would consider that the ideal be that those who are promoted to FS under my scheme would be, in general, a better quality of NCO as a prerequisite to that role - not that those who are doing the jobs under the current circumstances necessarily are already.
Also that it’s only part a measure of quality but also an allocation of who is willing and able to take on the additional responsibilities which I feel the rank of FS should carry.
In the same way that I expect my cadet NCOs job to change as they progress from Cpl to CWO, I would expect that Staff roles would change as they are promoted.
Where the cadet NCO has the advantage of having a host of local cadets and JNCOs which keeps their duties within their own unit, staff allocation is different and wider and I feel that staff who apply for promotion to FS should accept and expect that the increase in rank carries other duties which will necessitate a greater role away from one Squadron.
Again I say that we need only look to see how the SCC manage it. I don’t accept that it’s not possible. Especially when there are other voluntary organisations, less well prepared than we are, whose primary structure is based around the idea of streaming volunteers into one of a number of pathways.
Whilst I would say that personal development can be available separately from promotion I would also say that promotion (under my scheme) would be available to all - but it would require that the applicant accept the additional role described above.
I think this highlights the crux of our difference on the issue. I consider promotion as a tool to allocate resources; rather that something which is given out simply for being better than average.
Certainly my experience of 25 years worth of cadet promotions (including my own in the early days) says that this is not an approach at odds with the desires of the applicants.
When asked “Why do you want to be a Cpl/Sgt/FS?” the common reply is because the cadet feels that they have something to contribute to the higher position and they would like the challenge.
I don’t think it unfair to apply the same to staff.
Well 71 replies to a topic I posted, gotta be worth a View now I thought, we seems however to have gone ever so slightly of track, round the corner up the hill and down again.
Did become an interesting read but didn’t get an answer my initial question.
Good leaders develop the people under their command to be the best they can be with regards to the organisational objectives, not just limited to their own small trainset in that wider picture.
However I don’t feel that those who are in the first box should be prevented from progressing through the rank structure because they are a Squadron focused NCO. An Officer can become a Fg Off whilst not doing anything outside their unit and I think FS should be the same. If we want to put Wing engagement on a role make it the FS to WO jump, as this would mirror the Commissioned side where to be a Flt Lt you need to be an OC or a WSO and both of those roles by their very nature require you to support something larger than your own unit.
I will grant that the Plt Off to Fg Off jump does put a spanner in the works of my plan.
I was pondering last night much along the lines that you suggest.
I still tend personally towards the idea that an increase in rank should come with an increase in, and a widening of, ones responsibilities; otherwise to me it seems a pointless promotion… But then there’s that Plt Off - Fg Off issue again.
So with Sqn only FS I definitely think they need to have demonstrated additional commitment and competence in a subject area - as previously mentioned, like the SCC route of holding and maintaining an instructor level qualification.
There’s got to be something demonstrable which says “this person knows more, is better than the rest, and has demonstrated commitment to their progression”.
I suppose I feel that at Sgt one could afford to be a generalist (and indeed that would be advantageous in the early stage so that they experience a range of activities), but that a FS should be a specialist in some field.
Which is the second reason why I favour a “trade” approach to staff training.
Far better for someone to demonstrate the required progression for promotion in a field they enjoy and are likely to keep active in than to expect them to tick off a load of arbitrary, generalist, nonsense as we expect currently in the “matrix”.
