• 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

Bobbyoreo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I dont belive that leadership is learnt ...well not that fast anyways. You take a guy who just got off basic now BMQ(not sure) then trades training. All he has done is learned his job. Now throw him on another course. I just dont see hom you can get him to the leadership levels. I know that some people can do this, but in a whole I dont belive it is a good thing. Yes there are alot of BAD cpls and old habits..ie bad habits but time in is experince(most times). I guess you've just seen the good side of this...I have not.


What's wrong with it?  Ptes use to be course loaded all the time on JNCO and ISCC courses. All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive. 
o do.  quote

I've never seen ANY Ptes course loaded that is why I asked the question. Where ever I worked there was enough SNR CPLS trying to get spots.


 

BKells

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There's a whole thread entitled "PTEs on PLQ"

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36941.0.html

*LOCKED*. Just kidding, I don't have that kind of authority.
 

Scoobie Newbie

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Its one thing to have the course and then be given time to mature into your role.  Its totally another thing to get the course as a Pte and then get promoted to Jack.  There are certain things that are learned through normaly career progression that aren't necessarily taught as per a lesson plan.  No one should be promoted under normal circumstances until they have grasped the basics of their current load station and preferably on above them.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
314
Points
980
CFL said:
"All it means is that someone saw leadership potential in the troops in question and decided to develop them.  They are usually quite motivated and keen individuals that make up for their lack of experience with drive." 

Quantity not quality.  Guys that get loaded my be fit or what not but there are few in my opinion that have grasped the basics let alone go on higher.  I have no doubt there are some that are extra special but that is few and far between.
How many Ptes did get course loaded?  I know the numbers from the 1st and 3rd but not the 2nd? 

More so lack of experience.
 
Experience comes with time.  I'm not saying just because they have the course they should or deserve to be promoted, just that they now have skillsets and knowledge to build on to be good leaders.  The problem we face is we are in an expansion phase right now...CMTC, JATF(or whatever it is this week) etc etc has or will be taking our trained leaders out of the line Bns and we need to train more.  Coupled with the supposed 5000 + troops that are coming we need to have leaders at some point so it makes sense to me to start developing them now.  Of course they might not be good at the job, that's the risk that we run by placing them on those course early in their careers.  But if they are professional and stay motivated they should learn and overcome any deficiencies.

There are guys that are promoted Mcpl and Sgt that shouldn't have passed Cpl's.
 
That's a unit and how they merit and all that BS and you know it.

With the course now a day's a trained monkey can pass it with minimal effort
I won't speak for other courses but I watched trained monkeys fail mine........

There are shitty Cpl's out there and they are normally relagated to postions where they have minimal influence/negative impact.
My bad I didn't explain that one well.  I meant that I have seen just as many bad "old Cpls" as MCpls as I have in comparison to young Ptes/Cpls.

The problem with Mcpl's that can tell their head from their *** is that they are the buffer between you and the Sgt.  Also they can influence one's standing and career by writing the PDR's and PER's which could be a bad thing if you point out his error's/shortcomings albet in a professional manner.
 
That seems to be the exception not the rule.  A good Sect Comd/Pl Wo and Pl Comd should be honest brokering a young NCOs writing and ensures its in-line with a soldiers actual performance.  If they aren't then they aren't really doing their job either.

Becoming a Jack puts a lot of pressure on these guys and they want to perform well which can result in bad leadership because they have no experience. 
Agreed and that is where the Sect Comd and Pl Wo put heir guide hands (or foot) on the Young MCpl and show him the way.

MJP I know you don't really give a crap but if you really care PM me.

No need bud unless you have something to add.  We both know each other personally we have discussed this before IIRC.  You have your opinions and I have mine. 

In closing of this ramble there are crap pumps at all levels.  The difference is that the higher you go the more impact they can have.
Yup! 

 

rifleman

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just remember that some senior Cpls are senior because they aren't going any higher.
 
