Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[aesop081]

See my first posting about his failing repeatedly during the course . . .

. . . jeez, you try to disarm a guy with a joke, and this happens . . . I'm ending this here, bro, it's gotten too far off topic for me!  

LOL...... ;D

So to get back on topic then, i agree that the PLQ has gotten out of hand. It should be more of a selection to determione if a soldiers has the skills and intestinal fortitude to lead troops.   IMHO , the reason we have all these scandals and failiure of leadership in the CF is the low standards we set in some cases for our leadership hopefulls.   How can we have "top-notch" leaders in the future if we hold leadership "candidates" ( i dont like the term students) to such low requirements ?

 

[mo-litia]

LOL...... ;D

So to get back on topic then, i agree that the PLQ has gotten out of hand. It should be more of a selection to determione if a soldiers has the skills and intestinal fortitude to lead troops.   IMHO , the reason we have all these scandals and failiure of leadership in the CF is the low standards we set in some cases for our leadership hopefulls.   How can we have "top-notch" leaders in the future if we hold leadership "candidates" ( i dont like the term students) to such low requirements ?

I take it we have a truce?   ;D  

I totally agree with you on the fact that low standards in leadership training may come back to bite us in the ass; the disparity is already showing itself at every unit operating out of my armoury.

IMO, If the CF went to trade specific PLQ courses that would do a lot towards correcting the shortfalls; at least for the combat arms.

Is anyone who makes the PLQ training plans reading this? I sure hope so!

 

[1feral1]

Instructors dont have to be arseholes, but be fair and firm. I define a good course by its depth, realistic training content, quality of DS, promotion of teamwork, good coursemanship, and cohesion.

One gets to know who the 'buddy-fuc*ers' are.

At the end of the day, you only get out of it what you put into it.

We can also not forget to look forward to the smoker at the end too, but strangely enough, 'smokers' are not the thing here at all. Dunno know if that generic to Aussie military culture or just the sign of the times.

Here I would say the leadership courses have only changed in tech matters, and are still hard core in many ways. No free rides here. I remember mine here not long after arriving, and I was caned hard at times, but only had the difficulty in translating CF lingo to Australian, and vise versa. I was so determined to do my best anyways.

I still remember by CLC (not JLC - I volunteered for a CLC and even had to sign a waver) in the summer 1988.

Definatly not a cakewalk. Learned lots which i still apply today.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[aesop081]

IMO, the failiure to hold leadership candidates to high standards and allowing those who do not have the skills to lead to pass, constitutes a failiure in leadership in its own right. On my course at WATC, one gal passed the course ( she was a mat tech) even though she started crying during her classroom skill lecture because the troops were not understanding what she was teaching. Still, she graduated.  What sort of example does that set for those guys who worked hard and passed because they deserved to ?

 

[jamie lewis]

I'm not so sure if you should take advise from a soldier that has been in the training system so long rather then sloging it out with the troops in the trenches.

 

[1feral1]

Welcome to army.ca.

Although I understand your point, whats your angle Jamie?

Wes

 

[jamie lewis]

My main point is to the instructor that has been teaching at various schools for the past 12 years. He might not be the best person to give information. Todays jr leaders that are graduating are also well trained although some dinosaurs might not want to admit it.This is the new army not the old. He is probably the type of dude that would still rather be riding in a horse and buggy not a new state of the art LAV 3.

 

[MJP]

IMO, If the CF went to trade specific PLQ courses that would do a lot towards correcting the shortfalls; at least for the combat arms.

Is anyone who makes the PLQ training plans reading this? I sure hope so!

Trade specific PLQ MOd sixes are on the way.    We've got several Cpl's that will be loaded on them in the Spring/Summer, for the infantry they combind the DP2B with the Mod 6.   Which is a step in the right direction, by getting the guys qualified in less time as well as being able to work at the Infantry standard the entire course vice the way Mod 6 was previously ran.

