Author Topic: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread  (Read 589825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LunchMeat

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 17,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 752
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #750 on: April 04, 2018, 11:18:01 »
A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,793
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #751 on: April 04, 2018, 11:33:14 »
Interesting insight.  I have 2 questions:

1)  Why do we need a PLQ/JLC/CLC, what ever acronym we want to use today, when a member has been judged by their snr trades people to be ready and able to take on this next role ?  To further clarify, if we put people forth as ready or immediately ready to be a MS/MCpl and take on more responsibility and leadership in their trade, as proven by their substantiated performance and potential on their PERs why do we feel it necessary to reconfirm this ?  Do we not trust people writing the PERs and providing mentoring and leadership to their members ?  Or are we just doing things because its always been done that way ?

IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.

CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.

Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.

Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere. 

In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.

Quote
2)      How do you do this for purple trades ?  My opinion is their respective trades schools (Think CFLTC/CFSAL ect) should be looking after this course if it further required.

If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time. 

Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 12:06:50 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,793
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #752 on: April 04, 2018, 11:37:09 »
A lot of the time, it's not that the Fitness Tests are inadequate (they are), but that a lot of the instructors on PLQ are making it more difficult than it needs to be.

I've seen several fit people come back broken, and it all seemed to boil down to the instructors having something to prove.

Not meaning to sound like an a$$hat, but is it possible they were simply injured during training, or not in as good as shape as people thought (gym fitness and field fitness aren't always the same...) and the instructors weren't...expecting too much?

Gym fitness; I can go to the gym, lift things up and put them down and get on my elliptical for an hour, eat healthy and get big thumbs up on my annual aircrew medical.  I could then strap on a heavy ruck, radio, do 10km forced march and break on the next defensive position while digging in to stage 5 or whatever, simply because I am an AF guy and more likely to be gym fit than I am field fit.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline ringo598

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 60
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #753 on: April 04, 2018, 13:30:14 »
Absolutely, some people off course did show up clearly unfit, they didn't last 2 weeks for the most part.  We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure.  The rest of the medical RTU's were...some training injury's (With my personal opinion of being unnecessary, the heavy snow/mukluk patrols/snowshoe patrols could have been easily modified to still give training value without injury).  The reservists on course had very difficult times (I think only 1 or 2 made it) simply because they had nearly no prep before hand.  I feel the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught, and the ALJC could have those 3 weeks added to the end of people's trade's course on how to operate their trade in a land environment.  For example, being a det comd for a vehicle maint det in a low/med threat environment, or a signals det comd in a land environment with IED/Force on Force modifications.  And for the record, it was Shilo not Wainwrong :D
"Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto."- Mikhail Kalashnikov, Creator of the AK47

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,793
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #754 on: April 04, 2018, 13:57:06 »
We all did a FORCE test on day 2 or 3 which had one failure. 

What is the reason/point of this?  Wouldn't everyone have to have a valid FORCE test to get on the course?

the CAF-PLQ is a great course depending on how its taught

I agree with this 101%.  The problem lies when various TEs across different elements run it the way they see fit, when it is intended as a CAF common course. 

« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 14:16:23 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,883
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,906
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #755 on: April 04, 2018, 14:26:32 »
IMO, yes we need some Jnr Leadership qual;  we are asking people to take on a formal leadership role - but I think we fail in our goal by making it too 'common' - hard air, land and sea trades don't operate the same.  I think the hard air folks should be at an AF Leadership TE (Borden), the Navy runs PLQs out of CFNOS (IIRC) and the army has more than one TE that does PLQ.

CFPAS is one part;  Jnr NCOs are at the coal face of this system and it is an easy one to use on a 'common to all' course.  MOI, drill, etc - aside from teaching those specific skills and also teach things like time appreciations, planning (Aim Factors Courses Plan, etc), and all the other bits and pieces that Jnr NCOs have to start thinking about outside their own little bubbles.  This is like "Leadership Block 1" which leads into the "Leadership Block 2/3/4" courses we take later on;  ILP, IAEQ for the folks posted to RCAF units, ALP.

