- Reaction score
- 6,056
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
(or able to appear so).
...and don't discount the importance of this line.
(or able to appear so).
...and don't discount the importance of this line.
Psychological stress in training.
- Thread starter Gayson
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Not all stress in training happen in leadership type positions or leadership courses. In my world, we induce stress by imposing conditions where circumstance may outstrip time, resources, and/or training. Also knowing incorrect actions (failure) on your part will tend to impart a poor outcome (occasional death of your patient) is also an additional stressor.
Inoculation from experience, learning from your own or others mistakes, and good mentorship usually reduces errors reoccurring when the real stress of actual no-duff casualties slaps you in the face.
The basics here are the same. The more exposure you recieve, the more difficult the practice, the less likelihood errors will happen when reality bites.
Train hard, fight easy.
Inoculation from experience, learning from your own or others mistakes, and good mentorship usually reduces errors reoccurring when the real stress of actual no-duff casualties slaps you in the face.
The basics here are the same. The more exposure you recieve, the more difficult the practice, the less likelihood errors will happen when reality bites.
Train hard, fight easy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
J,
Not to split hairs with some other posts but there is a difference between student imposed stress and course imposed stress and both are good. You have heard from a varied group of contributors here on the thread from course staff, instructors standards and a commodant, all have there own take on what instruction and courses are all about as George said sift through and pick out what you need it is all correct just in different contexts. Para, Haggis and Recceguy all have valid comments about students placing stress on themselves not staff. That said there is a difference between skill courses and leadership courses. Both types of stress, staff induced and student induced are good and vital from my opinion. Reason being there are two different types of courses out there leadership and skills, each with different goals and needs to be successful. You can even have a single course comprise both componenets within the same course. In those courses different applications of environmental stress are required at different times to achieve the desired result. Leadership courses are fundamentally different to training courses and the approach to training is different for each.
Training courses or skill courses are designed to teach a skill something the soldier does not have already therefore placing undue stress on the student will reduce comprehension and limit knowledge building and confidence in the task/skill completion that is mastered. In these types of courses instructors build confidence in students and assist in the achievement of the knowledge, the goal for these types of courses is a 100% pass rate. As per the old adage there are no bad students just bad instructors.
Leadership courses set out to test a student on the application and management of skills they already posses in an environment of stress to see how they apply there skills at the limits of there capabilities and comfort levels. These courses are designed to have students self stress and applied staff stress to induce the appropriate environment to asses. These types of courses have a designed failure rate as the selection of future leaders has a defined limit of positions that a majority are striving for thus the system gets to select the best of the best. In this case there are no bad students since some were expected to fail and to fail is not a bad thing just a understanding that someone is better than you.
You cant teach leadership just asses it. You cant asses knowledge until you teach it. Similar but subtly different. To apply the wrong method to a type of training and the result could be disastrous to soldiers in a war.
For what its worth.
Not to split hairs with some other posts but there is a difference between student imposed stress and course imposed stress and both are good. You have heard from a varied group of contributors here on the thread from course staff, instructors standards and a commodant, all have there own take on what instruction and courses are all about as George said sift through and pick out what you need it is all correct just in different contexts. Para, Haggis and Recceguy all have valid comments about students placing stress on themselves not staff. That said there is a difference between skill courses and leadership courses. Both types of stress, staff induced and student induced are good and vital from my opinion. Reason being there are two different types of courses out there leadership and skills, each with different goals and needs to be successful. You can even have a single course comprise both componenets within the same course. In those courses different applications of environmental stress are required at different times to achieve the desired result. Leadership courses are fundamentally different to training courses and the approach to training is different for each.
Training courses or skill courses are designed to teach a skill something the soldier does not have already therefore placing undue stress on the student will reduce comprehension and limit knowledge building and confidence in the task/skill completion that is mastered. In these types of courses instructors build confidence in students and assist in the achievement of the knowledge, the goal for these types of courses is a 100% pass rate. As per the old adage there are no bad students just bad instructors.
Leadership courses set out to test a student on the application and management of skills they already posses in an environment of stress to see how they apply there skills at the limits of there capabilities and comfort levels. These courses are designed to have students self stress and applied staff stress to induce the appropriate environment to asses. These types of courses have a designed failure rate as the selection of future leaders has a defined limit of positions that a majority are striving for thus the system gets to select the best of the best. In this case there are no bad students since some were expected to fail and to fail is not a bad thing just a understanding that someone is better than you.