 

[mo-litia]

Trade specific PLQ MOd sixes are on the way.    We've got several Cpl's that will be loaded on them in the Spring/Summer, for the infantry they combind the DP2B with the Mod 6.   Which is a step in the right direction, by getting the guys qualifiedf in less time as well as being able to work at the Infantry standard the entire course vice the way Mod 6 was previously ran.

That's great; wish it had been thought of before I did my course, though.

 

[aesop081]

My main point is to the instructor that has been teaching at various schools for the past 12 years. He might not be the best person to give information. Todays jr leaders that are graduating are also well trained although some dinosaurs might not want to admit it.This is the new army not the old. He is probably the type of dude that would still rather be riding in a horse and buggy not a new state of the art LAV 3.

And might you be a rpoduct of this "new " army you speak of ?  I have not been around long enough (12 years) to say that i am part of what you would call the "old" army.  This has nothing to do with horses and LAV-IIIs.....leadership is still leadership no matter what you use to get around the battlefield.  The current PLQ does a pathetic job at preparing junior NCOs for the reality of modern combat, no matter what the trade.  That leaf that you have over your cheverons are not an entitelment, it puts you in a very demanding position with heavy responsabilities, therfore you should be the best at what you do in order to lead others. As i have mentioned before, somme people hav passed that should never even have attended. Do you think that the CF benefit in this way ?  PLQ should be a selection for leadership, not just a check in the box so you can get a pay raise and new position.  I have done the JLC/JNCO and that was nothing like the stories of CLC that i had heard. The current PLQ prepares you for nothing.  Those graduates that are good leaders, have become good out of their own abilities and previous experience. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not so sure if you should take advise from a soldier that has been in the training system so long rather then sloging it out with the troops in the trenches.

I think your being too generic. Quite often, the schools are the first to recieve the new equipment or procedures. Being trained first makes them the SME's. What if the guy was the hottest thing the Infantry has ever seen, but got hurt and categoried? Does that make him less of an authority because he's not with the Battalion? On the other side of the coin, if your Battalion or Unit sends a guy to be instructional staff at a school and leaves him there because he's a glue bag, and they don't want him with the troops, where does the responsibility lay? Especially if you see the grade of the pers coming from that system degrading. As a MCpl you should be questioning your superiors as to the quality of the troops your receiving, if you percieve a problem. Maybe then it can be traced back to the particular instructor that your Unit is protecting in Meaford, Gagetown or wherever. Don't blame the system for the shortfalls perpetuated by your own Unit.

 

[jamie lewis]

You have to look back into the past. Today in the RCR for example we have jumped on the band wagon and have joined the rest of the CF. We only sent troops on these courses that have merited to be in the position to go on it. So when your superiors write you PER/PDR's the have put you there for a reason. I have 15.5 yearsin the RCR and did my ISCC in 96, and my experience has made me a better leader.

 

[Bomber]

Some reserve units use their leadership training positions as a last resort employment option for a bunch of their soldiers, consequently, the people that they think should be leaders are reduced in half by the RTU canoe.  In the reserves, people need to look more at the fact that they were selected to be the future of their units, and apply themselves to their leadership courses 100 percent.  If they just look at it like an other summer tasking, then they will turn out to be those men and women that we all look at and say "HOW" and "WHY".  I am also a fan of doing things in one shot, I did the JLC, JNCO one shot deal in Pet, we had reg and reserve, Medics and Pioneers, we had incredible staff, but the best thing we had was the sections built cohesion.  The weekend courses are kind of loopy for cohesion building, because they get there Friday night, set up, get inspected Saturday morning, get a gentle jacking, but know in the back of their minds that they only have 28 more hours before they can rev their civics, play metal gear, or start a goatee again.  Sunday they get told to pull it together for next time, two weeks from then, and they pack up and go home.  none of that Barracks commander coming in to demo floor buffers, threatening death to anyone that scuffs the brass in P101, getting roded into cleaning the lounge in P50 when you don't even use it.  Plus your section commander can actually help you in 12-13 weeks, your PT level can go up, crap sacks can be weeded out, fail or no fail they get broken when they hit the field or blow their lungs out on 39 words of command.

