ACHIEVING A BALANCE: PROMOTION, CAREERISM
AND SUCCESS IN THE CADET PROGRAM

As Seniors concerned with Cadets and the Cadet Program, we all want our Cadets to succeed. But what is success? And, how do we help our Cadets achieve it? Do we, by defining success in our own terms, limit or perhaps even harm the Cadets in our charge?

There are many roads to success in the Cadet Program, possibly as many as there are Cadets. This paper will attempt to explore a few of those roads with a special emphasis on the potholes and blind curves and discuss the ways we can help our Cadets find their own road in the Cadet Program.

Speed

Success is clearly definable, and often attainable, but ultimately unique to everyone. The dictionary defines success as: 2. a favorable or satisfactory outcome or result. 3. extent of succeeding: as, what success did he have? 4. the gaining of wealth, fame, rank, etc. 5. a successful person or thing.

Obviously, it is definition 4 that most concerns us and most troubles this author. Many members associated with the Cadet program strictly define success for Cadets by the gaining of grade. This is not necessarily the fault of the individuals. Partially, it mirrors an unfortunate, though necessary, trend from wing, region and national.

On those levels of command, familiarity with individual Cadets within the program is rare. Yet, decisions must be made at those levels regarding important things such as awards, attendance at activities and positions of authority at those activities. At those levels, Cadet applicants become a brief series of words in boxes on a form. It is important that the command find the best applicant for each position, yet they know so little about each of them. The obvious default qualifier for many of those decisions is the Cadet's grade and date of rank. The success of each Cadet is cleanly gauged and compared by how high an achievement they have reached and how fast they reached it.

Unfortunately, this has two effects on Cadets and Cadet Program personnel. It forces a Cadet who wishes to attend and, perhaps, command at a large activity to enter into a sharp competition for grade and promotion speed. It also forces Cadet Program personnel to try to evaluate their Cadets based on the same types of criteria higher commands are using to evaluate Cadets.

Another factor in creating an atmosphere requiring hyper-promotion is the competitiveness of our Cadets. Our Cadets are, frankly, among the finest youth in our nation. They have a natural urge to excel. This urge often surfaces as a competition, not always friendly, with their brother and sister Cadets. The personal preferences of individual Cadets are going to dictate that they enter different areas of interest within the Cadet Program. Cadet A is interested in emergency services and attends Hawk Mountain, NGSAR and PJOC while Cadet B who has an interest in flying, attends a glider encampment, a flight encampment and Oshkosh. Because of their competitive natures, they feel a need to compare their accomplishments and to try to outdo each other. But you can't compare apples and oranges. There's only one meaningful way two Cadets with such disparate interests can compete on a level playing field - achievements. If they compare their respective grades, they will find the place where one is 'better' than the other. And each will attempt to test and promote just a bit faster than his friend. So they promote as quickly as they can, driving each other onward in lockstep through the Cadet Program. Ultimately this type of competition often results in a bizarre comparison of Spaatz numbers as a measure of self-worth - the lower the better.

No one who has been with Cadet Programs for any length of time will find anything unfamiliar about this hypothetical pair of Cadets. Many Deputy Commanders for Cadets encourage this type of competition because it inspires Cadets to continue to progress through the program. But what is the cost to the Cadet who, for whatever reason, falls a month or two behind his compatriot?

 If a Cadet progresses rapidly through a few achievements, it can be heart-rending and world-shaking if they are refused promotion 'on schedule' for any reason. A Cadet who is progressing 'on schedule' will also present the commander with a terrible decision: hold back the promotion and disappoint the Cadet or promote him in spite of some reservations and perhaps put him into a situation he's not ready for.

This narrow view of success also results in the oddity of the "13-month-wonder": the Cadet who completes each achievement and receives the Mitchell in the absolute minimum time, often with the assistance and encouragement of Cadet Programs personnel. Is the "13-month-wonder" a better person, or even a better Cadet? Personal experience shows that many of these young men and women are social misfits, un-athletic beyond the PFT and attend no extracurricular activities at school. The Cadet Program is their life, their sole hobby and the source of all their friends. This type of Cadet, although he might achieve the Spaatz at age 16, is not going to be attending the Academy unless he becomes 'well rounded'. And there are few, if any, of these "13-month-wonders" who couldn't use a few more months learning the art and science of leadership as a Cadet NCO.

