• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Ptes attending PLQ

HADES 1962

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In response to Pte's on PLQ courses, well if their supervisors feel that they are capable of performing at the next rank level then why not place them on it.
I have written pers on Pte's and Cpl's and if the Pte shows will, determination and desire to achieve the next level, then the Pte will be course loaded before the Cpl.
As for MCpl's going on a PLQ after they are promoted, IMHO they should be qualified before they get promoted.
The rank of Cpl should be earned not given out so easily. After all the forces should be a career not a job.
When I joined the forces way back when, I was placed on a CLC course with less than 3 years in, after my course I did the position of the MCpl before I was promoted, yes I was DAPed, then I did the position of the Sgt.
Took a VR in 86, got back in 89 Nov was promoted again in 91, Remusted in 00 and was promoted again in 04.
Now looking at QL 6 in about 6 months or a year.
I have seen the career Cpl's who are quite happy sitting back and collecting the pay check, not wanting to achieve a higher rank, then that would mean that they have more responsibilities.
Lets face the facts if a Pte out performs the Cpl then why not course load him?
 

PJ D-Dog

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If the Pte is to out-perform a Cpl, then the Pte needs to have been placed in some sort of leadership role to begin with and not just show up on a regular basis with a nice uniform.   He needs to have proven that he can perform to the next highest rank level.   Just because they want it doesn't mean they should get it.   Again, a lot of careful consideration needs to be exercised in the selection process.

A 24 year old US Army Sgt with 2 tours in Afghan and 2 in Iraq.   He has the experience to be an NCO at that young age.

This is the norm in some of the US forces.   The three Sgts in my shop are 24, 25 and 26 years-old.   Between the four and six year mark, they usually pick up Sgt, that's the average, at least in the Marines.

PJ D-Dog
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
"In response to Pte's on PLQ courses, well if their supervisors feel that they are capable of performing at the next rank level then why not place them on it."

The next rank level for a Pte is Cpl, isn't it?  How can someone show leadership potential with 2 years in the army?  He hasn't even mastered unsupervised shovel cleaning yet, let alone leading troops.  NOMEX undies donned, flame away...
 

Matt_Fisher

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Kat Stevens said:
How can someone show leadership potential with 2 years in the army?

Why don't you ask a 2nd Lt?  While they may not have a wealth of experience, the system deems that they've exhibited the necessary qualities to be put in a leadership position within 2 years of joining the army.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
Because a 2 Lt is inundated with leadership training from day one, and weeded out accordingly.  He has not spent his 2 years bouncing around in an APC, or lifting heavy things.  Apples and oranges...

Edited to add:

In my beloved Regiment, unless things have changed, the only thing a subby leads is the occasional PT class.  They mostly wander around the hallways bumping into things.
 

BKells

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OK I'm going to respond to this because I find it rather pertinent to myself.. I am a private, and I'm on PLQ right now. We started two weeks ago.

I don't see any problem with it, because..let's be honest.. Mods 1-4 don't have any spectacular demands that being a senior CPL allows you to meet. Seriously.. Mod 1 you don't do because it's PT and for the reg force, Mod 2 is teaching in the classroom. Mod 3 is range safety and Mod 4 I forget right now but really, it's not that difficult of course material.

I know I'm not going on Mod 6 until I'm a CPL and probably another year in, but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole  new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.
 

Pikache

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
149
Points
680
BKells said:
OK I'm going to respond to this because I find it rather pertinent to myself.. I am a private, and I'm on PLQ right now. We started two weeks ago.

I don't see any problem with it, because..let's be honest.. Mods 1-4 don't have any spectacular demands that being a senior CPL allows you to meet. Seriously.. Mod 1 you don't do because it's PT and for the reg force, Mod 2 is teaching in the classroom. Mod 3 is range safety and Mod 4 I forget right now but really, it's not that difficult of course material.

I know I'm not going on Mod 6 until I'm a CPL and probably another year in, but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole  new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.
No one is blaming you for taking the courses.
We just question people like you's ability to lead because of lack of experience.