 

[Pikache]

What scares me the most is that weak soldiers who have their PLQ gets to teach the new recruits how to be a soldier.

 

[mo-litia]

What scares me the most is that weak soldiers who have their PLQ gets to teach the new recruits how to be a soldier.

That is the biggest failing of our lack of standards these days.

 

[Greasyoldman]

The problem with PLQ isn't the soldiers taking it, it's not the staff teaching it, and it's not the course it's self. The problem is with the system as a whole. Once a Cpl completes PLQ, he's supposed to remain a Cpl for another 2 years in order to gain experience before being promoted to MCpl (which was explained to me by standards on my first day of PLQ). But, because the CF is short manned in leadership roles, Cpl's tend to get promoted to quickly and you end up with inexperienced MCpl's. Someone, somewhere, decided that people have a much higher chance of learning and remembering things when they weren't being screamed at and forced to do change parades or pointless homework till the wee hours of the morning. PLQ is designed to teach the basics, a foundation on where to start.

Ty

 

[Highland Lad]

Hard to argue with what looks like an institutionalization of weakness... I understand the logic of getting rid of all the chicken poop that used to be around, but you can not coddle someone who is supposed to be a fighting soldier and a leader of men.

The whole point of these crses (I thought) is supposed to be to test leadership performance under extreme stress conditions. After all, the individuals on these crses have already been determined to have the ability and skills required, back at battalion, right? (*sigh*... I know - I'm living in a fantasy world...)

I hated the staff on my crse (ISCC Wainwright, '92) with a passion, and vowed to get even with them any possible way I could. The best way I have found is to train the best troops I could since then, so that I could be proud of the results. I haven't always been able to do that (taught on a couple of "guaranteed" courses myself...), but I did my best.

I do agree that, on finishing the crse, Cpls should not immediately be punted up to Jack, but the demands of the service sometimes dictate differently. I know that I was proud to be handed a promotion soon after returning from crse, but I probably could have used a bit more seasoning.

Summary: From the posts I've seen, I would say that it does look like the problem is the course itself, and with the lack of standards that seem to be applied to the course and the candidates. A weak soldier should not ever be considered as a potential leader, and the ones who believe that a leadership crse will provide some needed backbone are weakening the CF in a way that should be considered criminal.

 

[mo-litia]

The problem is with the system as a whole. Once a Cpl completes PLQ, he's supposed to remain a Cpl for another 2 years in order to gain experience before being promoted to MCpl (which was explained to me by standards on my first day of PLQ). But, because the CF is short manned in leadership roles, Cpl's tend to get promoted to quickly and you end up with inexperienced MCpl's.

to train the best troops I could since then, so that I could be proud of the results. I haven't always been able to do that (taught on a couple of "guaranteed" courses myself...), but I did my best.

I do agree that, on finishing the crse, Cpls should not immediately be punted up to Jack, but the demands of the service sometimes dictate differently. I know that I was proud to be handed a promotion soon after returning from crse, but I probably could have used a bit more seasoning.

Cheers, to that - I too, was proud of my rapid appointment soon after my 'course' . . . for about five minutes. Reality can be very humbling.

But, yes - it's a good point about the CF being undermanned, so I have to agree that we, as soldiers, must do the best we can with the hand we have been dealt.  I for one, intend to do everything I can to help ensure that the next crop of leadership hopefuls gets the training that I wanted to receive. :-\

 

[Meridian]

* I note that I wade into these waters with a rubber ducky flotation device around my waist*

Not that this really needs to be said, but from the perspective of a new recruit, going through all the bs...  one of the things you have to rely on is that your DS are the best the army (navy/af depending) has to offer you.. You rely on the fact that they have already done what you are doing... that they themselves have had to prove themselves numerous times in order to demand the same of you.

It is disheartening to hear that this may not be the case.

 

[Franko]

I know I've been gone a long time but are you telling me this replaced the CLC?

Yes Bruce......it has.

Regards