While the Cadet Program materials attempt to teach NCO leadership and stress the importance and need for experienced and reliable NCOs, Cadet Programs personnel often gloss over the NCO grades or, worse, dismiss them entirely as merely 'stepping stones' to the Mitchell and greater achievement as Cadet officers.

Finally, there is the matter of the Spaatz award itself. It is a plain fact that very, very few Cadets ever achieve the Spaatz. Statistics for the year 1997 show that only one Spaatz was awarded for every 700 Cadets - a rate of fourteen one-hundredths of a percent, or .14%. Recent statistics show that only 9% of the entire Cadet corps has achieved the Mitchell. Yet, many Cadet Programs personnel will insist that the only goal worthy of a Cadet is the Spaatz and that every Cadet should strive to achieve it.

Keep in mind that the goal of the Cadet Program is to turn out (or become) dynamic, aerospace-minded, American leaders, not to win the Spaatz award. Measuring every Cadet against the fourteen one-hundredths of a percent that achieve the Spaatz is not only misguided, it is de-motivating and a grave disservice to our Cadets. It is akin to saying that an enlisted man isn't a success unless he becomes a sergeant major and that an officer isn't a success unless he pins on a star. The military doesn't measure success that way and neither should we.

Cadets and Seniors who believe that the only way to be successful in the Cadet Program is through constant advancement in rank with an ultimate goal of the Spaatz need to understand that they're simply incorrect. Cadets should be encouraged to progress, but they shouldn't be pushed simply for the sake of achieving. Overachieving is almost a sickness that needs to be discouraged within the Cadet program. There are many ways for a Cadet to be successful in CAP without hyper-promotion. There's a lot more to the Cadet Program and the Civil Air Patrol!

Vacation

The opposite problem, and possibly the most unnerving to Cadet Programs personnel, is the Cadet who stops moving for a long period of time. This seems to occur most commonly at three places: C/Amn, C/MSgt and C/LtCol. All three of these seem to mark significant 'hurdles' in the Cadet program: the first aerospace test, the Mitchell exam and the Spaatz award. However, C/Amn who stall are probably just gathering themselves or preparing to drop out and Eaker Cadets are generally left to contemplate the Spaatz at their leisure.

Cadet master sergeants who 'stall' can be another manner. Often, the stop is brief, perhaps a year, and the Cadet begins moving again at a more acceptable pace. However, occasionally Cadets will spend an extreme amount of time at the grade of Cadet master sergeant - sometimes literally years. Achievement completion guidelines aside, these 'career Cadet NCOs' are inappropriate for two reasons: 1. the traditional NCO-officer relationship is not taught correctly in the Cadet Program; 2. the Cadet Program wasn't designed to accommodate them.

In the services, where NCOs and officers progress along different career paths, it is an acknowledged fact that the NCOs have more experience and time in service than junior officers. It takes several years to become a sergeant; it only takes a few months to become a second lieutenant. Because of this fact, both parties (NCOs and officers) are taught a proper relationship from the beginning. To whit: NCOs are subordinate to officers and must show appropriate respect and deference, but should not be trifled with or ignored because of their tremendous and sometimes superior knowledge and experience.

Civil Air Patrol doesn't teach this basic concept well. It is never spelled out clearly in leadership materials and isn't well understood by the majority of CAP personnel, including those in Cadet Programs. This often results in Cadet NCOs adopting the swagger and attitudes of military NCOs without understanding the responsibilities incumbent upon them: namely to follow their officers and lead their people. It also causes Cadet officers and some Cadet Programs personnel to treat Cadet NCOs as little more than 'apprentice officers' who will eventually pass the Mitchell and be good for something. Both these attitudes are incorrect and can color how people view the 'long term' Cadet NCO.

Cadets stalled at C/MSgt and facing the Mitchell are often regarded as unmotivated slackers who need to be urged along before they become too set in their ways (and their grade). The difficulty of the Mitchell test should also be taken into account when evaluating the progress of the long-term Cadet NCO. The Mitchell exam is extremely intimidating and very difficult, as it should be.

