Psychological stress in training.

[Gayson]

KevinB,

we still have troops in the butts changing targets, I did it on my PW3 shoot.

I didn't really find it stressful.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Having taught more leadership and trade course than I care to remember, I found that the students are the biggest source of stress.   They quite easily will mentally magnify the consequences of ther actions, partiucularly when thier actions reflect negatively on them.

I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.   They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.   I just do the paperwork.

I've been "taught by" people like you.   People who make it a sport to see how many potentially good trainees they can wash out.   People who don't give a rats tail for the skill or motivation of the student or the needs of the regiments who sent them to learn something as long as they can stroke their own ego by running a "hard" course.

The way you and your kind operate, the student is more focussed on surviving the instructors than assimilating the course content.   People like you produced the leaders who made the 90's so enjoyable : for the rest of us.   And don't go telling me it was those leaders that got us through the Medak, Sarajevo, Op Storm and held IFOR together.   That was the previous generation, before the rampant Ramboizm of the training system.

You ever pulled shyte like that on one of my courses, Mr. Horse, and your keester would be in front of the Old Man so fast your watch would be 4 hours behind.

Sum up.

BZ Haggis! I'm glad the day of the "Eat your Own" courses is passing. It's still not gone, but it's getting there. I too have seen lives and careers ruined by the egotistical, god complex, exhibited by course staff. It's a shame really, we've probably lost a lot of good soldiers to it.

3rd,

It's the posting of drivel like you do that gets you your ratings, including the minus from me.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Having taught more leadership and trade course than I care to remember, I found that the students are the biggest source of stress.   They quite easily will mentally magnify the consequences of ther actions, partiucularly when thier actions reflect negatively on them.

I've never failed a student, but lots of student have failed my courses.   They all fail themselves, through lack of preparation, motivation, desire or skills.   I just do the paperwork.

I've been "taught by" people like you.   People who make it a sport to see how many potentially good trainees they can wash out.   People who don't give a rats tail for the skill or motivation of the student or the needs of the regiments who sent them to learn something as long as they can stroke their own ego by running a "hard" course.

The way you and your kind operate, the student is more focussed on surviving the instructors than assimilating the course content.   People like you produced the leaders who made the 90's so enjoyable : for the rest of us.   And don't go telling me it was those leaders that got us through the Medak, Sarajevo, Op Storm and held IFOR together.   That was the previous generation, before the rampant Ramboizm of the training system.

You ever pulled shyte like that on one of my courses, Mr. Horse, and your keester would be in front of the Old Man so fast your watch would be 4 hours behind.

Sum up.

Haggis,   I was the old man and I can tell you it was not a sport but a responsibility to the soldiers that these young  leaders would lead into battle in the future that was the motivation to pass and fail.

   Based on the response I received COs and RSMs of the units that I returned the soldiers to they were very pleased with the result including the failures. As the staff of these schools are hand picked from all of the CF you must be on top of your game to even be interviewed to be staff let alone get the job.

  You have a point on students failing themselves you are correct for the most part. That was not and is not the intension of the looking to fail some one to increase the pressure comment it was just a good byproduct of training. Remember the course is much longer than a 7 day ex at that point in the course one can predict who will pass and fail by various means. Not all students pass a leadership course that is for a reason so that only the best rise to positions of leadership. Any instructor that thinks all 80 students that start a difficult leadership courses will pass is misguided. With that attitude you would never have passed the selection criteria to teach on a leadership course. It would appear you have a chip on your shoulder by your reaction to my post you must have had a bad go on a course maybe even mine!

  The students that we produced from the CFE JLS went on to lead soldiers in the Gulf War, Yugo, and from what I saw years later were excellent, ask one you may change your opinion. I personally am very proud of the future leaders that I produced, ever one that has my signature at the bottom of the course report I would go to war with. My failure rate was on average 35% with 10% of those medical.

 I accept your concern but it is unfounded and your approach to pose a concern with a training method is much to be desired. You could have aske why that approach was taken at that point in the course and then unloaded if you did like the methodology. If you teach leadership courses you may want to think before you unload such an attack. Many of the grads from CFEJLS are the senior NCOs and regt RSMs that lead you today. The leadership failures in the 90s were from my personnel observation not those leaders trained in the early 90s. You need to look at the training methods in the 70s and 80s for your issue, and I dont think those leaders will take kindly to your comments. The leaders trained in the 90s are those current leaders in A stan as we speak and are doing very well.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Recce guy,

    Dido for you, as for Haggis, I am not of the opinion that the courses I ran were eat your own, you are missguided. Possibly you were on a course like that but not at my school. How could you even get "eat your own" out of my post you as well as Haggis are reading too much into the post with your own bitter past.

