Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[Ham Sandwich]

There was a time when i would have said that if you were approached by your section commander, then it's probably because someone qualified to make that decision knows you're ready.

However, times have changed. And as someone said, the leadership gap is being filled by the army in a rushed manner. So you need to decide for yourself whether you want to be a MCpl yet (because PLQ course reports are now coming with MCpl ranks stapled to them).

While the army has it's requirements, you need to do what's correct for you. You have to decide, do you want to be the guy who was in only 3 years before he reached MCpl, and then be a weak NCO for a number of years? Or do you think you could hack it and would make a novice but solid Jr NCO? I'm afraid there's nobody on these boards who can answer that one for you.

....................................................................

To speak more generally about the issue, I have to agree with the folks expressing concern about how the army is going about their junior leadership selection and training.


And i use the term "selection" loosely, as it seems the only requirement for selection these days is availability...
...combine that with the "no fail" policies...
...and combine that with the fact that completion of PLQ means automatic promotion to MCpl...

....and you end up with a system that basically has exactly no coherent selection process whatsoever. Brigade HQs demand that positions be filled regardless of whether units feel they have anyone who's suitable, and those positions all to often get filled just for the sake of filling them. We're basically just promoting the first people who were available for PLQ. That's a problem, and the quality of NCO in the reserves has suffered as a result, and will continue to suffer.

When i joined the reserves way back in the day, i recall that the talk of the town every year was who would be selected to go on JLC. Would it be this guy, or that guy? Would bloggins get picked or not? And it was a big deal to us pte/cpls because it mattered to us who was in a leadership position next year, and then maybe a year or two later, be a MCpl.

Nowadays, the rank is more or less "handed out like candy" to the first guys who can commit to the course, and there's no selection process whatsoever. Not only does this give us less strong leaders, it dilutes the credibility of the rank. And diluting the credibility of the rank alters the hierarchical dynamic of the organization. Now if the army had set out to alter that dynamic for some coherent reason, then fine, but in reality, it's being altered as an adverse side-effect of poor staffing policies, and this is a problem.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While MCpl is a substantial leap in a career, it is still a phase of assessment for the unit. And while there are lots of PLQ spots to fill, the spots for Sgt and WO course candidates are slim and dear. So while a person may squeek through and be a mediocre MCpl, their chance of progressing will pretty well end there. The units will not waste those valued one or two spots a year on people that can't progress with their rank.

 

[dangerboy]

...combine that with the "no fail" policies...

I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier. 

 

[Ham Sandwich]

While MCpl is a substantial leap in a career, it is still a phase of assessment for the unit. And while there are lots of PLQ spots to fill, the spots for Sgt and WO course candidates are slim and dear. So while a person may squeek through and be a mediocre MCpl, their chance of progressing will pretty well end there. The units will not waste those valued one or two spots a year on people that can't progress with their rank.

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I agree with most of what you are saying but not with your "no fail" policies.  I have ran many courses and we have no problem failing people.  The problem I have seen is sometimes we get non-permanent staff and they do not have the experience so don't know what to look for when they are assessing so end up not noticing mistakes.  Happens a lot in the defensive, or the other problem is when you have lazy staff that don't want to do paperwork.  If you fail a candidate it requires more paperwork than if you pass him, so some staff have passed them with low marks instead of failing them so they can relax earlier.

Ok, well that's your experience, but i can tell you, for absolute certainty, that "no fail" policies have existed in LFCATC. Instructors were told that if a candidate failed, then it was a leadership failure, and you failed to "mentor" that individual through the item he was having difficulty with, and therefore the candidate wasn't culpable. We were told that if, for example, he failed to state the mission statement in orders, then he was to be "mentored" until he got it, and then carry on (i'm not making this up). They literally did not let us fail anyone. Any failure of a candidate on any item was to be corrected on the spot before the assessment continued. There was even one case where the OC took an assessment guide from a failed section attack behind closed doors, without the instructor, and arbitrarily moved checkmarks out of the ineffective column into the effective column based on poor handwriting, not enough commentary, "disagreed" with certain points (about a section attack he did not observe).

We were told in no uncertain terms that nobody was to fail. It wasn't even sugar-coated. The only person who didn't pass that course was one individual who failed every attempt at every PO (except his 3rd or 4th attempts where he walked through his hard assessed by the hand by the instructors), and quit by refusing a 4th attempt at his recce patrol, and said to the OC that he'd rather go home, because he didn't want to go to leadership school in the first place - his unit just sent him there, and he didn't know where he was going or what he was doing.