Part of the problem though, IMO, is the amount of A/L MCpl/MS.  I have some where I work and it seems to be the norm now to make them A/L and then send them on their course.  I think we're doing it wrong;  the PLQ should be a pre-requisite for promotion and that would put some QC into the people who are getting the Leaf;  A/L MCpl was a rare thing back when I was at that stage in life.  Very rare.

Also, we make them A/L and they are doing the Master Blaster stuff for 1 year or longer and then go on course and say 'what did I really learn, I was already doing the job for XX months etc'.  If you go on course thinking you know it all and are A/L...that could be the problem.  Do all MCpl/MS write PERs and PDRs and follow the review process IAW CFPAS?  I doubt it.  Do they all know how to prepare for a lesson, deliver effective training before, or after PLQ?  I doubt it.  But it is "Leadership Block 1" and we've got to start somewhere. 

In my time in, when I got in MCpl was a respected rank, and the ones who got the rank earned it thru, as you mentioned, being recognized by their CofC and then passing the Leadership Block I course.  Now, the rank/appointment seems to have been watered down some because of the amount of A/L ones out there;  we (the CAF) seem to have become used to expecting less of that rank over my 2 decades and change lacing up the boots.  That's just me, though, others might see it differently.

Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.   You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related. 

I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ. 

I respect your obviously well established and well supported position; but I remain unmoved.  I still see no need for what we are attempting to do with the current PLQ/JLC course at a level higher than ones trades training establishment. 

Quote
(a) If the trade schools could handle it, would they even want to?  (b) Purple trades now, AFAIK, attend the TE of the element they are posted to;  maybe I am wrong.  A Supp Tech Cpl/LS or A/L MCpl/MS would go to PLQ at the Army TEs if they are posted to an Army unit, or Borden if they are posted to the RCAF.  (c) This makes some sense to me;  although it has some flaws.  I'm not sure now, but it you are a Supp Tech MCpl with 6 years in rank and get posted to an Army unit, do you have to do more "army" PLQish training?  What about a WO who is posted in to an army unit for the first time.

Would there be merit in there being a comparable TE set up for PLQ as we have in St Jean at the Campus for ILP?  I think so *if* there is always going to be a common PLQ.  Let the common course be taught there and then each element have any desired/required Jnr Leadership trg/courses they feel important enough to set up, staff and pay for.

(A) I would hope they would want take an active role in the continuing development of their trades people.

(b) I could be wrong now but when I went through it was done by element.  I was wearing an RCN Uniform at a field unit, but I did PLQ Common at St Jean.

(c) Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?

Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 292,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,871
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #756 on: April 04, 2018, 14:55:52 »
I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training.

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.

 
We had other fun parts like a 3am wakeup with an air-raid siren on Sunday night so people were sleepy before we even started the 2nd field ex or the day after day of section attacks (Again wearing mukluks) in snow until people were just zombies.  Standards seemed completely on board, perhaps I'm a bit bitter as I saw what I felt were some good soldiers potentially end or delay their careers for really no good training value.


I'd never try and excuse shitty training.  Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason.

Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around.

Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things.

As well plq candidates shouldn't be  driven to the point of being  zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exausted.

Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO. 



« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 18:26:44 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,793
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #757 on: April 04, 2018, 15:23:56 »
Interesting position.  I am of the camp that says that you can nott train or teach leadership.   You can make a manager; and more skilled worker but you cannot make a leader, at least not from scratch.  In your quote above it seems, to me, to be more supportive of further trades training than anything leadership related.

I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.

Quote
I as well would support your position that these should be focused on what one does for a job.  But for those of us in CMP governed trades that can change drastically and very quickly.  I went from HMCS Toronto to a Signals Regiment upon promotion to A/L MS.  And I was thus sent to St Jean for my PLQ.

This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me.

However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.

Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons. 

Quote
Could this would be one reason trades based leadership training would be beneficial ?

In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.

Quote
Good discussion EITS.  I appreciate your input!

Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 15:43:44 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,793
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #758 on: April 04, 2018, 15:28:18 »
I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from out "allies", or members should get somewhat more aggressive training.

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.