D

dutchie

Guest
I don't think there shoud be a rule against Ptes on PLQ, but I would agree that many (or most) would not be ready to assume a leadership role (2IC, Sect. Cdr) upon completion. But so what, let then learn on course, and then learn on the job, be mentored, and I think you'll find that those who went through the process become good leaders in time.

In our unit (Seaforth Highlanders) one of our Sgts was a Pte when he went on ISCC (and topped the course, IIRC). He went on to Croatia shortly thereafter, as a Jack, and was a 2IC of a section. By all accounts (I wasn't there) he did quite well. He has gone on to be an excellent NCO, probably the best in our unit. In his case the course obviously was at the right time. He probably had natural leadership abilities, and I'll bet it had a lot to do with his nomination.

My point is this: it matters less the rank and more the person. This Pte (above) did exceptionally well with little experience as a soldier. He was thrown in to a Operational leadership role not long after finishing his course on a pretty 'hot' tour, and again did very well. Some Cpls at my unit, despite adequate TI, have failed to even finish Mod 5/6 (due to 'family issues' apparantly).

If the soldier is not ready, don't send him. If he is, send him. The rank matters little. If a unit is getting cocky, immature, tyranical douchbags back, then the nomination system needs to be looked at.
 

muffin

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I find it strange that there are Privates being sent when there is such a backlog of MCpl's who have not had PLQ yet. You would think, since it is a manditory career course, that the people nominated would be those who have been waiting longest ( assuimng no operation requirement for that personnel) - Once the Acting/Lacking MCpl's are all caught up and the up and coming Cpl's - then I can see making concessions for the "gifted" privates. There are so many other courses they could take first - apprentice and journeyman level quals.

I wonder if some of these privates aren't remusters or CT's - who have more time in than most privates.

Maggie
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
314
Points
980
Muffin your post would be true if it was applied to the army as a whole.  But the original Canforgen only applies to certain trades that were deemed short of the MCpl rank. 

A. APPLIES TO ARTY, ARMD, INF, CBT ENGR, LINEMAN AND RAD OP TRADES

As you see it is mostly combat arms guys that it applies to and for the most part they tend not to acting lacking their Cpls up to MCpl.  Not to say it doesn't happen but generally it is the support trades that have the majority of the A/Lacking MCpls.  As well in the infantry we don't have any other trades on our Mod 6 sothere may be room for Ptes if they meet all the prerequisite's. 
 

Bobbyoreo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now I know thats not true. I know the Inf have their own ICC or what ever it is called this week, but I know of people that have been on mixed courses and our heading off to mixed courses. Inf Amrd....arty...everything even a few support people, regs and res...Its becoming one...hehe

:threat:
 
M

Mineguy

Guest
Sorry boys busy day in iraq.

Theres nothing wrong with a Pte on a PLQ if the individual has been closely observed and meets all the requirments prior. Depends on if youre stuck in the old past CF peacetime army thinking mode or not. This is the way it used to be done anyhow before CF intergration of all three Forces before progressivly alot of deadwood started gathering at the top and people on the higher levels slipped into a peacekeeping only peacetime army, peacekeeping only mindset rut. Im sitting here next to a guy who did his INF Battle school back in 1964 in germany were the purpose of the course was to make you fail and they didnt care if you passed. After that  it was a huge series of hoops to jump through before years, not 5 or 6  you were a Sgt, not the 9-10 year WO like we see today in some places. This is too fast even in peacetime in some trades with for example many many battle task standards to master both in trng and operationally!

He said ref the PLQ of today and sending ptes thats the way it was as per normal back then, even if you got your PLQ like today a s a pte or were even acting in an acting lacking post like lance sgt used to be you ddint even get paid and that was somthing you "had" to do so it was no big deal. So what is the problem with kicking back into a real army and recgognizing potential leadership capability early!..it saves the time as when there is positions people are already qual, eliminates or minimizes ahead of time alot of the old boys club type stuff keeping people down and gives people some incentive to stay in and not see themselves as in a rut while they undertake the huge long arduous task of gaining that much needed experience! So, im not surprised that the wheel looks like its being reinvented again to some people but this is not a new invention.

