Primary Leadership Qualification Course (PLQ) Mega thread

[Remius]

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we'll be discussing the changes they make yet again next year.  [lol:

 

[RCPalmer]

Perhaps, just perhaps, there was agreement about timelines, and then someone didn't make that new target.  In that case, do you hold back everyone because one group didn't do what they had committed to, or do you push on and let them fix themselves later?

Waiting for everyone is a great recipe for not getting anything done.

And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process. 

 

[armyvern]

And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process.

That's why that hard army portion should be part of a Land Environmental.

Because all those RCN and RCAF wearing purple supporters also get posted to the Army environment and they've never done the hard army portion, nor will they ever ... unless it moves to become part & parcel of the land environmental. 

Even with the PLQ as it stands right now - there's a shit tonne of Jr leaders serving with the Army who've never done it; they just don't wear Army uniforms.  The world is not going to end and the sky isn't falling.

 

[meni0n]

Well no, there will be no more CF PLQ as it is amalgamated. The only implication is that there will be more training establishments available now for all of the CF due to the newly created PLQ course. I think the DL got shortened as well to 9 days but I am not sure. CANFORGEN also stated that the QS board sat with all three elements so I am sure the Army had its say and that the new format is what it chose, or maybe was given no choice.

 

[dapaterson]

And what would be the implications of waiting?  The Air Force and the Navy do CF PLQ, just like before. The only service for whom this change has any implication is the Army, and the effect of rolling it out in this way has created a not-insignificant hole in our leadership development process. 

Then hold Comd CADTC accountable for the Army not having a coordinated plan.  The Army is not the CAF.  If the Army isn't ready for a change they knew was coming, don't argue for the CAF to hold back.

Maybe if the same level of staff effort was applied to planning training that's applied to buttons and bows...


As for the implications of waiting: If PLQ(old) costs more to deliver than PLQ(new), then we are wasting time and money.

 

[daftandbarmy]

With respect to the leadership courses (PLQ-A and BMOQ-A), it is also intended to create a base level of tactical acumen to ensure that those leaders can lead their subordinates in elementary infantry tasks in an emergency, and have an idea of what "right" looks like with regards to tactical elements applicable to their trade such as sentry routine, cam and concealment, siting of hasty defensive positions, etc.

And given the way things are going in the CoE, drivers, communicators, fliers, floaters and cooks all need to be able to fire and move with the best of them.

The Dushman has made the concept of the 'frontline' and 'rear echelon' meaningless....

 

[Halifax Tar]

I echo recceguy's post and am surprised that so many of you are unable to grasp his post and are incapable of applying your imaginations in such a way as to apply what you learn on a PLQ to all aspects of your life.

Because I completed my PLQ in 2012 and found it was a stupid course that had little or no impact on me and I know others feel the same.  A complete waste of time and resources.  The same could be said about my Sup Tech QL6.  Know what I learned on that course ?  You don't need 275 slides to do a safety brief.  Ya that happened, a general safety brief that was 275 slides...  Excellent training value right there!

What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2.

I get it you think the best way to train a leader is in the field.  While that works for the green machine it teaches nothing to the RCN.  And actually that trg for hard sailors would be better spent getting them up to snuff on the ADMIN/DC/Seamanship evolution's they will be expected to lead as MS.

How you apply this to a branch like LOG is a mind bender.  I say the trades I listed before should do a field phase and seamanship phase, as anyone in those trades at the MS/MCpl level can reasonably be expected to sail and/or go to the field regardless of uniform.  I am a good example of that.

 

[armyvern]

...

Regarding your QL6 Sup Tech (and really all Sup Tech QLs being run these days); they suck.  It's all being discussed.

 

[George Wallace]

What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2.

Sorry to hear that the Crse has been so watered down.  Those subjects were once a major part of the CLC crse in the day, and as you correctly pointed out, very valuable to a young CAF member in progressing through their career. 

As for the "Field" comment, I will ignore it, as leadership will be necessary in all 'environments': the "Field"; the classroom; in general anywhere one's workplace may be.  So it is moot to complain about the "Field" if the lessons learned are applicable to any 'environment'.  Just take your "BLINDERS" off.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sorry to hear that the Crse has been so watered down.  Those subjects were once a major part of the CLC crse in the day, and as you correctly pointed out, very valuable to a young CAF member in progressing through their career. 

As for the "Field" comment, I will ignore it, as leadership will be necessary in all 'environments': the "Field"; the classroom; in general anywhere one's workplace may be.  So it is moot to complain about the "Field" if the lessons learned are applicable to any 'environment'.  Just take your "BLINDERS" off.