Our 'deployed ready' standard for ground and aircrew, in my fleet at least, aren't even to that level of training.  Not for Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs, WOs, or Officers.  I would like to explain in more detail but that wouldn't be smart on here...
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 15:33:26 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,883
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,906
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #759 on: April 05, 2018, 05:38:30 »
I have no firm foot in either camp; but we are expected to 'develop the leadership potential in our followers'.  Some have more potential than others  ;D.  But I think you can teach leadership but some of your *students* will become better leaders;  I just had a few convo's not long ago on an away trip with a newer A/L MCpl about the '3 Ms', 10 Leadership Principles [ I know we've moved from that but...I still have the wallet card], how NCOs bridge the gap between the Officers and junior NCMs, how to support your Sunray and positively influence them at the same time, stuff like that.  I think it can be developed, but agree a natural born leader (which comes down to personality perhaps?) is going to be head and shoulders above someone you had to coax it out of.

I wonder do we confuse managerial ability with leadership at times ?  Having said that a leader needs to be able to manage their resources and people as well as inspire and lead. 

This is the grey area;  I think each environmental commander will want the folks posted into his/her world to have his/her environment specific Jnr Leader training/skillset baseline (PLQ is only a baseline, IMO).  Could the purple trade branch TEs handle a specific course for members going into a RCN posting, or a RCAF or Cdn Army one?  I have no idea.  It sounds like a lot of extra courses to me.

However, I do see things to be concerned with having a CAF PLQ, with the same QS and one qual code.  I am more of a fan of the older ISCC/CLC/JLC system.  If Battle Schools run CAF PLQs, they will be run the way the Battle School Command team wants them run, which is likely going to be different than the way the RCAF Academy runs theirs, which is different than how CFLRS runs theirs, which is different than how CFNOS runs theirs.  Doesn't sound so 'common' to me when I think of that, having seen how the Navy PLQ in the field portion runs, talked to guys who've done the Borden AF one and my memories of CLC back from yesteryear.

Unless I am misinterpreting things as it stands now, a RCAF AVN Tech Cpl could, technically, find him/herself in Shilo or Petawawa on a CAF PLQ course if there was a spot available and his/her CMgr really wanted to put him/her on PLQ 'asap'.  Personally I think that is a fairly big issue.  What a Cbt Arms Sgt/WO expects out of their Army MCpls is very, very different from what I want from my MCpls.  I think any Cbt arms Snr NCO or WO would be equally concerned with sending their young Cpl or A/L MCpls to the RCAF Academy in Borden, for the same reasons.

I think this one of the big falling downs of having a 100% unified and integrated CSS element, such as in our current iteration of the Log Branch for example.  Which is why, since I don't see the Log branch making any drastic changes WRT uniform and work environment, I think PLQ/JLC for Log should be taught at our school.  And the course should be incorporated to include Pan CAF resources like CFPAS and drill, and then concentrate on core Log competencies like convoy duties, camp defensives, and other actual real world tasking's we can reasonably be required to do.  Trade specific should be left to the senior trades courses.  Which I was woefully disappointed in mine.

In the case of larger trades, I think so.  If I were to look at what PLQ teaches now, I am sure my opinion would be "we should do our own leadership course" WRT my trade;  PLQ doesn't prepare people to lead air personnel in flying op's, but that is pretty much what my trade expects from MCpls.  For us, when we come off our MOAT course (Maritime Operational Aircrew Training), we are then Basic Category (think of it like being an apprentice) operators.  Then it on to a 2 year OJT program to upgrade to Advanced Category operator (A Cats).  Each crew has a Lead AES OP, who is appointed by the CO and must be an A Cat - that is our leadership position in my fleet.  A Cats mentor and train B cats and select A Cats get the Lead position on a crew.  What training do we provide our personnel to be Leads?  At this point, the requirement with my current CO is 'must have PLQ', simply because there are no others QS blessed leadership courses in my trade for MCpls';  Sgt's do the IAEQ which provides no leadership training (there is some PD and networking that comes from it, but not leadership).  We are a trade of 200 all ranks;  I am not sure the cost-benefit analysis would result in "AES Ops need their own leadership course as a trade for MCpls".  I don't think the snr RCAF leadership would support it.

I think I was using trade too liberally and I should have used trade/branch training establishments.  But I see your point for a small trade like AESOP.

Thanks, and you as well.  If we don't discuss these things, there will never be an improvement and we'll just keep on keepin' on...