I don't know how it is now, but I'm telling you, a couple summers back, there was a no-fail policy. I was there man!

[edit]
...oh, and then they all got promoted by their units on the grad parade.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

If you see that happening, it's not the fault of the Army. It's the fault of your Unit and it's CoC. We will no fill before we send someone that's not suited. Simple as that.

You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"

Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You guys will no-fill rather than send the wrong people? See, that's a totally foreign concept to me. Last time i saw anything close to that method was in the late 90's. Ever since then, it's been "Who's available for 13 weeks this summer? You, you and you, congratulations! You're going to be leaders!!"

Glad to hear the problem isn't as systemic as i thought it was.

It also creates a sense of competition and ensures everyone is performing at peak. They know that just because there's a spot, doesn't mean their going. They have to prove they're worth it.

 

[dangerboy]

recceguy, I wish all units both Reg and Reserve had your units mentality.  I have seen what HAM Sandwich stated, candidates showing up for courses just because they needed a class B job for a couple of months.  It usually does not end up good for the candidate.

 

[a_majoor]

While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.

Removing a candidate from a course is quite difficult, the amount of paperwork is huge and the process is quite involved. The course staff all know what is involved in removing a candidate who is unsuitable, and my experience is they will bust their butts to ensure the paperwork and supporting documentation is done as well as possible. Far better to put in the extra hours in keeping the files current for everyone (and thus having ammunition ready when needed) than having to put in the extra time to re teach the failed candidate for another crack at the PO.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

While the army has it's requirements, you need to do what's correct for you. You have to decide, do you want to be the guy who was in only 3 years before he reached MCpl, and then be a weak NCO for a number of years? Or do you think you could hack it and would make a novice but solid Jr NCO?

I am not sure what you are saying here or what you mean, but you DO know Cpl's AND MCpl's are Junior NCOs right??  And Sgt/PO2 are the only Snr NCOs?

Maybe it was your wording?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

In a perfect world, sure, that would be the case, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is even true of Sgt/WO qualifications, just on a smaller scale. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can point out several examples of people becoming Sr NCOs in thier units who should never even have been MCpls. Though you are correct in that there's at least some degree of "selection" that goes on at that level, which can't be said of MCpl/PLQ level.

So, even though they have passed all their trg to the 6A/6B level, and were promoted, in your eyes they don't meet the standard.  Maybe part of the problem is 'your standard'  The Army standard isn't based off your personal opinion, right?  I don't know about your unit, but I don't know of the Inf School handing out any "gimmies" on the 6A course.  There wasn't any at the Armour School when I did my 6A and the same held true for 6B/ARTC Block 4 and 5 at WATC when I went thru.  In a unit, there are always the "best/favorite/keener" and "lowest standard" pers thought of in each rank, and then all the "middle men" or whatever you want to call them.  Even the people you see as the "lowest standard" still had to meet the min requirements of their course to pass it.  Not everyone is a keener (no, I am not advocating on behalf of the 'min standard crowd', I am not a fan of that mindset either).

And while the jump to MCpl is small in the eyes of the army, it still puts that individual in a position to do a lot of damage affecting as many people as a sgt's shortcomings could. I'm sure the fact that the army regards MCpl as a low rank is little consolation to the 8-10 troops who's lives are being made miserable by an unfit MCpl.

Well, if its this bad, hopefully the CofC sees it and makes sure the MCpl is under the watchful eye of some switched-on Sgts and WOs.

I think its important to be aware of the fact that MCpl is not a be all/know all position.  So while not wanting to badmouth the appointment of MCpl, I think its also important to remember where they fit in the big scheme of things.

1 Sgt can mentor and train every MCpl that is sent his/her way.  I still think 'bad MCpls' are primarily a leadership issue, they need to be guided and trained at times.  Some don't, sure, but some do and that hasn't and won't change at all.

 

[Jarnhamar]

While they may have backed off on the "No Fail" policy, the idea of mentorship is still alive and kicking. I have no problems mentoring people who are trying hard but just don't quite get it, but after two attempts at a PO it should be clear the candidate is either not capable or not trying.