You cant teach leadership just asses it. You cant asses knowledge until you teach it. Similar but subtly different. To apply the wrong method to a type of training and the result could be disastrous to soldiers in a war.
For what its worth.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thank you everyone for your posts so far.
I have taken many of the posts here into consideration while attempting to design a stress mechanism for use on the subjects.
Subjects would be performing tests under time constraints, which in itself would present some degree of stress. I do believe that this would not be suffecient to achieve the aim of the proposed research.
Many of you have discussed how students place themselves under stress while onn course which is a direction I am now persuing in the design of the experiment. In every case so far military examples have been discussed, however civilians would make up the population of subects.
Originally I made this thread to get a military point of view, being something I could relate to I figured it would help me write my paper. The wealth of knowledge and expertise displayed here has gone above and beyond what I've been looking for and I am now considering how I would apply this to a civilian setting (hacing the civies in the test stress themselves, much like candidates on a BMQ/DP2/PLQ would).
It has been stated multiple times that candidates often feel stressed at the prospect of failing the course or a PO check aswell as making errors during evaluation.
So far I have considered fear of failing the tests as a means to apply stress to the subjects, now I will be persuing the application of making errors during the test a reality aswell.
Earlier I jokingly posted that this assignment has been giving me psychological stress, I am finding it difficult to achieve the results I would like.
Never have I been in a situation where my co-workers or those below me would have stressed placed upon them by the body they work for, with the exception of the Army. As a result I've been having difficulty designing an adequate stress mechanism that would still be moral and legal since the subjects would be civilians. After all, I can't show parade civilians as a method of raising their stress.
Despite this, I do think that many of the fundamental methods discussed here can be possibly placed in the controlled environment I am designing. Often in military training, soldiers are exposed to various auditory and visual ques that can stress a candidate out, such things as being screamed at while performing various tasks.
I'm thinking that the application of loud noises, and annyoying visuals can play a part in creating the stress I wish to create.
SO instructors, when applying stress on a skills course, do you find adding elements of time constraint, yelling and screaming, making threats (more punishment, push-ups, parades etc. . .) constructive? In your experience have you found doing this a good way of evaluating a candidates skill under stress?
I have taken many of the posts here into consideration while attempting to design a stress mechanism for use on the subjects.
Subjects would be performing tests under time constraints, which in itself would present some degree of stress. I do believe that this would not be suffecient to achieve the aim of the proposed research.
Many of you have discussed how students place themselves under stress while onn course which is a direction I am now persuing in the design of the experiment. In every case so far military examples have been discussed, however civilians would make up the population of subects.
Originally I made this thread to get a military point of view, being something I could relate to I figured it would help me write my paper. The wealth of knowledge and expertise displayed here has gone above and beyond what I've been looking for and I am now considering how I would apply this to a civilian setting (hacing the civies in the test stress themselves, much like candidates on a BMQ/DP2/PLQ would).
It has been stated multiple times that candidates often feel stressed at the prospect of failing the course or a PO check aswell as making errors during evaluation.
So far I have considered fear of failing the tests as a means to apply stress to the subjects, now I will be persuing the application of making errors during the test a reality aswell.
Earlier I jokingly posted that this assignment has been giving me psychological stress, I am finding it difficult to achieve the results I would like.
Never have I been in a situation where my co-workers or those below me would have stressed placed upon them by the body they work for, with the exception of the Army. As a result I've been having difficulty designing an adequate stress mechanism that would still be moral and legal since the subjects would be civilians. After all, I can't show parade civilians as a method of raising their stress.
Despite this, I do think that many of the fundamental methods discussed here can be possibly placed in the controlled environment I am designing. Often in military training, soldiers are exposed to various auditory and visual ques that can stress a candidate out, such things as being screamed at while performing various tasks.
I'm thinking that the application of loud noises, and annyoying visuals can play a part in creating the stress I wish to create.