Totally agree.  Sometimes we need to tear something apart and inspect its moving parts to make sure its doing what its intended and to grasp an understanding of it.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,883
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,906
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #760 on: April 05, 2018, 05:46:32 »
I personally think anyone who has to qualify on shooting a gun every year for itbs regardless of trade should have to do a section attack, or some kind of fire and movement where they advance.

I'm not going to suggest it has to be on par with infantry standards but with today's threats being 360o, including from our "allies", our members should get somewhat more aggressive training.

On that note anyone in a leadership role should have exposure to taking command of a few people with guns and killing bad guys.
Why ? Or are you being Army specific here ?

 
I'd never try and excuse shitty training.  Having been on both sides of the student/instructor fence, including instructing new recruits, war-experienced veterans and clever officer cadets I'd feel confident saying you may not understand the training/hardships yet but it's for a good reason.

Sometimes the devil is in the details. I'd thinking dropping arty sims in a hide to wake everyone on course up at 3am only to out them back to sleep again is just dicking people around.

Dropping arty sims on a position when the sentry falls asleep and having the whole course pack up and move hide locations is effective for a few things.

As well plq candidates shouldn't be  driven to the point of being  zombies because they're retaining very little on the intellectual side of training. But they do need to be stressed out and able to think while at least a little exhausted.

Some students who seem like super great soldiers are the ones you have to watch out for because they put on a show when the staff is watching then shut down when they're not or after they've passed the PO.

This is what I am getting at.  Are we just punishing people for being top performers because we can and always have, or can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and say the QSP for the PLQ/JLC is producing better leaders ?
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 292,736
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,871
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #761 on: April 05, 2018, 09:39:11 »
Why ? Or are you being Army specific here ?

I don't think it should be army specific. In my mind if we decide that someone in any trade needs to shoot a gun every year as a part of IBTS then we should add using the gun in an offensive way to the mix that way they can in theory better defend themselves. We're deploying airforce and Navy pers to dangerous areas along side the army.

 
Quote
This is what I am getting at.  Are we just punishing people for being top performers because we can and always have, or can we honestly put our hands on our hearts and say the QSP for the PLQ/JLC is producing better leaders ?
I'm not sure to be honest. I've seen some awesome leadership turn out really good leaders. I've also seen "everyone will pass" courses.  We still unfortunately have special students on plq whom instructors are pressured to pass ie someone fails the basics of a patrol conducted in a parking lot but because they work for X head quarters they have to pass to keep their rank or whatever.   Why even bother sending them on a course?

I get the other side of the argument, why does a dental hygienist need a leadership course that spends time in the field.  Maybe the answer would be to split the plq /jlc into two so that one course is administrative that teaches people to be managers and the other for people who would deploy and work outside of an office? I'm not sure.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,883
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,906
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #762 on: April 06, 2018, 05:57:04 »

I don't think it should be army specific. In my mind if we decide that someone in any trade needs to shoot a gun every year as a part of IBTS then we should add using the gun in an offensive way to the mix that way they can in theory better defend themselves. We're deploying airforce and Navy pers to dangerous areas along side the army.


Sorry for the late reply.  Working on getting two teams out the door right now.  Anyways, We, in the RCN, only do C7/8 Qual up to the PWT 1 level.  In reality PWT 1 is a very simple rifle competency test and is more of a confirmation of safety than skill or marksmanship.  The most a RCN member would/can reasonably be expected to have to use a C7/8 for is as a sentry or gate guard.  Very few of the hard sea trades deploy with the Army and those that do all get lengthy work up training with even fewer actually moving into harms way and getting into TICs, this not a slight just an observation of having seen this on two AFG deployments.  Everyone has a role to play, none is greater than another.  Also I am not sure what practical and employable leadership or management skills can be learned by having a stoker or NESOP pepper pod around Aldershot.

IMHO the time and resources would be much better spent learning how to be proficient at their trade at the MS level and above, to some extent.  Anything outside that immediate requirement, like deployments with the Army should be seen as the exception, not the rule, and pre-deployment training is the perfect time to bring that member up to speed.

I'm not sure to be honest. I've seen some awesome leadership turn out really good leaders. I've also seen "everyone will pass" courses.  We still unfortunately have special students on plq whom instructors are pressured to pass ie someone fails the basics of a patrol conducted in a parking lot but because they work for X head quarters they have to pass to keep their rank or whatever.   Why even bother sending them on a course?