I believe the brits and yanks have been doing this for years! They probably never stopped doing it! and why? because it makes sense, and will continue to make even more sense after we get the army back on track as an operation army in world sense which in the past was a capability we lost!
 
D

dutchie

Guest
Lurking Kuna: please use paragraphs, it makes it easier to read your post.
 

rifleman

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Caesar said:
Lurking Kuna: please use paragraphs, it makes it easier to read your post.

And here I thought it was one big run-on sentence.

But seriously, there should be no problem with sending Ptes on a PLQ, if they have leadership potential. The problem lies with the CF's inability to separate being qualified and being competent to proceed being appointed MCpl.
 

Arctic Acorn

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I think its completely understandable that some folks would feel strongly one way or the other about this. I think it would be a rare person who, as a corporal, wouldn't have some strong feelings with someone junior to them bypassing them. However given the rate of expansion we're in the process of undergoing, I really can't see any other way of doing the stated force generation targets. We're going to need a lot of NCOs (junior and senior) to make this expanded CF work, and I'm sure there will be ample opportunity for suitable Privates and Corporals to progress in the ranks.

To my mind (twisted though it may be...) for any sort of accelerated promotion program to work effectively two conditions have to be in place:

1) Effective mentorship within the chain of command. (this goes without saying and is just good leadership practice, but with effective mentorship I see no problem with anyone taking a leadership role, whatever their rank)

2) Just spitballing here, but say for the Army (the air force and navy would doubtless want to do their own flavour of this) you stand up an Army leadership school. Call it the "CF Army Leadership Academy" or something. Staff it with solid, experienced NCOs and Warrant Officers from across the army (CS and CSS trades), and mandate that all reg and reserve candidates must go through there for Leadership training. (run serials during the summer for reservists, but they can attend any serial any time of the year as it is the same course & the same standard) There you could have your CF PLQ, PLQ Land, and PLQ Infantry (possible ILQ as well).

Voila, a centre of excellence for Army leadership training. One that raises the standard for everyone, both regular and reserve.  You eliminate the backlog of A/L Master Corporals, and you have an impartial, knowledgable staff to train you. This is a big point for me as, speaking as a reservist...don't get me wrong here, I had some great instructors on my PLQ, but some were only there for the summer employment and didn't a flying f*&^ about their candidates. (then again, I am sure that is a consistant feature of most any reserve-run course)

:dontpanic:

 

sophia

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow! This is soo messed. I don't understand how a Pte can possibly be promoted to MCpl in less than a year because of shortages in manning. So does this mean that if you are a MCpl and want to be the Chief, it will take 2 mths of trg and you're there if they don't have enough people? Ridiculous. I've wasted my time. I should have waited until 2006 to join. The guy who joins this year will be where I'm at after 5+ years. Not cool. This may call for some stress leave lol :eek:
As for the PLQ in Shilo, yes, they give you the option to stay and teach the Basic course for the summer after you graduate,
regardless of your leadership talents.  The standards have officially been lowered.
I think the old-school way was so much better, because as a rank was earned, it was greater appreciated and fulfilled. If the promotion is given out of desperation to fill numbers, it will be very evident in the quality of soldiers trained.

:-\
 

Roy Harding

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In 1984, as a Private, I attended a "CLC" - Combat Leaders Course at the PPCLI Battle School in Wainwright.

I'm not sure now (in retrospect) that it was a good idea - but my superiors at the time saw "something" in me.

I did OK - but it sure was difficult with the staff AND your fellow candidates gunning for you.
 

dredwulf

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was a private, when I was selected to go on ISCC (Infantry Section Commander Course).  My unit ran a two week pre-course of about 8 people to determine who would fill the 4 slots available.

At the time, I had 3 years in, and looking forward to finally getting a QL4 course, (ANY QL4 ) so that i'd qualify for corporal.  When I was told that i'd be trying out for the ISCC I thought I lacked the experience required.  I idolized the Mcpls I knew, and didn't see myself as being cut from the same cloth.

