Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[George Wallace]

Mostly sailors, with guns.  Trained by sailors... Boatswains.  Actually BASF is more related to a Force Protection scenario than anything I did in the Army. 

Heaven above! I just remembered we dont even Army folks running the bedford ranges... Nope just Boatswains.  Teaching everything...

9mm, SIG, 870, MP5, C6, C7/8, C9 and even the .50 all taught bye boatswains!

[

And you are worried about a couple of days in the woods playing silly bugger.  >

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You've got to read what I said previous. Whatever element, the final ex is a test of leadership. Can they organise? Can they lead? Can they give concise, proper orders? Can the candidate form a cohesive team, instill confidence in their team, maintain the aim, give clear direction and properly initiate and complete the mission.

I don't care if it's attacking a trench or fixing a hole in a boat or looking for a black box of a downed aircraft. Whatever the scenario, it needs to be urgent, stressfull and demanding.

These are JUNIOR leaders. This is their first exposure to command. We are giving them the basic leader\ teacher tools to START them on their career as a Supervisor. We're not training Combat Team Commanders here.

However, it would be nice to know that my purple trade clerk knows their weapon and basic infantry tactics in case Johnny Jihad and his buddies try breach the wire and they have to leave their keyboard and fill a hole in the fence. 

 

[George Wallace]

You've got to read what I said previous. Whatever element, the final ex is a test of leadership. Can they organise? Can they lead? Can they give concise, proper orders? Can the candidate form a cohesive team, instill confidence in their team, maintain the aim, give clear direction and properly initiate and complete the mission.

I don't care if it's attacking a trench or fixing a hole in a boat or looking for a black box of a downed aircraft. Whatever the scenario, it needs to be urgent, stressfull and demanding.

However, it would be nice to know that my purple trade clerk knows their weapon and basic infantry tactics in case Johnny Jihad and his buddies try breach the wire and they have to leave their keyboard and fill a hole in the fence. 

I alluded to your previous post and pointed out that the candidates should be imaginative enough to take these lessons and transfer them to their occupations when they return to their units. 

Here is a youtube video that may be applicable to this discussion: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTlhfjjEWD0

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I alluded to your previous post and pointed out that the candidates should be imaginative enough to take these lessons and transfer them to their occupations when they return to their units. 

Here is a youtube video that may be applicable to this discussion: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTlhfjjEWD0

It's a good one. I've used it as a teaching point more than once.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

George +1.

To this day, more than 15 years after retirement, I still make my bed first thing in the morning, and do it the Navy way I was taught in basic at Corwallis.

I do it for the reasons the Admiral mentions in that little video, plus one more reason: It drives my wife nuts !!!!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Force Protection.

In Afghanistan US army soldiers talked about no matter what trade they were they would end up being machine gunners on humvees. US Airforce did a lot of Force Protection and security and I seen some US Navy employed as FP as well.

With manning shortages doing some type of force protection job or security job is something every element or trade may find ourselves doing. Guarding a gate, searching detainee's, vehicle check points.  Having junior leaders placed in a leadership role for a FP orientated task  would make sense.

PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.

We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Force Protection.

In Afghanistan US army soldiers talked about no matter what trade they were they would end up being machine gunners on humvees. US Airforce did a lot of Force Protection and security and I seen some US Navy employed as FP as well.

With manning shortages doing some type of force protection job or security job is something every element or trade may find ourselves doing. Guarding a gate, searching detainee's, vehicle check points.  Having junior leaders placed in a leadership role for a FP orientated task  would make sense.

PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.

We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".

So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.

A good leader is a good leader. It can't be taught but it can be learned and applied through experience. Experiences vary based on what you're doing and where. A Cpl acting as Chief Clerk and doing a good job of it is demonstraring and emulating good leadership. An LS acting as Kitchen IC on ship will either sink or swim based on how he manages things and usually relies on his experience. Same goes for rifleman number 2 who took over as section IC and lead the patrol.

Lets all see this for what it is: CMP called out CCA for trying to use the PLQ format to teach combat experience to Army Jnr NCOs. It costs money, time, and effort to train folks in a different stream. It also costs man hours doing ARs and PRBs that would not be required save for someone wearing the wrong DEU.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.