SO instructors, when applying stress on a skills course, do you find adding elements of time constraint, yelling and screaming, making threats (more punishment, push-ups, parades etc. . .) constructive? In your experience have you found doing this a good way of evaluating a candidates skill under stress?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
J
If I may I would suggest screaming at a student is not an effective stress mechanism. Having back ground noise is good and depending on your tasks have a non involved person interupt and ask questions of nothing important of the student while they are at a critival point in the task. This is like the third radio set in a comd veh that during leadership testing is there to confuse and through off rather than be part of the assessed task. The concept of show parades and stuff like that is to keep the student occupied and expending energy and mind power when they could be resting this is done to stress them from an environmental perspective I dont hink they are effective tools except to induce stress if needed. Such as writting a memo at midnight it is part of the sleep deprivation part. Another effective assessment tool is to design a task that will achieve a failure (contrary to what you have read earlier failure is a good tool), then monitor the student as they try and get out of the failed position they are in. The stress is high and the one that can extricate themselves and how they do it is the assessment, not the failure.
If I may I would suggest screaming at a student is not an effective stress mechanism. Having back ground noise is good and depending on your tasks have a non involved person interupt and ask questions of nothing important of the student while they are at a critival point in the task. This is like the third radio set in a comd veh that during leadership testing is there to confuse and through off rather than be part of the assessed task. The concept of show parades and stuff like that is to keep the student occupied and expending energy and mind power when they could be resting this is done to stress them from an environmental perspective I dont hink they are effective tools except to induce stress if needed. Such as writting a memo at midnight it is part of the sleep deprivation part. Another effective assessment tool is to design a task that will achieve a failure (contrary to what you have read earlier failure is a good tool), then monitor the student as they try and get out of the failed position they are in. The stress is high and the one that can extricate themselves and how they do it is the assessment, not the failure.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
3rd Horseman said:
Could you please specify for me what documents you were using that established a "defined failure rate"? Any course I have ever run was conducted in accordance with the authorized Course Training Plan (CTP) that had minimum standards but certainly allowed for every candidate to meet them. I have never seen one with a 'built-in' failure rate. This allegation will require confirmation by official document sources to be acceptable to me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
time constraints is a good stress inducer, as is demanding a higher mark to "pass" (80% as opposed to 50%), and you could very well add physical exertion (running 50 meters followed by 25 push-ups).J. Gayson said:
Time constraints, no matter how lenient, cause some people to put more stress on themselves, simply because of a percieved limitation. The same holds true with a demanding a higher mark to pass. You could very well design a test that is quite easy to pass, but by saying you want 80% as opposed to 50%, it creates stress in some people, since they are accustomed to hearing 50%. And the PT creates an elevated heart rate, which the body reads as stress, even though it's physical, and not mental. The body tells the mind it's under stress, the mind then reacts accordingly.
While I don't agree with yelling or threatening candidates on course, it may prove useful to your experiment. The same with distractions such as music or flashing lights. If possible, you could combine them all with the use of a Proxima and a laptop. Flashing images automatically draw the eye and the attention wanders. More so, if they are accompanied by sound.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"These courses by design" is better choice of words.
As you said and you are correct ever course has a CTP that is achievable by every student that meets the standard. Never seen a 100% pass on a leadership course in my entire time in the CF maybe you have. As a Comd position I would have an expected % attrition be it medical, voluntary withdraw or fail, any deviation from those norms would cause a review of the course. I have not been in that position for some 15 years things may have changed since then, you would not find that type of data in the CTP it was part of training systems standards for the development of the course and conduct CF schools. Each week a list of failures medicals etc. would be sent into training systems and if the % was above or below the norm you would get a call to explain it. If it was well above the norm you would get an inspection visit.
As you said and you are correct ever course has a CTP that is achievable by every student that meets the standard. Never seen a 100% pass on a leadership course in my entire time in the CF maybe you have. As a Comd position I would have an expected % attrition be it medical, voluntary withdraw or fail, any deviation from those norms would cause a review of the course. I have not been in that position for some 15 years things may have changed since then, you would not find that type of data in the CTP it was part of training systems standards for the development of the course and conduct CF schools. Each week a list of failures medicals etc. would be sent into training systems and if the % was above or below the norm you would get a call to explain it. If it was well above the norm you would get an inspection visit.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
The fact that people fail courses, whether though medical RTU, training or administrative reasons, is not inherently based on the course being designed to ensure failures. Your inference that it may have been, or that you might have been in a position to influence it outside the parameters of the CTP, creates a flawed view of how courses are meant to be conducted in accordance with the training system.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Tell that to the pencil neck geek that called me every week to inquire why I had a high or low failure rate and to explain it.
Your point is well taken and I agree there was no intention to suggest the course CTP has been "designed to ensure failure" just that there is a failure rate and it is predictable.