And as for the neg tab well leadership was is never a popularity contest and if you put any stock into demote promote tabs you are in for a ruff road.

So instead of just attacking like those so called "eat your own" courses you appear to be against show some leadership and ask a question or pose a solution. It is easy to lash out but hard to lead change.

PS I guess the whole CF training system must have been wrong back in the 90s by your post.

EDIT typo

 

[George Wallace]

Recce guy,

  Dido for you, as for Haggis, I am not of the opinion that the courses I ran were eat your own, you are missguided. Possibly you were on a course like that but not at my school. How could you even get "eat your own" out of my post you as well as Haggis are reading too much into the post with your own bitter past.

Well 3rd Horse

Kudos to you.   I have gone through the system in the '70s and '80s as both a Student and Instructor at the CAS.   I have seen both good and bad over the last 40 years.   If you feel the way you do; fine.   You are no more right than they are.   I have been a victim of what they say occurred.  As an Instructor I have held to one belief; to be Honest and Fair to my students.   I have seen many other Good Instructors who held the same beliefs.   I have also seen those whose Egos and Sadism have wrecked havoc on their students.   I have even had to work with some of these twits, who have been promoted two ranks above their competency and leadership abilities.

Every Course is different.   Every Instructor is different.   Every School is different.   I have seen the Armour School go from 60% Failure Rates to 0% Failure Rates.   Which extreme truly serves the Corps best?   Neither.

Then there is the "School Way" and the "Regiments Way".   Often what is taught,or not taught at the School, has to be retaught at the Regiment.   This still happens today.  

On the matter of Stress, I find that the "Kinder, Gentler Army" is promoting more stress on Tours, due to the mully codling we have done to our Recruits.  The less stressful we make their training, the more stressful they will find Tours.

 

[paracowboy]

Badge Holders  : "If I let someone else pass this course, I'm not as special." Never mind the needed knowledge getting out to the units and improving the CF. Sad.

 

[ZipperHead]

I think that "a little bit of this, a little bit of that " approach is the way to handle training. I DESPISE the thought of failing someone (arbitrarily) to send a warning shot across the bow of all students. As someone mentioned earlier, I feel that students fail themselves, and the DS just put the reasons why to paper.

I have lived through both extremes (fail a certain number of pers just to prove that the DS are "gods" and the huggy-kissy pass everyone so that nobody feels bad about themselves). Neither approach works, as nothing is being taught or retained by the students. I think that there needs to be a certain element of fear/stress, to the degree that it enhances performance, but not so much that it is counter-productive.

We need to, above and beyond anything else, train pers to be able to go to war with the skills they need. If that means someone fails a few "traces" or attacks, etc, but learn from it, and then achieve a set standard (we use the goal of "Would I want student A to be a Jr car commander/Tp ldr/Patrol Commander in my regiment, with my soldiers?" If the answer is "NO!!!", then that individual fails (that particular trace). Everyone has good days, and bad days, and there shouldn't be a crushing amount of stress placed on a person (during initial training) just to break them. Wait until they are ready before cranking it up to that degree. Obviously, if they never get to the point during the course where that is possible, recourse them, and they can try again.

One mentality that I also hate is the "I don't want this person in my mess" mentality. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone but the person's CO, RSM, or career manager to make that decision. I'm sure more than a few capable NCO's (and officers) were run aground because somebody thought that way. There have been more than a few people I hate that I passed, and more than a few people that I like that I had to fail, but that was based on their performance, not my opinion of them. Surely they would argue this, but that's their prerogative.

Training has to be progressive, and challenging. If someone starts out above the pass mark, make them work harder, so they leave at the best they can be. If they start out below the 60%, bring them up to at least 60%, and then push them to do their best. DS are not assesors in the driver examiner sense: they should teach, teach, and then teach some more, and then at the end, they can assess where the individual is. I hate "clipboard commandos" who do nothing more than mark a score on a sheet, and give nothing of themselves to the student. I suspect that is usually because those types have nothing (but c*ck) to give. Pathetic, really.

I do agree though, that stress has to be built into the training, at all levels, but not until the bulk of the teaching has been done, to ensure that the maximum of learning, teaching, and retention has occured. It's a difficult balance, but that is why we are paid the big bucks, and why we have people that do studies (hopefully realistic and useful ones), and why we observe other countries, industries, etc to see how they do it, because you should always try to learn from other's successes and failures, so that our soldiers don't have to suffer needlessly.