That's the problem. Some people blow it out of proportion and consider shitty food, no sleep and some stress as getting the hell cocked out of them. It isn't. It's stress inoculation. I wasn't suggesting turning PLQ into BUDs hell week.

A good leader is a good leader. It can't be taught but it can be learned and applied through experience. Experiences vary based on what you're doing and where. A Cpl acting as Chief Clerk and doing a good job of it is demonstraring and emulating good leadership. An LS acting as Kitchen IC on ship will either sink or swim based on how he manages things and usually relies on his experience. Same goes for rifleman number 2 who took over as section IC and lead the patrol.

Practically anyone can do a good or okay job when they're well rested, happy and well fed.  If someone is doing great in a leadership role but crumbles under pressure and stress then they aren't a good leader.

Lets all see this for what it is: CMP called out CCA for trying to use the PLQ format to teach combat experience to Army Jnr NCOs. It costs money, time, and effort to train folks in a different stream. It also costs man hours doing ARs and PRBs that would not be required save for someone wearing the wrong DEU.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here my friend. Injecting combat experience into PLQ is bad?

 

[PuckChaser]

So basically cocking the hell out out of someone for a week will make someone a better leader? I wholeheartedly disagree.

You get what you want to get out of it. I learned how my body reacts to sleep dep, and hard work. I also learned how my peers reacted in different situations, and strategies to manage that work/rest cycle so I could help my soldiers push through being "tired" and get the job done. You could probably learn some of that by memorizing a book, but I'd rather learn it on a course, in Canada, with practically reinforced lessons, so when I'm out leading people under the stress of a warzone, its not the first time I've seen people sleep-f$%#ed before.

Why are you advocating taking difficulty out of courses? Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?

 

[ballz]

Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."

I don't have much experience, but most still wearing the uniform don't have much experience in conventional, peer-to-peer warfare either. In that setting, with a mobile Brigade Group, there is not a plethora of combat arms types hanging around the Brigade Support Area or securing Brigade HQ as it jockeys main and second, or securing commodity points, etc. There is certainly not enough to go around, ever, as the Brigade Commander needs all of his fighting troops in the fight, not doing menial security tasks because support trades have spent too much time saying "well the Infantry will provide security" and not enough time training soldier skills. Every Infanteer sucked out of the fight to do Force protection in the rear is a serious consideration, we do not exist to pull sentry shifts for other units who can't be bothered with that soldiering stuff.

When I was a Pl Comd on Maple Resolve 14 (helmets on [), my company was attached to 2 Svc Bn. 3 platoons were not nearly enough, and we often found ourselves attached to 1 RCR, or to Bde 0, or to this or to that. We also had our own stability ops to execute in the destabilized rear area that had just been run over by a Brigade on the advance (Exercise scenario, of course). A lot of people in 2 Svc Bn learned real quick that there was more soldiering to their trade than they had realized, and that included manning gates and OPs, digging trenches, pulling shifts on sentry, building obstacles, and yes, responding to EN fire as it harassed the BSA most days and nights.

(Helmets off) Again, this was an exercise, but it did a good job exposing a lot of weaknesses in 2 CMBG (and there were a lot, for all trades, including the combat arms and the infantry). The little blurb above though, is relevant to this thread.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That's the problem. Some people blow it out of proportion and consider shitty food, no sleep and some stress as getting the hell cocked out of them. It isn't. It's stress inoculation. I wasn't suggesting turning PLQ into BUDs hell week.

I would argue that stress is relative.

Practically anyone can do a good or okay job when their well rested, happy and well fed.  If someone is doing great in a leadership role but crumbles under pressure and stress then they aren't a good leader.

Again. Pressure and stress are relative. Leading a recce patrol shouldn't have to be the gold standard for pers that don't usually conduct them

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here my friend. Injecting combat experience into PLQ is bad?

I'm arguing experience and qualification are two veey different things. Should we work on getting personnel combat experience? If their position and job exposes them to it, so be it.

Should all CAF/CA personnel in all trades require it as a qualification for career advancement in their specific trade, hell to the no.

