Lately on Cadetstuff we've been going around and around this question of should grade (stuff on your collar) be used to determine position, or should position be based on capability alone?

Obviously, if we use the 'position alone' argument, then grade becomes meaningless. If we go by grade alone, we might be forced to hire someone incompetent, and damage the unit. My question is: Do we want to live in a world where grade is meaningless? Or do we want to live in a world where ability is meaningless? Or is there a happy medium between the two?

Instead of continuing the circle dance, let's consider an actual situation that is grounded in reality. Let's say you are the cadet commander of the Metro Wing Summer Encampment. The encampment commander and commandant have asked you to conduct staff selection and present a 'recommended' cadet staff, which they will review and (hopefully) approve.

When it comes down to flight staff, you've got one serious problem. Once you arrange everybody else, you've got to figure out your last flight – India flight. You have three names on your list. C/Capt Clueless comes from a squadron that doesn't participate much in wing activities. His uniform is terrible, his D&C are sad, he forgets important details – for the most part, this guy just doesn't get it. Worse, he's from a squadron no one you know is from; the problem was created entirely outside of your control.

C/2d Lt Hopeful is from the same squadron. Recruited and trained into the same kind of lax, civilian-like atmosphere, Hopeful has some of the same problems as Clueless, but he is aware of his shortcomings and willing to work on them. You tear him apart on Friday morning inspection at staff selection, and by Saturday morning it's clear that he stayed up all night, polishing and ironing. His D&C needs work too, but at least he walks around with his eyes open.

Then you have C/SMSgt Highspeed. Highspeed comes from a sharp squadron, is very active around the wing, and attended your wing's NCO course. He takes pride in his uniform and attention to detail. He gets it. You believe he is far more capable of commanding a flight – heck, even a squadron – than either Clueless or Hopeful. You also have a C/Msgt, C/TSgt, and C/SSgt, all with some level of ability, who have applied to staff the encampment. This situation can and does happen in everyday life; you have to choose between the junior and senior person when the junior is a radically better performer and a better example for the troops he will lead.

You have to decide on a flight sergeant and commander for India flight. The choices are simple: Ability or Grade. The possibilities are endless: Highspeed with a lower NCO, Hopeful with Highspeed, Clueless with Highspeed, Highspeed with an officer as his NCO … Who do you pick?

Feel free to take a few moments to make this decision. Go stretch your legs. Get a Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper. Think about how you would make the decision, and why. I'll wait. Really.

… time passes …

Keep in mind, this exercise has no right answers. The names you choose are based on your cultural values. For a moment though, let's think through the consequences of some decisions.

The decision with the least amount of headache for you is to have Highspeed be the flight commander and staff the NCO from the NCO applicants. This will result in a smooth encampment, and you can be busy commanding, not micro-managing India flight. The short term optimization is clearly Highspeed with an NCO. Who knows what kind of attitude problems you would get from trying to have Highspeed command a more ranking officer. (let alone the message you will be sending to your troops editors note)

The problem I have with this model is the long-term consequences. Remember, encampment is a leadership opportunity for basics and staff. The result of this choice is that Highspeed becomes a better leader while Clueless and Hopeful do not. The leadership gap betweens them widens. The meaning of earned grade is again decreased.

The harder choice, the more painful choice, and, I personally believe, the correct choice, is to have Highspeed as the flight sergeant and one of the officers as the commander. Which officer is a balancing problem. Clearly, Clueless needs more help than Hopeful. He'll also be harder to manage, and probably make the experience worse for the new basics. You can assign your best Squadron Commander to that squadron, get the best Tactical Officer on it to supervise, make sure they get more mentoring time, and try to work in mentoring before the encampment …

In the end, the call between Clueless and Hopeful is a hard one, and it is rarely as clear-cut at I've written it above. As written, I would probably choose Hopeful, but real life probably won't give us such helpful extremes.

But, wait just a minute you say! "If Highspeed is truly better than any officer, and you make him the flight sergeant, you've got a potential attitude problem." Indeed, perhaps you do.

I submit to you that if Highspeed has this attitude problem, and it would endanger the success of the encampment to place him under the command of a lesser officer, well … Highspeed really isn't that great after all, now is he?

If he has an attitude that would be minor or controllable, then I would be especially excited to place Highspeed under the command of a 'lesser' officer. He might learn something.

Dealing with a disappointing reality is an extremely important life lesson to learn. If Highspeed can learn to be subordinate to, and yet respectfully and gently guide superiors who need help, then this encampment could offer a new and valuable kind of leadership lesson to him … one we would all be well-off to learn.