I get the other side of the argument, why does a dental hygienist need a leadership course that spends time in the field.  Maybe the answer would be to split the plq /jlc into two so that one course is administrative that teaches people to be managers and the other for people who would deploy and work outside of an office? I'm not sure.

The joke in the Army Log community is that if it comes down to a Svc Btn having to advance to contact and conduct fighting patrols, something has gone very wrong up at the pointy end of the sword.

Do we really need to make sure a Sup Tech or Clerk can clear a trench ?  Or would it be more beneficial to the front end guys to have that Sup Tech and Clerk actually learn skills and practices that they will use to support that front end better ?  Leaving the fighting training to be done in the year we now give people to work up.

I think there are different situations for different levels of leadership.  I cant run my stores section on a ship like I would an RQ at 1 RCR.  While the supply discipline and professional practices would be similar the WO > Cpl/Pte interaction is vastly different, and rightly so.

Again I would like to see the, for Log at least, CFLTC take on the PLQ/JLC training.  Right now we lack one standard for this course in our community.  I, as RCN, would/and did do a lesser version while my Army counterpart would do something like course mentioned above in Shilo.  But we both come out with the same qual; and can be plug and played into any MS/MCpl billet the CM wants.  This would also allow us to create a course that incorporates general log practices, tasks and environments we can work in and develop that junior leader into that role.   

At least if it was done at the Log TRG establishment it would be one standard for all, like our QL levels now. 

« Last Edit: April 06, 2018, 06:20:45 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline ringo598

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 60
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #763 on: April 06, 2018, 08:38:50 »
Yeah, from my discussions with people in Edmonton, Aldershot and Valcartier, the courses seem to lack any appreciable standard at all.  I will say as a positive the new tests are actually somewhat decent, its nice to see the test standard moving towards actually understanding instead of just guessing on multiple choice. 
"Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto."- Mikhail Kalashnikov, Creator of the AK47

Offline sidemount

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 463
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #764 on: April 06, 2018, 12:04:25 »
I'd have to say that I am in the boat of "leadership can't be taught". Some people are just naturally better leaders than others. However, I don't really see the point of the PLQ course as actually teaching leadership as it is more of giving those who have been recognized as having leadership potential the tools and knowledge they need to complete their jobs successfully ie knowing battle procedure, orders format, etc.

However, in saying that, and like many have pointed out, there is no real common standard across all trades. What I need to know to be a successful leader in the RCEME world is different than the combat arms world. This has already been discussed and I don't really have anything new to add besides saying that the respective schools of the various corps/branches should really be looking after this.

One major issue I have with the PLQ course is the lack of standards. The teaching staff is mainly all incremental staff. We all know that the best and brightest aren't the ones that units send to fill this task. I experienced this on two separate occasions. Doing mods 1-3 as a Cpl, there were several staff members that were newly promoted MCpls that had finished the PLQ course only a couple serials prior. They had no experience. The same happened again when I returned for mod 4. The kicker was the course officer. He was fresh off of Phase training and had never been to a unit. He had no experience, talked about how his course mates hated him on phase training and would refer to his "86 days" in the field. We were lucky to have a solid course WO who kept him in line.

Also the testing on PLQ, at least when I was there 5 years ago wasn't multiple guess but it was the simple regurgitation of laundry lists of things like battle procedure, principles of leadership, orders format, etc. There was absolutely no critical thinking required which I believe is a very important skill that all leaders need to develop.

In the long run, the PLQ course could serve a very important purpose to new leaders but the way we employ it now is not very useful at all for a good chunk of troops.
Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. - Colin Powell

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,604
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #765 on: April 07, 2018, 08:52:26 »

One major issue I have with the PLQ course is the lack of standards. The teaching staff is mainly all incremental staff. We all know that the best and brightest aren't the ones that units send to fill this task. I experienced this on two separate occasions. Doing mods 1-3 as a Cpl, there were several staff members that were newly promoted MCpls that had finished the PLQ course only a couple serials prior. They had no experience. The same happened again when I returned for mod 4. The kicker was the course officer. He was fresh off of Phase training and had never been to a unit. He had no experience, talked about how his course mates hated him on phase training and would refer to his "86 days" in the field. We were lucky to have a solid course WO who kept him in line.

