It is a fair comment. We have Sqns with the same OC for 6, 8, 12, 16, 20+ years at a time wjo are successful so why can’t Wings run in the same manner? If successful keep calm and carry on
Yes i agree i think it would be more refreshing to see younger wing commanders and squadron leaders. I couldnt name 1 under the age of 50 in my wing and have all been doing the same job long time.
That new wing commander could well serve more terms not just the one. We have quite a long standing wing OC and his stayed in the roll for quite some time now and continues to do so.
So true, if it was we wouldn’t have to worry about the 30% increase because we would already have it, and more.
Same could be said at each level of the organisation, staying from the cadets up!!
1 Like
I’m not saying they have to change units. And it’s not really about the OC being in post over 4 years, its about the 30yr old Sqn Ldr who is now in a post for 30 years - without ever having been back to a squadron. Some officers will be happy to remain Flt Lt and run a sqn, just like in the RAF they have the professional aviator spine. Do a wing job for 4 years, 8 if still good, but max out at 8, then back to squadron. Doesn’t have to be OC, could easily be a sqn officer.
But what about the young officer coming through with ideas on improvements who gets told, sorry, Blogg has been wing first aid officer for 18 years so you can’t even get a look in till he leaves in 20 years. There has to be a rotation of roles otherwise young enthusiastic officers loose their enthusiasm and leave.
So we kick out perfectly competent people just because?
yes - there should be rotation of roles, there should not be an expectation that a volunteer once in a role is in it for life.
but if someone is already doing a job, perhaps “great” job those “new” ideas may already have been considered and being put into place?
perhaps this young officer (or NCO) is best placed supporting the existing CFAV in place rather than simply taking over.
in my time of all the WSOs/SMEs i have known to be truly the best person in the role, they have been the doing that role because they are the best person for it.
a passionate CFAV for first aid, shooting or radio creates a weekend training schedule at sufficient frequency and quality that it encourages other CFAVs to join the team - success breeds success.
what is telling is when that “perfect” SME steps down for whatever reason how much the subject suffers for 6 months while their successor gets up to speed (if indeed there is someone available straightaway) and then the following 6 months sees a slap dash attempt to either recreate what worked but somehow doing it badly, or they try to reinvent the wheel and again do it badly.
the exception to that is when the successor is better than the CFAV they replace. in our Wing shooting has been the perfect example. it was run by a long standing CFAV who did the job but was no proactive and never set up Wing events.
those CFAVs who were keen for it, made the weekend shoots and training happen, and the Wg Shooting simply signed them off - barely even attended.
Shooting worked in spite of them.
it was no surprise that when the Wg Shooting officer finally stepped down who would take over and sure enough everything carried on but now lead from the front by the Wg Shooting Officer.
My point being - if someone is in place for years and they are good - they are good for a reason and are supported by their team.
if someone is in place for years and they are bad, then the CFAVs who are good will make things happen any way and won’t care that they don’t have the “rank” or “role” there are ways to achieve their vision which work and so are delivering output which is useful to the end goal, without the need for extra braid on the shoulders
5 Likes
No, we return them to squadrons so they can re-equate with the squadron role. That’s not a bad thing.
1 Like
but why get rid of someone who is doing a good job in the role just because we can “…we return them to squadrons so they can re-equate with the squadron role…”
is a successful, hard working, competent Wing SME/WSO is doing everything that is expected - who benefits by taking them out of that role so the individual can re-equate with Squadron life*?
Why cause the disruption to the Wg status quo by removing someone good for someone new and by placing someone into an environment they might not thrive in?
As above, i have no issue with a Wg Radio officer being in post for 15 years providing they are competent. it is what makes them tick, it is the best was they can serve the organisation, and the most effective way to use their skills.
if there are others who share that passion and think they can do a better job, chances are that person while accept the suggestions and ideas and bring them into the team.
the trouble being, those who are in place for years and years and years at a Wing level and done a bad job, no one at a Squadron level would want them on Squadron.
i can think of 1-2 examples in our Wing where Sqn Ldrs have not been popular either through (lack of) competence or ways of working that no one would be queuing up for to have on their Squadron
*if the role is not secondary and thus doing the role alongside a Sqn role
Becasue where is the progressions for new staff? I assume you have been in a position you are comfortable with and don’t want to have to move.
agree i have been in a position i am comfortable with.
and i have also never known there be more than one person pushing for a Wing Role. it is either the person already in position doing a good job, or it is the person who would do a good job of it (based on previous known experience) but is waiting for the useless CFAV to step down.
perhaps your experience is different but We’ve never had a “longlist” for prospective Radio or Shooting officers.
the shortlist is typically one person.
for Radio, it was the best person for the role. while there has been healthy support in the Wing for the Radio team, no one else in the team has a desire for the Wing Radio Officer role - all happy supporting the incumbent.
for shooting however, almost the opposite. things happen not because of the Wing Shooting officer, but because of a group of qualified CFAVs make it so - they are the Wing shooting team and it is clear to all who should be the Wing shooting officer, but they are not because they are being “blocked” by the long standing incumbent who is not doing a good job of it.
while i appreciate in both cases it is a waiting for “dead man’s shoes” there is never a shortlist of who will be the next Wing SME - in most cases it is no one, as the person in the role was actually the best person in the Wing, or there is on other obvious candidate. and that candidate either worked well with the incumbent, and was happy either as an official or unofficial deputy, or they cracked on regardless
the only occasion i can think of someone being so keen to “progress” they found another route to take, be that another Squadron to lead rather than their current one, or found a different specialist subject.