Your point is well taken and I agree there was no intention to suggest the course CTP has been "designed to ensure failure" just that there is a failure rate and it is predictable.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Leadership courses, especially, should have failure built in. Assessing how a leader (or potential leader) deals with failure is critical, IMO. 3rd Horseman hasn't expressed it well, but I think I agree that everyone on a leadership course must fail a task at some point in the course (not necessarily fail the course. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here).
Even if the "failure" is BS, it must be applied to all candidates and it doesn't mean a course failure in itself.
Acorn
Even if the "failure" is BS, it must be applied to all candidates and it doesn't mean a course failure in itself.
Acorn
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think that an element of our military culture that we HAVE to remove is the fear of failure. We treat people who fail at anything as, well, failures. I can count on one hand (even a Homer Simpson hand) how many times I have ever "failed" anything in the CF. Does that make me a super-soldier? I doubt it. I think that it just means that I tried my damnedest to pass everything thrown at me. But allowing people to fail, and not treat them like garbage, but teach them to learn from their failure would actually raise the quality of soldiers that we have.
People are so terrified of failing something (getting on the "man-eating truck") that it causes people to stay within their comfort zone, and do what they know will guarantee success. If that means they end up only learning one way to do a given task, and when there are multiple ways to actually do, we haven't really accomplished anything. Granted, some things are drills, with only ONE way to do it (by the book), and if a person just doesn't get it, even after multiple attempts, and lot's of coaching, they are done. Thanks for coming out. Try again.
Allowing people the opportunity to try different ways of doing things, even if they sometimes result in failure is way to get people to expand their horizons, trying things that might even be better than the "DS solution". As a DS, I have learned many things from my students, and told them that I appreciated the opportunity to learn from them. Everybody has different experiences, and those experiences can help them in different situations.
I think that once people realize that it's OK to thunder in once in a while, it will take away some of the self-induced stress. Another thing that I hate is when people say "The only stress that there is placed upon you is what you place upon yourself". There are MANY different stressors, and self-stress is but only one of them. It's true that some people are "spinners" and wouldn't be successfully able to lead an ant to an ant hill, but there are other issues at play. Stress can be a good thing, as mentioned before, but it should be applied as warranted, not just a way to give c*ck for the sake of giving c*ck.
Al
People are so terrified of failing something (getting on the "man-eating truck") that it causes people to stay within their comfort zone, and do what they know will guarantee success. If that means they end up only learning one way to do a given task, and when there are multiple ways to actually do, we haven't really accomplished anything. Granted, some things are drills, with only ONE way to do it (by the book), and if a person just doesn't get it, even after multiple attempts, and lot's of coaching, they are done. Thanks for coming out. Try again.
Allowing people the opportunity to try different ways of doing things, even if they sometimes result in failure is way to get people to expand their horizons, trying things that might even be better than the "DS solution". As a DS, I have learned many things from my students, and told them that I appreciated the opportunity to learn from them. Everybody has different experiences, and those experiences can help them in different situations.
I think that once people realize that it's OK to thunder in once in a while, it will take away some of the self-induced stress. Another thing that I hate is when people say "The only stress that there is placed upon you is what you place upon yourself". There are MANY different stressors, and self-stress is but only one of them. It's true that some people are "spinners" and wouldn't be successfully able to lead an ant to an ant hill, but there are other issues at play. Stress can be a good thing, as mentioned before, but it should be applied as warranted, not just a way to give c*ck for the sake of giving c*ck.
Al
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Allan, good post. The fear of failure in the CF, in regards to leadership, is sometimes so high that we have leaders who are AFRAID to make a decision! For making a bad decision in the past they have been hammered by their leaders, thus leading them to make no decision outside the norm. I fully agree that we must encourage troops to "make a snap" and to live with the consequences. Lord knows I've made my share, good and bad! 
One should never be punished for a bad decision, one should be taught what would have been a better choice. Now before anyone starts to rip obviously we need to use some common sense. If I decide to walk my troops through a clearly marked minefield just because it is a shorter route I should be sorted out immediately! (Most troops I know would sort me out themselves! ;D)
Just remember the person who makes no decision is ALWAYS wrong!
