MENTORING CADETS TO DEVELOP THEIR POTENTIALHQ Northeast Region PREFACE After reading an essay encouraging squadron commanders to be active mentors of their cadets, one cadet observed "the saddest part about CAP is that I try to learn more about leadership but no one ever helps me." Daily I cringe at this sentiment; wasted talent is a tragedy. Imagine how many more good leaders CAP would produce if seniors actively mentored cadets in the art of leadership. This essay continues the call for senior members to actively mentor cadets as I wrote in August's Civil Air Patrol News (7). I identify cadet promotions and the division of labor between seniors and cadet staff at the squadron level as a significant hurdle in the Cadet Program. Later, I detail criteria which possible solutions to this problem must meet. Lastly, I conclude with my solution which develops the point I raised in the earlier essay: squadrons should adopt subjective goals for cadet promotion and better manage their cadet staff and senior member relationships. After explaining this philosophy and outlining some possible strategies for practical use, hopefully more seniors will ensure their cadets do not lament like the one I described above.
The major difference between CAP and other youth organizations is that CAP aims to teach leadership by having its cadets plan and execute much of their program. Many cadets take special pride in this, as scouting and sports, for example, are mostly driven by adults. Yet too often cadets are forced to run their program solely on their own initiative and adolescent wisdom. Yet without an advisor or mentor, cadets learn little about leadership. In the earlier article, I told of a squadron commander who was "disgusted by the conceit, poor bearing, and ill judgment shown by a cadet officer in his unit. The commander made no attempt to change the cadet's behavior. Too many seniors wonder if it is their place to do anything at all" (7). This commander and the cadet I described above illustrate why a focus on mentoring is needed in many CAP squadrons. Often, "supporters" of the Cadet Program wrongly assume a laissez-faire style because they believe cadet autonomy is the greatest good. Many cadet commanders in these situations, like the one I described above, are left feeling cheated out of an opportunity to develop their potential. Simply stated, our problem is that cadets are promoted and gain additional responsibility without considering if they have demonstrated a mastery of certain leadership fundamentals. Sadly, little leadership guidance is offered to cadets to help them master the art of leadership. When
speaking of developing leadership potential in cadets, two factors need
consideration: readiness and progression. I define each as
follows: Readiness: the degree to which a cadet is capable of fulfilling duties involving leadership skill.Added to the ideas of readiness and progression, this paper will consider the merits of two promotion systems: the subjective goal approach and the use of objective standards, paying special attention to how each handles readiness and progression.
Subjective goal approach: when written guidelines are used to gauge leadership performance but are open to the personal judgment of command. For example, "be self motivated and able to motivate others", is a subjective goal. One officer may believe a cadet meets this goal routinely, while another officer may believe the same cadet rarely fulfills it.
In
defeating the problem of squadrons promoting cadets but failing to develop
their leadership, any possible solution must meet at least four criteria
which recognize: a. The difference between promotion eligibility and good cause for promotion. The first two criteria require possible solutions recognize that the directive assigns authority to grant promotions and responsibility for fostering leadership growth to one individual: the squadron commander (CAPM 50-16, 3-1). Given commanders are autonomous in this respect, some would be quick to point out that a subjective promotion process could easily become unfair to certain cadets who simply did not get along with their commander. Therefore, there must be some means to limit the amount of "cronyism" and ensure cadets are treated justly. Lastly, by "efficiency" and a "quality focus", I mean to say any possible solution must uphold our highest traditions better than an alternative solution. Examining the four criteria, it seems clear there is a burden of proof required of any subjective approach. In essence, the question we are left with is: What principles ought cadet promotions be based upon?
As I wrote in commentary for Civil Air Patrol News [August 1996, p7], units have found subjective goals an effective means to both spur leadership growth in cadets and safeguard a tradition of excellence in promotion standards. Subjective goals enumerate expectations. For instance, Phase III cadet officers may be expected to think in advance and plan ahead for the unit; be self-motivated and motivate others; and be conscious of their own performance by working toward self-improvement. The strength of a promotion system based on these subjective goals is that it forces commanders to consider a cadet's personal leadership performance, and encourages leadership mentoring to take place. The commander and cadet can review the goals together and discuss specific instances where the cadet fulfilled the goal, and specific instances where he did not, concluding with a discussion on how the cadet can achieve those goals in the future. Objective standards enumerate certain tasks which must be performed, or trivia which must be memorized. Using Phase III as an example, a cadet officer may be required to list the five main parts of a staff study report, and define the term "blunderbuss word." The role of the commander is not as a mentor, and most of the promotion process is delegated to the testing officer who simply ensures the cadet passed the written test. [Note: I do not contend objective standards are useless. Expressed in behavioral terms, they are valuable tools for gauging the effectiveness of training sessions, but further exploring their usefulness is a topic for another paper.] Academic knowledge has a part to play in developing cadets into leaders, but more importantly, leadership skill - the interpersonal relations, goal setting, and acceptance of responsibility - belongs to a higher order. It is through a carefully mentored subjective goals approach that a cadet can best develop his leadership potential.