Al

 

[paracowboy]

I think that "a little bit of this, a little bit of that " approach is the way to handle training. I DESPISE the thought of failing someone (arbitrarily) to send a warning shot across the bow of all students. As someone mentioned earlier, I feel that students fail themselves, and the DS just put the reasons why to paper.

I have lived through both extremes (fail a certain number of pers just to prove that the DS are "gods" and the huggy-kissy pass everyone so that nobody feels bad about themselves). Neither approach works, as nothing is being taught or retained by the students. I think that there needs to be a certain element of fear/stress, to the degree that it enhances performance, but not so much that it is counter-productive.

We need to, above and beyond anything else, train pers to be able to go to war with the skills they need. If that means someone fails a few "traces" or attacks, etc, but learn from it, and then achieve a set standard (we use the goal of "Would I want student A to be a Jr car commander/Tp ldr/Patrol Commander in my regiment, with my soldiers?" If the answer is "NO!!!", then that individual fails (that particular trace). Everyone has good days, and bad days, and there shouldn't be a crushing amount of stress placed on a person (during initial training) just to break them. Wait until they are ready before cranking it up to that degree. Obviously, if they never get to the point during the course where that is possible, recourse them, and they can try again.

One mentality that I also hate is the "I don't want this person in my mess" mentality. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone but the person's CO, RSM, or career manager to make that decision. I'm sure more than a few capable NCO's (and officers) were run aground because somebody thought that way. There have been more than a few people I hate that I passed, and more than a few people that I like that I had to fail, but that was based on their performance, not my opinion of them. Surely they would argue this, but that's their prerogative.

Training has to be progressive, and challenging. If someone starts out above the pass mark, make them work harder, so they leave at the best they can be. If they start out below the 60%, bring them up to at least 60%, and then push them to do their best. DS are not assesors in the driver examiner sense: they should teach, teach, and then teach some more, and then at the end, they can assess where the individual is. I hate "clipboard commandos" who do nothing more than mark a score on a sheet, and give nothing of themselves to the student. I suspect that is usually because those types have nothing (but c*ck) to give. Pathetic, really.

I do agree though, that stress has to be built into the training, at all levels, but not until the bulk of the teaching has been done, to ensure that the maximum of learning, teaching, and retention has occured. It's a difficult balance, but that is why we are paid the big bucks, and why we have people that do studies (hopefully realistic and useful ones), and why we observe other countries, industries, etc to see how they do it, because you should always try to learn from other's successes and failures, so that our soldiers don't have to suffer needlessly.

Al

what he said.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Recce guy,

Dido for you,

It's "ditto". Figured a highly educated smart superninjaJTF6officer type and been everywhere, done everything, leading edge course officer kind of guy you claim to be would have known that.  However, judging from your grammar and spelling on other posts you don't, so I guess I really shouldn't expect much change. I hope, for your client's sake, you do up your real estate contracts better.

I guess the idea of you calling everyone giving you a bad rating "cowards" on the other thread was just a means for you to suss them out so you could retaliate. Go ahead, fill your boots.

Allan,

Exactly

 

[Jarnhamar]

Jumping in from the point of view of someone who always finds themselves a candidate rather than instructor, I hate the eat your weakest man mentality.
As a friend wisely put it, if you keep eating your weakest man pretty soon theres going to be 3 people in the platoon. And it's true because there's always going to be "the weakest guy".

I've been on enough taskings & courses and a tour where this mentality was present, constantly.

Instead of students giving the course/task their 100% their more concerned about getting kicked off for a stupid reason. Had nothing to do with failing training. It was all about whether you pissed off your instructors. Whether they liked you or not.
i couldn't stand waking up every morning going ohh gee I wonder if i'll get kicked off work up training for forgetting to put my id card in my top breast pocket or cock my C7 with my left hand instead of my right hand. Instructors always used it as a threat to motivate or somehow teach. Thats the mentality I saw constantly.

The instructors who really connect with the soldiers and treat them with respect and professionalisim (Like the instructors from the leadership company in petawawa this summer) are the guys who we students will turn around and follow to hell and back just for the pride of working with them.  
Instructors who use fear do so because they lack the leadership to inspire.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Recce guy,  nice of you to assist me with my typos and spell errors normally I have a secretary do that.

  It is not about cowards for posting a demote, it is cowards for not advising the one you did, get it right if your going to cast stones.