 

[PuckChaser]

Force protection is a good point. There definitely is a theme amongst support trades that I disagree with, I assume it came from the years in Afghanistan, that "if I'm shooting my weapon, all the combat arms types are dead and the war is lost and we've already gone home."

There's a lot of leadership in the support trades that reinforce that, as well. The new troops see it and start to emulate. Those complaining about PLQ-A from behind their desk have gotten their way, and now trades like Sigs, Int, Medic lose valuable training.

Your "war" story is a perfect example of whats wrong with CS and CSS elements right now, and we continue to feed the lines at recruiting making the Army out to be like a desk job. Its pretty funny when a unit that is collecting LDA sees 50-60 members of a 350 person unit head to sick parade on the Friday before or Monday of departure prior to a 2 week exercise, desperately trying to get out of sleeping in Mod Tents and being mildly uncomfortable. They then look at you funny when you call them a disgrace and suggest they turn their LDA back into the Crown for real soldiers to use.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Why are you advocating taking difficulty out of courses? Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?

I'm not advocating taking the difficulty out of courses. I'm advocating making training relative and cost effective for all pers involved.

 

[blacktriangle]

Maybe we should just make a 700 question scan-tron sheet, and if you don't pass it, you can't be a MCpl ever. Why bother having courses?

What would be wrong with having advancement exams?

 

[OldSolduer]

PLQ should be a gut check including shitty food, lack of sleep, shitty sleeping conditions. At least some exposure to that.

We can't afford to have leaders in any trade who spent the first part of their career dodging work, getting out of hard tasks and riding sick-chits. Part of that weeding out process is by making PLQ hard and stressful, not full of hugs, participation medals and "everyone passes".

I fully agree. You need to be accustomed to stressfull situations.

Its not being fed "cock". You only "cock" yourself and your troops. Being fed IMPs, lack of sleep, lack of time etc is being trained. Being fed "cock" because someone is on a power trip is not on.

 

[PuckChaser]

What would be wrong with having advancement exams?

To replace a PLQ? Promotion boards are a good idea, much like people doing PLQ before they're appointed MCpl.

 

[RCPalmer]

I'm not advocating taking the difficulty out of courses. I'm advocating making training relative and cost effective for all pers involved.

To say that the PLQ (Army) field content is not relevant or cost effective reflects a very narrow view of the competencies the Army expects of its leaders. 

Honestly, I (and I don't think I am alone here) want every Army NCO to have some "fight" in them which entails a basic ability to grab onto the soldiers to their left and right, and take the fight to the enemy in an emergency.  An introduction to section level infantry tactics provides precisely that capability.  The exact same logic is applied to BMQ(A) for the troops, and BMOQ(A) for the officers.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that the Army is going to figure out a way to bridge this gap.  It may take a year or two, but you will see it. It might be a redesigned field phase in your MOSID specific career course, an independant "Army Junior Leaders' Course", or an additional PLQ mod, but there will be something.

 

[blacktriangle]

To replace a PLQ? Promotion boards are a good idea, much like people doing PLQ before they're appointed MCpl.

I meant to complement the PLQ - i.e. once you enter promotion zone, you are eligible to write an advancement exam, with the results reflected in the annual PER. Exam scores could contribute to identifying who's ready to attend a career course. Totally agree that PLQ should be completed prior to appointment to MCpl.

 

[RocketRichard]

Speaking of PLQ, has much changed since I took CLC at PPCLI Battle School in 92'?

 

[armyvern]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that the Army is going to figure out a way to bridge this gap.  It may take a year or two, but you will see it. It might be a redesigned field phase in your MOSID specific career course, an independant "Army Junior Leaders' Course", or an additional PLQ mod, but there will be something.

Hmm, given that the Army was involved in this for almost a year now and that the CANFORGEN on the changed PLQ itself states that environments are to incorporate their perceived "gaps" into their own environmental trg, I would hope that it won't take a year or two.  They did know this was coming and had a seat at the big people's table.

And hopefully this time they get the environmental training done right too - in that ALL pers being posted into the Army environment have to complete it and not just those of us in an Army uniform.  If it's essential for me to fill some "gap" then it is also obviously essential for the MS, LS, LCdr etc coming into the Army to do the same jobs us purple Army wearing uniforms types do.