Measuring a cadet's leadership performance against expectations describes the method used to mentor cadets. Beyond the method, commanders must make a subjective judgment to promote or retain a cadet. Readiness and progression distinguish two factors which bear on this judgment. Examining how a cadet meets his assigned duties is a function of readiness. As argued above, readiness ought to form the nucleus in the dialogue between seniors and cadets. Readiness is a consideration of the manner which the cadet employs leadership to fulfill his duties. For example, discussing readiness with a flight sergeant would involve examining how he instructed new members, if he used initiative "to relieve superiors of routine duties", and whether his own conduct sets a positive or negative example for the unit (by citing specific instances). By examining a cadet's readiness, a commander mentors the cadet to reinforce strengths in the cadet's fulfillment of duty, or coaches him to suggest possible strategies for later success. Perhaps more importantly, managing progression - the rate or manner which the cadet is assigned new duties - can have a greater impact on his development. The philosophy behind progression necessitates commanders manage the amount of responsibility given to the cadet. This is especially relevant in the case of low-ranking cadet commanders. Ought a C/MSgt cadet commander be given the same plate of responsibility and commensurate authority accorded a C/Lt Col cadet commander? No, because the lieutenant colonel has more skill and experience and thus ought to have a fuller plate of challenges than any NCO. Behind this is a belief that a cadet's particular title in his squadron is not as important as his place in the Cadet Program itself. Using objective standards alone, commanders would not examine how a cadet practices the art of leadership. Readiness would be limited to ensuring the cadet passed two tests, ran a mile, and perhaps performed some drill movements. Progression, however, can be managed objectively. Cadet NCOs could be directed to execute certain programs, while cadet officers develop plans and policies. Still without acknowledging that progression must be in concert with readiness, the problem of squadrons failing to develop leadership in cadets would continue. Cadets would remain left on their own to develop as best they can. Any solution will need to utilize the subjective freedom in readiness while retaining the objectivity of progression. Next we will consider how squadron commanders can apply readiness and progression.
The model I offer encourages local units to create a written list of subjective promotion goals or expectations which are grounded in the four leadership stages outlined in The Leadership Laboratory Manual, now obsolete (CAPM 50-3, vol. 1, i., ff.). The "four stages" excel in their explanations of the cadet's leadership role in his program, duties typical for each respective stage, and the type of leadership skills cadets should master. Simply put, cadets "will participate in four increasingly responsible leadership stages" (1). Here the directive speaks volumes with a single sentence. This is to be a Cadet Program where responsibility is carefully measured out, not granted in mass or by a commander's neglectful delegation. There will be different stages for cadets to practice skills already mastered, and encounter new and more advanced ones (returning to the need to manage progression). Leadership, which the regulation later defines as an art, will be the cornerstone of all cadet growth. This solution, a subjective approach grounded by some quasi-objective standards brings the best of both worlds. THE FOUR STAGES DEFINED: The four "increasingly responsible leadership stages" are (i.):
During this phase, new cadets "progress from the simple to the difficult" during the first four achievements, until the attain the grade of cadet staff sergeant (ii). [Note: The sample goals for promotion in Appendix I uses a modification of these groupings. Stage one consists of C/Amn and C/A1C, and C/Sgt is elevated to stage two. The groupings set by CAPM 50-3 are somewhat arbitrary, and could be modified to fit local needs.] The leadership manual later teaches that the first step to becoming a leader is learning how to follow, and in the first leadership stage following should be the primary activity of cadets. From a practical standpoint, this means cadets should not be drilling a flight, providing new cadets with instruction on any subject, and definitely should not assume a cadet command. However, many squadrons in CAP are without ranking cadets, and commanders believe they must rely upon whomever is highest ranking to fill the void, even if that requires a stage one cadet to assume considerable responsibility. If a cadet's place in the Cadet Program itself is more relevant than his title (as argued above), the squadron commander and staff must then be the ones to step forward and fill the leadership void, not an unprepared cadet. "The level of senior member involvement fluctuates depending on the cadet's readiness to lead" (LaFond 14). Ideally, subjective goals for cadets in this stage should focus on fundamentals - those traits which distinguish cadets from their non-cadet peers. Among these are military bearing, obedience to orders, and a willingness to accept responsibility for their own actions. Frequently, many complain "cadets just aren't as disciplined as they should be." If commanders ensured stage one cadets functioned as participant - followers, rather than as surrogate leaders, the Cadet Corps would demonstrate greater strength in the fundamentals.
The second stage involves cadet NCOs, from cadet staff sergeant through master sergeant and the Goddard achievement. At this point in their CAP careers, having mastered the fundamentals associated with being a cadet, they "assume positions of responsibility and authority in which they instruct both individual members and elements in executing basic [marching] movements." (ii.). Still, before commanders rush to delegate stage two cadets significant responsibility, it should be noted that this is a stage of transition. These apprentice-like leaders can be relied upon to execute primary training, not organize or plan the activity as a whole. The current leadership text distinguishes the point splendidly with a chart concluding with the comparison: "The NCO gets the job done. The officer creates the conditions so that the NCO can get the job done" (L2000, 4-3) Subjective goals for stage two cadets should focus on their role as new leaders in low echelon positions such as element leader or flight sergeant. Sample goals could include: relieve superiors of routine duties, demonstrate ability to lead and influence subordinates, and demonstrate proficiency in training cadets on fundamental subjects. If commanders are vigilant for leadership progression in this stage, cadets should graduate into good junior officers ready for more challenges, not egotistical new Mitchell cadets who have "done it all."