One should never be punished for a bad decision, one should be taught what would have been a better choice. Now before anyone starts to rip obviously we need to use some common sense. If I decide to walk my troops through a clearly marked minefield just because it is a shorter route I should be sorted out immediately! (Most troops I know would sort me out themselves! ;D)
Just remember the person who makes no decision is ALWAYS wrong!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Acorn, Al and 2Cdo, good points,
It has always been an issue of failure as a bad thing in the CF I don't subscribe to this, possibly on skill courses or recruit courses it may be but on leadership course or advanced skill courses it should never be looked upon that way. Failures on leadership courses should be seen as you tried your just not ready or able to do the next task up the chain but no reduction in the abilities that that soldier currently has. Obviously to be selected for a leadership course the soldier was in the top cut of those the RSM and CO chose to go on course.
The issue that I laid out earlier in the thread about planned failure was a little confusing. My position is that during a point in training it is a good training activity to set up a task to fail (not to fail a student on the course nor even in that task) the result of the failed task is just the start of the assessment, it is how the soldier gets out of the failed task that is the test. Thus a failed task is not a failed EO or PO just a start point of the leadership evaluation. When the soldier completes the task which is well past the point of failure that is the end of the evaluation. To be clear all students will fail the task and all staff know it, it is just a point of stress to set the student up for the real evaluation which is the recovery not the failure. Clear as mud I assume!
It has always been an issue of failure as a bad thing in the CF I don't subscribe to this, possibly on skill courses or recruit courses it may be but on leadership course or advanced skill courses it should never be looked upon that way. Failures on leadership courses should be seen as you tried your just not ready or able to do the next task up the chain but no reduction in the abilities that that soldier currently has. Obviously to be selected for a leadership course the soldier was in the top cut of those the RSM and CO chose to go on course.
The issue that I laid out earlier in the thread about planned failure was a little confusing. My position is that during a point in training it is a good training activity to set up a task to fail (not to fail a student on the course nor even in that task) the result of the failed task is just the start of the assessment, it is how the soldier gets out of the failed task that is the test. Thus a failed task is not a failed EO or PO just a start point of the leadership evaluation. When the soldier completes the task which is well past the point of failure that is the end of the evaluation. To be clear all students will fail the task and all staff know it, it is just a point of stress to set the student up for the real evaluation which is the recovery not the failure. Clear as mud I assume!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I think I am starting to see where you are going with this, 3rdHorseman.
When we teach Battle Procedure, we give all the nuts and bolts theory, a demo in real time, and then have "interactive" practice (DS assist). The majority of the people (myself included at the time) say "No f'in way am I EVER going to get this!!!!" But after they learn all the in's and out's, and become proficient, they look back and say "That wasn't so hard!!!". But, by the same token, it should be acknowledged by all present that the "fail" trace is just that: a trace that it is acceptable to fail on. I know that I went to DEFCON5 when I was given an "impossible timing" on my 6A, because they assured us at the beginning that there wouldn't be. Well, didn't I get all pissy, and lost my focus on what I should have been doing, because to me, it was do or die time, and this isn't the time to stick it to Al!!! In hindsight, I should have focussed on getting to the task at hand, which was to work with what I had, cut out what I didn't need to do, and then do it. I passed that trace, BTW, but mainly due to a very tolerant DS, who understood my frustration (thanks Dave, wherever you are!!!!)
But again, we need a "cultural" change within the military, where it is acceptable to "fail" something, but as long as you learn something out of the endeavour, you never really failed, because you can utilize those lessons learned elsewhere.
To some degree, a lot of our training is so easy, just so that everybody gets the same shot (i.e. nobody able to say "It isn't fair that I had 3 contacts!! Bloggins only had 2!!!! Waaa waaa waaa!!!"). Some people (myself NOT included) say that we shouldn't assess people (pass/fail), just let people go out and try it, and as long as they tried, they are successful. With certain people this would work, but I can't see it working for the majority of pers. I think that these types of courses are commonly referred to as "attendance courses", and don't have any place in leadership courses or for practical skills that are life and death.
Al
When we teach Battle Procedure, we give all the nuts and bolts theory, a demo in real time, and then have "interactive" practice (DS assist). The majority of the people (myself included at the time) say "No f'in way am I EVER going to get this!!!!" But after they learn all the in's and out's, and become proficient, they look back and say "That wasn't so hard!!!". But, by the same token, it should be acknowledged by all present that the "fail" trace is just that: a trace that it is acceptable to fail on. I know that I went to DEFCON5 when I was given an "impossible timing" on my 6A, because they assured us at the beginning that there wouldn't be. Well, didn't I get all pissy, and lost my focus on what I should have been doing, because to me, it was do or die time, and this isn't the time to stick it to Al!!! In hindsight, I should have focussed on getting to the task at hand, which was to work with what I had, cut out what I didn't need to do, and then do it. I passed that trace, BTW, but mainly due to a very tolerant DS, who understood my frustration (thanks Dave, wherever you are!!!!)