You might turn out to be a real good leader. But odds of producing better leaders comes with more experience.
Mistakes that experience could have prevented and end up being detrimental to a recruit's or a young private's exp in the army might occur due to your lack of experience.

Good luck on your PLQ. I don't have much experience either, but one thing was pounded into me when someone decided to put me on the spotlight: take care of your troops and lead by example :)
 

HADES 1962

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Again we come to the point of Pte in a leadership role.
I can speak of only my former trade I have used a Pte (gunner) as a 2ic of a gun det with the TSM's approval because we felt that the Pte could handle the position. Some of the Cpl's did not want to do the position because that meant extra work on their behalf. (Not all Cpl's were like that, but a certain number were.)
I have witnessed Ptes briefing OC's on the use of indirect fire for its maximum effect.
As for the Pte advancing to the next rank level, well yes it would be a Cpl, But alas he has already proven to understand and do the role of a MCpl then why not promote him to it.
IMHO leadership is a natural trait of personality, there are natural born and then there are those who need to be groomed.
Just because the Cpl has 4 years and 3 days total service and the Pte has 3 years and 2 days service both have the same qualifications but the Pte shows more desire to achieve higher rank, then I say let the Pte attend the course.
It basically comes down to just because a person has the qualification on paper can he really perform.
We have all witness this the person who has the qualifications but could not lead sheep out of a garden.
But then this is only my 2 cents.
 

3rd Horseman

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Leadership without experience is a dangerous mix.

  2Lts get to do leadership jobs within two years because they are surrounded by experience NCOs some of which are MCpls. Those people will be the advise givers if the MCpl is also young and inexperience just imagine the trouble a troop could get into.

  IMHO that was some of the problems the leadership had in the 90s too many inexperienced Ptes accelerated to MCpl in the early 80s who then got promoted to Sgt and then WO with little time in and no skills just book smart, keen and looked good. I found a greater burden fell on the Capt rank to teach things that a young officer should have leaned from interacting with old well grizzled experienced NCOs. I can remember second guessing the advise I got from Snr NCOs for fear they were inexperienced, it was so much easier with my old Vietnam vet or Congo medal wearing MWO. As a young officer how could you go wrong with all that talent around you, my first TSMs and BSM had about 30 years in each thats 90 years to help me.
 

buzgo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have to agree with Kat Stevens, it seems crazy to send someone on a PLQ when their job has been:

50 point checker
canvas slinger
radio-checker
coffee-maker
truck driver

(these are sigop privates in the brigade HQ, generally)

Maybe, just maybe, the system is screwed up (!!) and the PLQ is a WASTE of time. Maybe we should go back in time a little bit, even to the two phase JLC... or as far back as the CLC.

It seems to me that they have gone with this PLQ system in order to get more people qual'd, but like I said, we are still sending jacks on the course, and some of them have had the rank for 2 or 3 years.

At the bare minimum, a soldier should be QL5 qualified before going on the PLQ, and in the regular force I would have to really really think about recommending a private for the course.

Oh, in my experience: 2Lts spend a lot of time doing OJT with more senior officers, and sometimes even get put to work with the troops so that they get a broad base of knowledge and skill before being promoted to a leadership role (and rank - Lt)
 

PJ D-Dog

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
BKells said:
.... but my unit needs me to teach on courses. Mod 2 allows me to do that. As a result of LFRR, we need to expand by a whole   new company. That means we need instructors. Badly.

This is not directed at you personally, I just want to use the example you sited to illustrate my point.

Just because someone is qualified to teach, does not mean they are good instructors.  Good instructors are develped over time and time at the podium gives us experience and we all have to start somewhere and roll with the punches as we go.

I understand the demand the unit has for instructors of any sort, but the more time one spends in the military, and the more military courses they attend, the more they are exposed to varying instructional techniques.  As a result, when you become an instructor, you can draw on that experience as a student and incorporate the various techniques to help you out.  You can also remember what motivated you to learn as a student and use that too.  If the only experience you have in the military is basic training, trades training and then intructional techniques, then that leaves a very shallow pool to draw from.  