Also the testing on PLQ, at least when I was there 5 years ago wasn't multiple guess but it was the simple regurgitation of laundry lists of things like battle procedure, principles of leadership, orders format, etc. There was absolutely no critical thinking required which I believe is a very important skill that all leaders need to develop.

In the long run, the PLQ course could serve a very important purpose to new leaders but the way we employ it now is not very useful at all for a good chunk of troops.

I just got off course and I can say it hasn't changed much, fresh 2LT with a good course WO, testing was all filling in the blank laundry lists, though we were told apparently its changing and we were the last course to go though the laundry lists and its finally changing to multiple choice questions. I learned more from PLQ/AJLC about leadership from watching what not to do from watching staff and what to do from course mates. The lack of standards for testing in the field also made no sense, on stab OPs we had one member get a 75% after getting multiple IED strikes, casualties, a riot, basically everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him. We then had another member score a 90% who all they did was walk to Yukon lodge talk to a civi and walk back, very different scenario's, one was very easy to maintain command and control, another one very easy to loose command and control. Saw the same thing again on AJLC Recce patrols get tons thrown at them, while others got little to nothing. Brought it up in our ECR and such but we all know how useful those end up being.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Chad.wiseman

  • Guest
  • *
  • 815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #766 on: August 05, 2018, 22:49:02 »
Curious if any units offer PLQ locally on weekends rather than having to dedicate 12 weeks away at another base?  Thanks.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,604
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #767 on: August 06, 2018, 09:08:12 »
Curious if any units offer PLQ locally on weekends rather than having to dedicate 12 weeks away at another base?  Thanks.

A couple PRes units experimented with doing mod's 2-3 locally, then only doing mod 4 at a base, no idea how it worked out.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline runormal

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 539
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #768 on: August 06, 2018, 13:17:54 »
The Brigade commander brought it up the last time I saw him, but that was at least a year ago. I've asked the COC and was told that it was a maybe. I haven't heard anything yet and I can't really see it happening, at least this year.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 920,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,177
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #769 on: August 06, 2018, 14:30:14 »
Even though its the PRes, the OP likely has a few years to go before PLQ is an option, he just did DP1 this summer.

Offline ringo598

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 60
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #770 on: February 19, 2019, 22:51:19 »
I've heard some rumint from a few sources that there are some changes to ALJC coming this April, can annoy confirm this or is just wishful thinking?
"Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto."- Mikhail Kalashnikov, Creator of the AK47

Offline LunchMeat

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 17,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 752
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #771 on: February 19, 2019, 22:56:07 »
Even though its the PRes, the OP likely has a few years to go before PLQ is an option, he just did DP1 this summer.

You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.

Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 163,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,448
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #772 on: February 19, 2019, 23:05:04 »
You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.

Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!

That is not a new phenomenon for the PRES world though, it is almost built on making 4 year MCpl/Sgts.  FWIW it isn't terrible on the Reg Force side of the house.  My PLQ years ago had 4 or 5 folks that were advanced promoted just to get them on the crse in their 3rd year of service.  Before that it wasn't uncommon to see Ptes on JLC/JNCO.   Proper mentoring, continued training and good career development can overcome inexperience to a degree.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 241,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,604
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #773 on: February 20, 2019, 10:26:17 »
You'd be surprised. There was a recent serial that I had crossed paths with, had 3 Privates on the course, they had only been in the CAF for a year.

Not sure what's going on with the PRes structure these days, but it's incredible that people with less than 4 years service are being out onto a PLQ and promoted, they haven't enough experience!

Turnover is astronomical so, to fill up courses, some people are being pushed on to them on a 'give it your best shot' basis, I'm sure.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline ringo598

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 60
Re: Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread
« Reply #774 on: March 15, 2019, 23:19:58 »
Heh.  That turnover.  I had some friends on a recent PLQ in Shilo that finished last week.  Apparently something like 14 of 38 graduated.  I do hope the CF enjoys paying out all those injuries and medical RTU's.  Perhaps one day our training system will evolve into teaching leadership instead of "suffering = leadership" model we seem to promote.
"Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto."- Mikhail Kalashnikov, Creator of the AK47