While it may be true that the long-term Cadet master sergeant is avoiding the Mitchell, another reason could be they are happily exploring the leadership potential of the grade they hold. Cadets know that as soon as they pass the Mitchell their world changes. The basic duties and 'lifestyle' of the Cadet NCO are very different from those of a Cadet officer. Compared to the Spaatz and its place as the culmination of the Cadet Program, the Mitchell may be the greater psychological hurdle. The Spaatz represents closure, the Mitchell a new beginning.

But what is gained by forcing a Cadet NCO up through the program before he's ready? There doesn't seem to be a lack of leadership ability in a long-term Cadet NCOs. Often Cadet NCOs have more leadership potential and ability than their grade and position allows. And the Cadet who has fully explored the lessons to be learned as a Cadet NCO makes a better Cadet officer than the Cadet who puts on his pips in 13 months. It can be argued that in many cases quick advancement is a refuge for a Cadet who proved unskilled as an NCO and sought affirmation and authority as an officer.

This is not to say that a Cadet should be allowed to sit at C/MSgt for two years. But why should they be considered failures or slackers after six months if they're functioning well at that grade?

There have also been fears expressed in some CAP circles that adding an additional achievement and the C/CMSgt rank, with its corresponding title of 'chief', will increase the cachet of remaining a Cadet NCO. It is questionable if this will be the case as C/MSgt itself is highly regarded, and overall very few Cadets spend an inordinate amount of time at that grade. The achievements aren't the problem with Cadets progressing to officer, the Mitchell is. The Mitchell is hard. However, overall the impact of the proposed changes to the Cadet Program remains to be seen.

Of course, it should be noted that the commander is the final arbiter of what is 'satisfactory progress'.

An Officer and a Gentleman

A danger inherent in the Cadet Program is 'careerism'. Careerism is valuing and working toward personal advancement or gain regardless of the needs of the service. The military services are inundated with rampant careerism and, amazingly, there's plenty of it in the Cadet corps as well.

Both of our basic issues so far have dealt with the considerations of the good of the individual over the good of the service. In the first case, we discussed promotion for promotion's sake without enough consideration given to the readiness of the individual for that promotion. In the second, we discussed failing to promote when it was obviously past time to move on and assume greater responsibility.

The commander who is holding a pen over that form 59 must take both of these considerations into account. Is promoting this Cadet going to benefit CAP and the squadron, or just the Cadet? Is allowing a Cadet to 'stall' benefiting CAP and the squadron, or just that Cadet. This is the core of professional evaluation.

Mission: Impossible

An overemphasis on success as defined by the three missions of CAP can result in a unit that spends all of its time training. Meeting after meeting, weekend after weekend is spent preparing for missions, practicing drill or studying for the next achievement. Little or no time and emphasis is placed on the things that make life enjoyable, such as a weekend outing for no other reason than to be together, or fifth meeting of the month spent playing volleyball and having pizza.

The danger of the 'overworked' unit is obvious: decreased attendance and retention due to burn out. Even the active duty military recognizes the need for its members to have time together having fun. Unit activities such as field meets, picnics and 'bosses days' are common throughout the services and obviously are felt to materially contribute to the good morale of the service.

Additionally, there can be problems in an overworked unit for the Cadets who are active outside CAP. It is very easy and natural for a unit commander to consider attendance as a factor in deciding things like promotions, scholarships and participation in higher-unit activities. Active participation is part of the Cadet Oath. But a Cadet who is active in sports, with his family or in a job may not have many weekends free for CAP. This can lead to an outstanding Cadet who may only be available to attend one weekend activity every two months. In an overworked unit this could amount to as little as ten percent of unit activities. In a less busy unit this may be an excellent participation record.

Finally, there is the case of the 'over attending' Cadet. Some care should be take at the squadron and at NHQ with regards to attendance at National Special Activities. While currently attendance is somewhat low, that could easily change in the next few years. Attendance of two or three of these events by a single Cadet is not uncommon. NHQ should compare enrollment applications to ensure that Cadets applying for multiple activities are bumped down the list when they have already been accepted for an activity and another is full.