They did however, as it was one in particular, a newly minted sergeant who recommended me.  I had been a bit of a 'grey man' until then, but he'd seen my potential.

I earned my spot, beating out a few corporals, who had been around for a while, (though truth be told, I don't think a couple of them really wanted to go anyway.)  ISCC was pretty hard-going.

On that course I was one of three privates.  By mid course, we had lost so many candidates that we had to amalgamate with another course just to have the numbers required to perform section attacks.

Towards the end, the staff found out that I didn't have a QL4 yet.  Apparently it was a requirement of any private who had been loaded.

Due to my performance thus far, I was given a waiver.  Something to the effect of 'get a QL4 within X number of months of gradutating, or the ISCC qualification is null and void.'

After surviving that course, I was loaded onto the next available QL4; Comms.

I was DAP'd to Master Corporal four months later.

During the ISCC I had felt like I was drowning.  Even with 3 years as a private, I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose.  I credit the skill of my instructors in force-feeding me the info, and my own stubborness for getting me through.

I have been a very successful leader, (not to honk my own horn, but my PERs will have to attest) but in retrospect, I subsequently resisted attempts by my unit to send privates to subsequent JLC courses. I wanted to spare them the 'sink or swim' situation I was tossed into.  I was always of the opinion 'Give Pte Bloggins another year.  If you think he's ready and might pass now, then with another year to mature, he might top the course.'

After becoming a sergeant, I instructed a young soldier on her JLC.  In her case, she had finished her basic training, and almost immediately was sent on her JLC as a private.  Within a couple months of passing that course, I met her again at the RCR Battleschool in Meaford.  She was slated as my 2ic, instructing on QL3 Infantry.  Just prior to the course starting up, she got her DAP to Master Corporal.

Many of the other instructors despised her.  1) She was so young, and promoted way too fast. (one of the candidates on the course had trained aongside her the previous year, before having been medically RTU'd)
2) She was a female.

The consensus seemed to be 'she should NOT be here.  Let's watch her go down in flames.'

I could not let this happen.  I sat in on most  lessons she taught, just to make sure that she taught the troops properly.  Experience was a big part.  When teaching the C9, it became aparant that she'd passed her handling test, but had never actually acted as a C9 gunner on any exercise for instance, so she was unclear on the best methods to handle the weapon.

I mentored her, and tried to make her the best NCO and instructor she could be.  Given smashed eggs...you try to make an omelette.

She went on to eventually become a sergeant, though there are various opinions on how effective she was in the role.

I think i'm digressing.

My point is that some privates will have what it takes, others wont.  Some will go through and pass...but this should be considered a 'learners permit'.  They may need mentoring by others to grow into becomming effective leaders.

 

Forgotten_Hero

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, I'm not quite sure what my take is on Pte's attending PLQ is... except that it seems that a lot of Ptes end up quitting, and sending them on PLQ might simply be a waste of funds. Furthermore, I also believe it hurts cohesions when a Pte, who has a worse attendance record than his buddy in the unit who he did basic with, gets to do PLQ and ends up two fundamental ranks higher than his buddy.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
236
Points
680
I agree.  Tossing Privates into an ISCC or PLQ with the sink or swim mentality is not fair for the Private.  But at the same time (and I have personally seen this) loading broken and unmotivated Corporals who have repeatedly failed this course before is also a mistake, when you have highly motivated Privates chomping at the bit.  If they would continue to run PLQ or ISCC pre-courses and load them with both Corporals and Privates that have shown potential then at least if the Private passes the pre-course there is a reasonable chance of success on the real course - like in your case.  But as we know not all units run pre-courses.  Also, I have noticed that in non-combat arms trades it is very normal for a person not to see the leadership course until after already being promoted to MCpl, and sometimes these ones fail - which I have seen first hand as well (I still havn't seen one lose their leaf as a result yet either- :mad:).          
 
Top