There needs to be a balance between experience & development of new blood.
All roles should be subject to review with perhaps principle & deputies swapping places
I believe that there is a tenure for wing staff officers of mac 8 years in post although they can move to another post which is probably about right at level & encourages future planning.
Sqn level it’s a little different but you do need that rotation.
I think the main problem, which is one of the things Steve has said, is that there aren’t people queuing up to take over Wing roles. It might not be the same everywhere, but our wing consistently has several vacancies.
I think there possibly is, but without a structure so people know when a role may become available, there is little point in forward planning, especially if you think someone in in-post for life.
I have issue with people staying in post for a long period, as long as they are productive and produce a meaning full output. That can be at squadron, Wing or Region level.
There are many who just site there, build their little empire or fortress around themselves so no one can touch them.
As highlighted above, when the primary person leaves (for whatever the reason), then the activity suffers whilst the replacement gets qual’d / up to speed). Even with a good person in the position for a while, there needs to be a solid deputy & a “succession plan” so that any transition is seamless.
You can say that for just about any role in the ATC. Finding people to fill roles can be difficult, being inspirational and proactive can be unusual, sometimes being competent is enough.
2 Likes
i don’t disagree and never said succession planning should be ignored. there have been examples of unofficial deputies in place. but at the same time, we never had a queue stretching out of the doors of WHQ when a new Wing role is advertised - even less so when that role requires experience and/or qualifications as well as knowledge.
Replacing a “Flying officer” who oversees the allocation of flying and gliding slots, and manages the scholarship applications is easier than trying to do the same with a Shooting or AT officer expected to have a list of qualifications and experience to make a judgement on SMS applications and sign them off.
but whichever role, moving someone on simple because they’ve done the role long enough, and it is someone else’s turn doesn’t sit comfortably with me unless it is a known system in place
OC Wg is the only role in a Wing which is time bound - a “term” of four years. no other such role i can think of, be it a WSO, SME or Squadron OC has such expectations on time in the role.
If that changed, and WSO/SME roles were set as 4 year terms, and it was known and advertised when these roles were “expiring” 6 months before the end of term, it would help all understand.
- the incumbent to realise it isn’t a “role for life” and if, after a period of time they want to step down, they know there is a convenient time for all, when their 4 year term is up, to do so
- for potential candidates to consider the role and apply.
this wouldn’t be a fixed “only 4 years at a time” policy, but after 3 years the OC Wg can ask the incumbent if they wish to remain in post, at 3.5 years the decision is made to stay or leave and if leaving then react accordingly, by advertising the role in the hope there would be a smooth transition and even a period of shadowing and handover.
as it stands though a Sqn OC, and roles up to OC Wing are high responsible, high pressure, high workload, high commitment roles which do not have an “end date” - it is perhaps no wonder there is “burn out” of young OCs as their enthusiasm overtakes them and they try and achieve too much too soon and then cannot maintain that energy level.
In the RBL, as many of you know i am involved in, it is not a dissimilair arrangement at Branch level, our now former - chairman, was in the role for 47 years - yet at County level, every role is either 1, 2, or 3 year terms.
Chairman is in post for a fixed 3 year term - and while i suspect not written down, it is always the Deputy Chair who takes over for the following three years (so arguably a 6 year term, 3 as deputy, 3 as Chair)
other supporting roles are 2 or 3 year terms, without County Committee roles typically 1 year commitments, although others like Treasurer and Secretary 2 or 3 year terms.
all the roles above County are three year terms, and have an overlap with deputies.
the National Parade Marshall (the CACWO if you like) is appointed with a deputy who has already done 18 months in the role - as as you can work out, that deputy changes 18 months into the NPM tenure. this avoids knowledge loss and improves consistency as the teams do not all change every 3 years and end up going off in different directions each time the team manager changes.
but the ATC doesn’t do that - it is only the person at the top who is in post for an “fixed term” and even then often extended one, twice or more!
but if it were “policy” then yes, i would feel happier people were asked to “move on” after their “turn” of an agreed fixed period.
but asking/ordering someone to step aside having done a great job, achieved plenty, delivered on everything, managed the role, lead the Wing team, and succeeded simply because they’ve done it for 14 years and Fg Off Fry wants a crack at the whip feels the wrong way to treat a volunteer
(far better to have Fg Off Fry work with the incumbent and share their ideas, enthusiasm and drive)
1 Like
Speaking to my former WSO, OC wing & WSO are four year terms which can be extended by the regional commandant to 8 years if desired /requested.
All of our regional roles are a 4 year term with an option to do another 4.
After then it’s open to applications regardless
1 Like
This is something I find odd about the ATC. Why are sqn commanders limited to flt lt rank (unless they take over huge inner city sqns) whilst wing SME roles are associated with promotion to sqn ldr?
My wing in the reserves only has one sqn ldr (the Wing XO), in addition to the three sqn commanders. The other wing HQ positions are at SO3, WO, or NCO level.
If the ATC awarded the leaders of sqns with the appropriate rank, and WSOs were flt lts (with the exception of deputy OCs), people might be more motivated to stay on sqns (or their motivations for doing wing roles might be for different reasons).
1 Like