If you are lucky enough to have a more experienced instructor mentor you as you progress at your unit, then that will work to your advantage.  It helped me out an awful lot.  If not, then one needs to be both creative and intuitive enough to seek guidance and try to improve.  I knew very few privates who, when assigned with a task to instruct, would even bother to seek advice from anyone. They ultimately bomb at the podium.  Seeking information is part of leadership and it needs to be exercised all the time when you are an instructor.

I have been teaching in the military for the last 13 years and I still consult with my Gunny or other instructors on how to teach certain subjects.  Even though some of my fellow Marines have far less experience than I do, they do have expertise in some subjects and often have good ideas based on their experience.  It helps out a lot.

Now, there is more to being an instructor in the military than just knowing the subject matter and conveying it to the students.  One needs to have some troop leading ability.  Contrary to some people's belief, leading troops is not done exclusively by using a check list.  It is done by using judgement.

I'll use the example that I am currently living at the moment.  The Marines are leaving the Cadre program.  Since my location is a joint service location, I have a US Air Force Staff Sgt taking over.  We sent him to the Marine Corps Security Forces school where he attended the five week instructor course.  His MOS is Air Force security forces (police work/guard duty).  He is in his mid thirties and has been in the Air Force for five years.  He is now the chief instructor for the program.  Not only is he responsible for scheduling and other course administration duties, but he also has to teach classes.  My role in all of this, is to assist and guide him in the performance of his duties as part of the hand-over.

Up until August, he had zero instructing experience.  Since graduating the MCSF instructor course in September, he has not given any classes.  This is his first course.  I've sat through his classes and he is a good instructor, has a mastery of the mechanics of the classroom and is very knowledgeable.  Where he falls down is his troop handling ability, getting the students ready for the next class or the next day's classes, leading PT etc...These are all leadership activities which go hand-in-hand with being an instructor.

The last sentence of the above paragraph is the point I am trying to make.  To be an instructor you have to be a leader.  How can someone with limited military experience be effective?  This guy has five years worth of time in.  These are the types of things that are bound to take place with Pte's in these roles, not that I am comparing him to being a Pte, but I'm sure you understand the point I am making.

PJ D-Dog

 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
3rd Horseman said:
I dont know about Sigs but in the combat arms the 2Lts lead right out of the gate.

Not in the Engineers, they don't, unless things have changed radically in the three years since I pulled pin.
 

buzgo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've had 2Lts working for me as a det member, and I've seen them 'tailing' the troop OC, but never working as the troop OC.
 

3rd Horseman

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but....

The rank of 2Lt out ranks you (by your profile) so I would suggest that he was not working for you in your det but was probably working within his Sqd to attain knowledge and skills that your det had and he needed. If for some poor leadership reason a senior Officer told you he was working for you....well he needs his head read. In the event that a poor leader gave you that understanding you should not look upon that experience as he worked for you but more that you were teaching your superior skills and knowledge that he needed to better lead your unit when he is given the opportunity. All this is a mute point if he was an untrained Zulu waiting release.

  I stand corrected on the Engrs as I forgot they are now part of the Cbt arms for the young officer in the Engrs I would assume that you need a certain level of training to lead a Engr troop due to the technical nature of the tasks not the leadership aspect.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
190
Points
710
How long have you been out?  That little backhanded shot didn't go unnoticed, the Engineers were returned to combat arms status over 15 years ago.  A long overdue redress of an unforgivable insult, in my book.
 

3rd Horseman

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well not that long don't I feel the fool for forgetting that in my post!

  but I did forget my humblest of apologize it was in no way meant as a back hand insult. Having the Engrs named as Cbt Arms was well deserved and they were always really a part of the Cbt Arms if not in name then in spirit.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
3rd Horseman said:
Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but....

The rank of 2Lt
Not to pick fly crap out of pepper but....

In most cases the 2 Lt, and for that fact the Lt, fresh out of the school did not command right away, but was an "Understudy" to a Troop/Platoon Warrant Officer.
 

3rd Horseman

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It would appear we are picking fly pepper,

  I beg to differ 2Lts don't understudy Snr NCOs or NCOs they under study Officers. Subtle but important difference.
 
Top