The
third stage encompasses all of Phase III, from the Mitchell to the Earhart
Award. Cadet officers in this stage are ripe for command of a flight or small squadron. Planners and supervisors, these officers are ready to help the squadron commander set goals for the unit, and assume responsibility for planning weekly meetings, delegating routine tasks to NCOs, and supervising the instruction and discipline of the Cadet Corps. Sample goals for this stage could include: employ good written and verbal communication skills; accept responsibility for self and unit; and delegate and foster leadership in subordinates. Perhaps at this point, commanders believe there is little progression left for them to manage, and any consideration of readiness can be discarded as there are few peers comparable to these officers. In truth, stage three cadets, having assumed a larger role in the squadron, require increased leadership guidance. With the greater scope of duty, cadets have more decisions to make, more successes to realize and failures from which to learn. Mentoring is more relevant now than ever before.
Cadets in this final stage "serve as special advisors and counselors and seek to improve the knowledge and proficiency of the entire unit" (ii). In larger units, these cadets will be needed to assume the cadet command, and move away from personal leadership between an officer and a small group of cadets, to develop basic managerial skills, and learn to lead as an executive who fulfills goals through artful delegation. Since these cadet officers are talented, self-motivated, and capable of critiquing their own conduct, this stage is the time to demonstrate leadership skill. More important than the characteristics of this stage is the question: Who is ready for its challenges? These officers can excel with little direction from above, and that marks a big distinction between stage three cadets who still require significant guidance. Being capable leaders and officers developing good managerial skills, sample goals for this stage could include: think in advance and set long term goals for unit, work well independently, and manage multiple tasks involving different groups of subordinates.
The four stages identified in the now obsolete Leadership Laboratory Manual can form a basis for a subjective approach where readiness and progression matter more than merely jumping through the hoops of objective standards. The criteria identified for possible solutions can readily be met. Intrinsic to this approach is a recognition of the difference between eligibility and good cause for promotion. It acknowledges the squadron commander is the individual solely responsible for developing cadet potential and has the responsibility to decide how it will be brought along, and even encourages him to fulfill this duty through active mentoring. Third, when the subjective nature of mentoring cadets is accompanied by the objective foundation of the four stages -- which explain the division of labor between cadets and seniors -- then there will be some guarantee for fairness to all. Lastly, any system built around the duty to develop a cadet's potential, rather than objective requirements alone, is sure to build a tradition of which CAP can be proud. A
subjective approach, grounded in the four stages and focused on readiness
and progression is an environment capable of great successes. The crucial
ingredient (and the one which has tragically been absent in too many
squadrons) is the mentor himself, in the person of unit commander, deputy,
leadership officer, or concerned senior. The time for cadets lamenting
over their unharvested potential is over.
PHASE I - C/Amn & PHASE II - C/A1C ------ Partcipant - Follower 1. Practice basic customs and courtesies 2. Wear the uniform properly 3. Perform basic drill movements 4. Show good military bearing 5. Follow orders 6. Recite the chain of command, three missions of CAP, CAP motto, unit charter number, CAP SN, and Cadet Oath
Junior Cadet Non-Commissioned Officers (C/Sgt & C/SSgt) 1. Routinely practice all customs and courtesies 2. Show good military bearing at all times, set an example for others to follow 3. Perform all drill movements with precision 4. Lead an element in basic drill using the proper commands 5. Demonstrate ability to conduct primary training in drill and other areas 6. Show ability to accept responsibility and relieve superiors of routine duties Senior Cadet Non-Commissioned Officers (C/TSgt & C/MSgt) 1. Participate in ceremonies to the extent called for by staff position 2. Lead a flight in drill using the proper commands 3. Demonstrate ability to lead and influence subordinates 4. Take initiative and show ability to carry out duties with little supervision 5. Demonstrate proficiency in training cadets on fundamental subjects 6. Show a high level of maturity and professionalism
1. Be self motivated and able to motivate others 2. Be conscious of own performance; work toward self-improvement 3. Show concern for subordinates and work to meet their needs 4. Think in advance and plan ahead for the squadron 5. Train and develop sergeants; use good managerial skills 6. Employ good written and verbal communication skills 7. Accept responsibility for self and unit
1. Possess good problem resolution skills; show confidence in decision making 2. Work independently on large projects and set long-term goals for unit 3. Train and develop cadet officers; use good delegation skills 4. Use excellent written and verbal communication skills 5. Effectively direct groups of subordinates; successfully manage multiple tasks
1. "Stimulate other Civil Air Patrol cadets to excel in this challenging and rewarding program.") (Brig Gen Warren J Barry, CAP) 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.Return to the Table of Contents. |