But again, we need a "cultural" change within the military, where it is acceptable to "fail" something, but as long as you learn something out of the endeavour, you never really failed, because you can utilize those lessons learned elsewhere.
To some degree, a lot of our training is so easy, just so that everybody gets the same shot (i.e. nobody able to say "It isn't fair that I had 3 contacts!! Bloggins only had 2!!!! Waaa waaa waaa!!!"). Some people (myself NOT included) say that we shouldn't assess people (pass/fail), just let people go out and try it, and as long as they tried, they are successful. With certain people this would work, but I can't see it working for the majority of pers. I think that these types of courses are commonly referred to as "attendance courses", and don't have any place in leadership courses or for practical skills that are life and death.
Al
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Exactly....everone gets the fail trace only the DS know its the fail trace. The test is how does the student make a success of the failed trace. That is the true test of leadership not that you passed the passable trace but that you found a way to recover from a defeat. In battle ever trace starts as a pass but on contact normally becomes a potential fail it is how a leader creates a success in the face of this adversity that wins the day and reduces casualties. This is the type of training that I advocate for since the guy that learns this way will find ways in battle under the harshest of situations to clear a path to victory. It truely is the Cpl/Sgt out there on his own after contact that will win battles not the lovely drawn up plans of the officers.
- Reaction score
- 5,324
- Points
- 1,060
3rd Horseman said:
This is what you wrote and there is no mistaking the meaning. No confusion, no misunderstanding. You were not talking about what Al is now.
If you wish to say you were wrong and retract it, so be it, but don't say we were all confused and didn't get your drift. We knew exactly what you were saying.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Recceguy,
That post you point out was a response to the question, "what was the fear motivator in the training". Well to be honest there is none other than what I said which was rather quickly delivered and is the fear motivator was the avoidance of the fail. No argument still valid. With out the fear of failure and all it brings than training would not be taken seriously. It was I might ad a flippant post but accurate.
EDIT: Retract it, change it, take it back .......Naaaaa....it was the way it was, for what its worth thats what happened and it was for the right reasons and it produced top caliber students.
That post you point out was a response to the question, "what was the fear motivator in the training". Well to be honest there is none other than what I said which was rather quickly delivered and is the fear motivator was the avoidance of the fail. No argument still valid. With out the fear of failure and all it brings than training would not be taken seriously. It was I might ad a flippant post but accurate.
EDIT: Retract it, change it, take it back .......Naaaaa....it was the way it was, for what its worth thats what happened and it was for the right reasons and it produced top caliber students.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
3rd Horsemen,
your saying then, that with an average amount of students who fail the various mods for personal reasons, stress is placed upon the remaining candidates?
I understand that candidates can fail leadership courses because they couldn't not meet the expectations given to them. So the remaining candidates would be stressed/fearful because THEY would be worried that perhaps THEY would not meet the expectations?
your saying then, that with an average amount of students who fail the various mods for personal reasons, stress is placed upon the remaining candidates?
I understand that candidates can fail leadership courses because they couldn't not meet the expectations given to them. So the remaining candidates would be stressed/fearful because THEY would be worried that perhaps THEY would not meet the expectations?
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,986
- Points
- 1,110
J,
Sorry to join the party late, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I would argue that both physical and mental stress affects people differently. People who worry a lot about life might do a task very well in a relaxed environment and then fall to pieces when put under the slightest stress. Others might be bored and do poorly in an absence of stress but then turn it on when the pressure turns up. For these folks you might find a curve where performance goes up at first as stress increases. Peformance would eventually start to come down as stress contined to increase. I suppose the majority would find some performance loss as stress increased but at a manageable level. Others would see performance plummet once stress sets in.