The Secret of My Success

The solution is fairly obvious. It is important to try to find out why our Cadets are part of the program and to guide their efforts accordingly. Some are members for the camaraderie, some for the activities, some for the ability to test themselves by achieving. It is important for Cadet Programs personnel to work with Cadets to help them achieve their goals and to help CAP and the squadron achieve its goals. The two may not be especially compatible, but we should always strive to bring them together.

This should probably take the form of a semi-official 'career counseling' at achievement completion and annually at renewal time. At these times the Cadet Commander and a Cadet Programs officer (DCC or Leadership) should sit with the Cadet and discuss how his progress has been and what his goals are. Squadron goals and goals for the Cadet should be discussed along with methods to meet them. This should probably begin after the first renewal or after promotion to Cadet sergeant. Cadets lower in grade than Cadet sergeant or who have less than a year with the program aren't good candidates for a review and goal setting program.

The goals established should benefit both the individual and the squadron. The roles of the Cadet and the Cadet staff and Cadet Programs staff will be discussed and agreed upon. Notes should be taken and the results placed into the Cadets personnel jacket. This is rather reminiscent of the old "Achievement Contracts", but it concerns far more than just achievements.

For instance: in keeping with the squadron's goal of fielding a NDTC team, the Cadet might agree that over the next year he will promote two grades to Cadet technical sergeant, attend an encampment and a Cadet leadership school. The squadron might agree that he would receive special training aimed at NCOs and be given a flight sergeant's slot when he has completed the school and promotes to Cadet staff sergeant.

The advantage of up front planning and goal setting for your individual Cadets can be understood if you imagine that this Cadet was only intending to promote one grade, if at all, and was planning on attending an E.S. school. The fact that a squadron has definite goals and that they include the Cadets in the squadron on an individual basis - the fact that every individual is important and is counted on - is exciting and motivating. Everyone likes to feel that they are important and that their contributions matter.

Of course, not everyone is willing to put aside his or her own goals. The Cadet in question might not be willing to sacrifice the E.S. school for the leadership school. This will, of course, affect the goals of the squadron and will certainly affect how the Cadet and the squadron interact. If his thrust is E.S., he may not be interested in advanced leadership training. However, he may want to spend time working on an advanced First Aid qualification. All this should be taken into account by the Cadet Programs staff in their goal setting for the individual and the squadron as a whole.

Obviously the entire concept of goal setting both up and down the chain of command and a periodic review session for Cadets is enough of a subject for a paper in its own right.

The End

In conclusion, there are as many ways of being successful in the Cadet Program as there are Cadets in it. Using a single yardstick, whatever that yardstick is, as a gauge for all Cadets is misguided and a disservice. As Cadet Programs personnel, we should measure the success of a Cadet by how he feels about himself and how others feel about him foremost and hold him up against the impersonal requirements of the 50-16 second.

This is not to say that the Cadet Program should become a feel-good self-esteem camp. But all guidelines for progress, be they national or local, must be evaluated on an individual basis. Our goal is to help train the future leaders of our country. This goal is not achieved by focusing solely on promotions, making a 'career' out of a single grade or over training. The answer lies somewhere in the middle and that answer is unique for each Cadet.

To paraphrase Dean Whitter: we should measure success one Cadet at a time.

About the author: Capt Stanford was a Cadet from 1977 through 1981 and competed in the CT Wing and NE Region Cadet competitions in 1979 and 1980. He served as an active duty Marine from 1981 until 1989 and graduated from NCO Leadership School in 1986. He has been a senior member since 1991. He helped coach the cadet competition teams from his home squadron in Missouri from 1992 through 1997, earning victories at wing every year since 1994. The 1995 and 1997 Missouri Wing teams attended the NCC at NHQ, the only MO Wing teams to ever do so. He is currently DCC at a squadron in Group 3 North, PA Wing.

Capt Shawn Stanford can be reached by email at Shawn.Stanford@alltel.com.

Excerpts of The CAP Officer may be reproduced for use within Civil Air Patrol. Reproductions shall cite The CAP Officer, its URL, and the author's name. As a courtesy, please email The CAP Officer when reproducing an excerpt.