I was really turned off to instructing on a PLQ course after my section commander handed me my defensive assessment.  I had points taken off for incorrect things (ie..lost points for not showing up 10 minutes early to orders, I actually showed up 15 minutes early, was the first one there and the staff showed up 5 minutes late).
My section commander wasn't even in the field during my assessment period it was my 2IC who was there and I know for a fact they didn't speak to each other when they switched being in the field. 
Both also couldn't be bothered to take notes, I guess they just "remembered" all the points.

I'm glad they are getting rid of the "everyone passes" crap. On my course out of 40 the only one who "failed" was an over weight soldier who was already a master corporal, he just needed some check on the box to keep his rank. He didn't like the PT after day 2 so he quit.

 

[Brasidas]

I'm a reserve sig op in Alberta, and my training NCO is trying to load me on to a PLQ serial. She offered me a mod 1-6 in Wainwright, with the mod 6 being infantry. There is a "new model" PLQ, with mod 1-6 in Petawawa which is not infantry.

While I believe it possible for me to pass, I am aware of a training differential between mod 6 (L) and mod 6 (Inf), and I will not have the background of my coursemates.

My training NCO understands this, and while I believe we're on good terms, she has doubts about her ability to justify sending me out of area to attend PLQ(L). I am the only member from my unit who would be attending PLQ this year.

Is there any explicit direction I can refer to stating that I should not be loaded on PLQ(Inf) if there is a PLQ(L) available? I'd prefer to send ammo her way since she doesn't seem to have it; I didn't know a non-infantry guy, let alone a non-combat arms guy could be loaded on an infantry PLQ.

 

[dangerboy]

Only Infantry soldiers can be course loaded on PLQ Inf.  In addition a pre-req for PLQ Inf is the IPSW (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons) course.  If you don't have the course you are by the books not authorized to be on the course.

 

[Brasidas]

Only Infantry soldiers can be course loaded on PLQ Inf.  In addition a pre-req for PLQ Inf is the IPSW (Infantry Platoon Support Weapons) course.  If you don't have the course you are by the books not authorized to be on the course.

Excellent. Can you refer me to the books that state those restrictions and the pre-req? DWAN-only links will work.

 

[dangerboy]

Excellent. Can you refer me to the books that state those restrictions and the pre-req? DWAN-only links will work.

It is in the TP:  A-P9-031-DP2/PH-B01, NCM DP 2 – PRIMARY LEADERSHIP QUALIFICATION (INFANTRY) (PLQ-INF), dated 7 Nov 2003.

PREREQUISITES
10. In order to be selected for training, the prospective Infantry Non Commissioned Member shall meet the
following prerequisites:
a. PLQ (L) – Primary Leadership Qualification
Modules 1-5;
b. DP2 – Platoon Support Weapons
Qualification;
c. Reg F be physically fit in accordance with
the AFS (Army Fitness Standard);
d. P Res be physically fit in accordance with
CF Express Test; and
e. possess a minimum medical category of 333225.

The link for the TP is at http://webtop.gagetown.mil.ca:8080/anonymous-en/component/drl?objectId=0c0004bc800019b1&ReLoad=1132423236316 DWAN Only

 

[charlesm]

Also PLQ has changed even more than that.

You will do a two week DL First, either as  5 weekends  or as a two week course. This can be done from your home or at your unit.

The you normally will  do a two residency at the location where you will be doing your mod 6 just before the mod 6.

Also they finally changed PLQ Mod6(L) and the first new course is coming out this spring.

 

[RCDtpr]

Also PLQ has changed even more than that.

You will do a two week DL First, either as  5 weekends  or as a two week course. This can be done from your home or at your unit.

The you normally will  do a two residency at the location where you will be doing your mod 6 just before the mod 6.

Also they finally changed PLQ Mod6(L) and the first new course is coming out this spring.

What are the changes they made to the course?  I'm hoping one of them is that you can finally fail it again.  Absolutely ridiculous that it was a gimme course for a couple years

 

[dangerboy]

Just to expand, for the residency portion it does not matter if your are Land or Infantry the residency portion is the same.  It is only the Mod 6 that it is differant. For example the PLQ Infantry that is starting in a few weeks in Wainwright the majority of the candidates that are course loaded right now are not Infantry, they are land.  So they will do the Residency portion and then go home and do the Land Mod 6 at a later date.

Brasidas:  It should not matter where you do the PLQ as we have had soldiers show up to  LFWA TC from LFAA and LFCA.  Also there is a PLQ Land running in Wainwright, 11-21 April (Residency) and then 23 Apr - 31 May (Mod 6).  And there are 2 planned for the summer (as of right now).