Since I imagine that the battlefield is a fairly stressful place it would be good to know how the soldiers and leaders in it would react under stress. It would also be handy to learn how to manage stress. The training does, I suppose, weed out the true "stress magnets", identify the ones who thrive and give the rest the ability to at least manage their reaction to stress. I observed this (purely antecdotaly) on Phase II. Some very intelligent and articulate young OCdts crumbled under the strain of time contraints (as you also observed). I can remember one fellow who was obsessed with being the top candidate (to the point of wanting our ranking listed on our shirts). He didn't make it past week five. :'(Too stressed. All self-imposed. Some panic when the clipboard comes out.They worry about failing and worry so much that they do. On the other hand some guys are just excited to have been given a tank for an afternoon and don't dwell on the possibilities of failure. As Oddball says to his driver, "I want nothing but good thoughts. No negative waves."
I seem to remember that four guys from my section of ten failed Phase II (for a variety of reasons). Strangely, I do not remember finding that their leaving caused any stress to me. In fact, in the case of a couple it made my life less stressful. That being said, I felt bad for the guys who got hurt and had to leave despite their high levels of motivation and potential. So I guess that made me sad but not stressed. I felt stressed if I was given a warning of some kind, but I tried not to dwell on it and just tried to get on with it.
Some guys stayed up all night buffing their floors and then failed tests in the morning. My room turned in at 2300 hrs regardless. Sleep deprivation is perhaps more powerful than stress in terms of performance loss. At 72 hrs I think that most people hit the wall unless they are on some kind of stimulant. Sleep deprivation probably magnifies the negative effects of stress.
I'm sure we all have similar tales. As an aside, I do beleive that our schools teach to the standard and not to a quota. I worked at a training centre for three years and kept track of attrition rates. Army needed to know the attrition rate because it had to recruit the right amount to fill the vacancies in the battalion, not because it insisted that we have a certain of amount of failures to "stress" the candidates. We were not under a quota and if we were over or under there were no questions asked. We kept track of failures on JNCO (CLC, PLQ or whatever its called these days) and gave feedback to the units to help them make sure their candidates were qualified. The standard was all that mattered.
Cheers,
2B
Sorry to join the party late, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I would argue that both physical and mental stress affects people differently. People who worry a lot about life might do a task very well in a relaxed environment and then fall to pieces when put under the slightest stress. Others might be bored and do poorly in an absence of stress but then turn it on when the pressure turns up. For these folks you might find a curve where performance goes up at first as stress increases. Peformance would eventually start to come down as stress contined to increase. I suppose the majority would find some performance loss as stress increased but at a manageable level. Others would see performance plummet once stress sets in.
Since I imagine that the battlefield is a fairly stressful place it would be good to know how the soldiers and leaders in it would react under stress. It would also be handy to learn how to manage stress. The training does, I suppose, weed out the true "stress magnets", identify the ones who thrive and give the rest the ability to at least manage their reaction to stress. I observed this (purely antecdotaly) on Phase II. Some very intelligent and articulate young OCdts crumbled under the strain of time contraints (as you also observed). I can remember one fellow who was obsessed with being the top candidate (to the point of wanting our ranking listed on our shirts). He didn't make it past week five. :'(Too stressed. All self-imposed. Some panic when the clipboard comes out.
They worry about failing and worry so much that they do. On the other hand some guys are just excited to have been given a tank for an afternoon and don't dwell on the possibilities of failure. As Oddball says to his driver, "I want nothing but good thoughts. No negative waves."I seem to remember that four guys from my section of ten failed Phase II (for a variety of reasons). Strangely, I do not remember finding that their leaving caused any stress to me. In fact, in the case of a couple it made my life less stressful. That being said, I felt bad for the guys who got hurt and had to leave despite their high levels of motivation and potential. So I guess that made me sad but not stressed. I felt stressed if I was given a warning of some kind, but I tried not to dwell on it and just tried to get on with it.
Some guys stayed up all night buffing their floors and then failed tests in the morning. My room turned in at 2300 hrs regardless. Sleep deprivation is perhaps more powerful than stress in terms of performance loss. At 72 hrs I think that most people hit the wall unless they are on some kind of stimulant. Sleep deprivation probably magnifies the negative effects of stress.
I'm sure we all have similar tales. As an aside, I do beleive that our schools teach to the standard and not to a quota. I worked at a training centre for three years and kept track of attrition rates. Army needed to know the attrition rate because it had to recruit the right amount to fill the vacancies in the battalion, not because it insisted that we have a certain of amount of failures to "stress" the candidates. We were not under a quota and if we were over or under there were no questions asked. We kept track of failures on JNCO (CLC, PLQ or whatever its called these days) and gave feedback to the units to help them make sure their candidates were qualified. The standard was all that mattered.
Cheers,
2B