  I don't through around revenge demotes you got one from me and until you post more crap I wont give you another. To date I have only tagged 3 demotes, they all know who they are you being the latest.

  More to the point about this thread I don't think the creator is expecting a dual of stupidity over a request for stress that occurs on course shall we get back to the point rather than chucking crap at each other?

  Re read my post it is about stress induced training through sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, task stress and then measuring the results based on the time line over a 7 day EX in side a 60 day course. The point is that field exercises are a good way to induce stress in a candidate and the time lines of 7 days are vital to get to that point. The originator asked what was the fear inducement for the training, simple said it was the fear of failling that got a few of you wired up chill and read it in context.

 

[Haggis]

Haggis,   I was the old man

As a captain??? 

Somebody got a BS flag I can borrow??

BTW none of your kind ever failed me.

Oh, and I demoted you twice.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MODERATOR EDIT: LETS KEEP IT ON TOPIC EVERYONE OR IT WILL BE "DILDOS TO YOU"...or ditto or dido or somin'

 

[Gayson]

Please, I started this topic to discuss psychological stress on course,

not who demoted who.

Since leadership courses have come into the picture,

do instructors tend to place more mental stress (having to apply leadership) then physical stress? 

How do most candidates tend to react to the stresses of being given a leadership role?

 

[3rd Horseman]

Haggis, I don't want to get in a tussle over this shall we stop the spat?

   Europe had two command appointments for other than LCols, Commandant CFEJLS was one and in my case to a Capt. Lets get back to the main point of the thread shall we.

EDIT: sent while last post was sent.

 

[Haggis]

Please, I started this topic to discuss psychological stress on course,

Not who demoted who.

MODERATOR EDIT: LETS KEEP IT ON TOPIC EVERYONE OR IT WILL BE "DILDOS TO YOU"...or ditto or dido or somin'

Bruce: I have just exchanged PMs with the 3rd Horseman.   I will remain on topic from this point forward.

Apologies, J. Grayson, for hijacking your thread.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Might be off topic but it's interesting to see how someone being demoted on a web forum seems to cause some people psychological stress.

Maybe on a very basic level the two can be related.

 

[Gayson]

This paper is causing ME psychological stress.

Crappiest assignment ever.

Everyone,

I don't mind this thread going off track a bit.  The discussion of candidate stresses on course, and the debate of how they are taught has been interesting and will influence the final product of my assignment.

Bitching about forum demotions just seems a bit childish to me. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We always looked to fail someone during each phase of the training to ensure everyone knew they could be next if they failed a task.

    Re read my post it is about stress induced training through sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, task stress and then measuring the results based on the time line over a 7 day EX in side a 60 day course.

So according to you, no matter how everyone performed, you still targeted someone for failure, to serve as an example.

Recce guy,   nice of you to assist me with my typos and spell errors normally I have a secretary do that.

I hope you pay her very well, she's obviously quite busy.

  I don't through around revenge demotes you got one from me and until you post more crap I wont give you another.

Maybe you should put her to work vetting your posts also. You could have used her above. That hardly makes sense.

simple said it was the fear of failling that got a few of you wired up chill and read it in context.

Simply said, what got me riled, was the way you were proud of being a bully and jackass. It's a good thing you are retired. We don't need this type anymore, in fact we never did.

  More to the point about this thread I don't think the creator is expecting a dual of stupidity over a request for stress that occurs on course shall we get back to the point rather than chucking crap at each other?

I must concede. I am totally outgunned in the above context with you. I toss down my sword and withdraw.

 

[paracowboy]

Since leadership courses have come into the picture,

do instructors tend to place more mental stress (having to apply leadership) then physical stress?

J,
Good instructors don't "place" stress on candidates. They don't have to. The candidate will do that for themself. The instructor is there to provide the knowledge and tools for the candidate to utilize, then to assess the candidate's ability to do so effectively. A good instructor works with the candidate to assist them in successfully completing the course. He also is completely impartial in the assessment part. (With the caveat of Basic and Battle School, where you have to make judgement calls occasionally as to a candidate's emotional ability to do this job. No matter how well the student can pass the PO's or how physically fit, if he's a loon, ya gotta get rid of 'im, before he becomes a highly-trained loon.)

Part of the assessment is to judge the candidate's ability to handle the stress he places on himself. If he can't effectively deal with that, he certainly shouldn't be leading troops in battle.

How do most candidates tend to react to the stresses of being given a leadership role?

depends entirely on the candidate. Everybody is different. Some are natural leaders - unflappable, calm, and confident (or able to appear so). Others are basket-cases.