I am not complaining about the field.  I have almost as much field time as I do sea time and truly if you really asked me I prefer the field over going to sea (Congrats ArmyVern you converted me lol ) I  just dont see any training value in the field for those who dont work in that environment...

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?

I can only speak for LOG but none of them are "Army managed".  We belong to CMP. 

 

[RCPalmer]

Then hold Comd CADTC accountable for the Army not having a coordinated plan.  The Army is not the CAF.  If the Army isn't ready for a change they knew was coming, don't argue for the CAF to hold back.

Maybe if the same level of staff effort was applied to planning training that's applied to buttons and bows...


As for the implications of waiting: If PLQ(old) costs more to deliver than PLQ(new), then we are wasting time and money.

Agreed WRT buttons and bows...so many fail to recognize the non-recoverable opportunity cost of staff effort.  It is enough to make you want to cry. :crybaby:

Perhaps CADTC has some culpability WRT keeping up with the planning process, but I would be curious about the actual extent of the Army consultation on the change and the timeline.  Just because there was consultation does not mean that the Army was actually in a position to impose their solution (such as re-writing every trade specific leadership course TP or creating an environmental specific PLQ mod) in time. 

At the end of the day the Army is part of the CAF, and any CAF order should include adequate consideration of the state of subordinate elements in terms of their ability to carry it out.  It is the old "don't issue an order you don't expect to be carried out" rule. 

Ultimately, the net effect of killing army PLQ has greater downstream implications for the force than the relatively modest adjustment to the common PLQ program.  Additionally, the changes to CF PLQ could have been implemented (achieving most of the relevant costs savings) while leaving Army PLQ alone for a period of time while they address the implications of the new program.

 

[armyvern]

I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?

Nope.  A whole bunch of Army uniform wearing Loggies have to do the Army PLQ as well while their counterparts in differing uniform colours of the same trade did not.  Posties, for example, all had to do Army PLQ regardless of uniform (they are Loggies as well, but Sup etc do IAW uniform colour). Ergo my, One Trade, One Merit List, One standard PLQ, which is not how it currently is.

RCEME is Army managed. Loggies are not; we are Branch managed but for some ungawdly reason had three standards for the Jr Leadership course.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Having a common CAF PLQ, delivered by TEs in the C Army, RCAF and RCN;  if anyone believes the QS and TP will be 'delivered in a standardized manner' between us, the navy and army...well there is some Sunny Ways thinking right there.  :blotto:

RCN and RCAF trades doing section attacks makes about as much sense as Cbt Arms folks doing damage control and 'FUSDUCHOT' drills.  Make a common PLQ (not that I agree, but accept it is being done for the same reasons most of us have the same PT tests and standard...because we are thin skinned and PC as a society and our military is following along), let each environment deliver it to it's own people the way it will best benefit each individual command.

That means leaving some wording in the QS vague on purpose so that the ECS TEs can implement their own TPs that are relevant to field ops, sailing and flying.  PO 401 could be 'command a subunit during operations' vice 'Command a Section in the field during offensive operations'.

How to fix it for the folks like AV is discussing that are left on the windward side of the shit-hill?  One standard for Jnr Leadership courses.  Each environment should be able to inject the 'missed' field/sailing/air ops training in their DP1/DP2 trade coursing.  :2c:

That kind of thing.  The primary goal of the training is to have good Jnr NCOs that can perform junior leadership tasks in their environment when the shit hits the fan.  Anything that detracts from that is simply BS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Nope.  A whole bunch of Army uniform wearing Loggies have to do the Army PLQ as well while their counterparts in differing uniform colours of the same trade did not.  Posties, for example, all had to do Army PLQ regardless of uniform (they are Loggies as well, but Sup etc do IAW uniform colour). Ergo my, One Trade, One Merit List, One standard PLQ, which is not how it currently is.

RCEME is Army managed. Loggies are not; we are Branch managed but for some ungawdly reason had three standards for the Jr Leadership course.

Vern this was a bone of contention when your MS/MCpls would sit around for a few a beers and chat.  Not towards each other but towards the system. 

LOG is an interesting beast... 

 

[armyvern]

Vern this was a bone of contention when your MS/MCpls would sit around for a few a beers and chat.  Not towards each other but towards the system. 

LOG is an interesting beast...

It was a bone of contention at much higher ranks than that too. 

 

[Ostrozac]

I'm curious as to how many purple trades are actually Army managed, where the PLQ-A would have been an issue. Comm Rsch is the only one I have knowledge of that requires all DEU members to complete PLQ-A, but that's solely because they're either desks in Letrim, or 21EW as a huge majority of their pers. What about Int, Sup Tech, Cook, RMS (did I miss one)?

The list of who did PLQ-Army is in this thread, post number 317. The bone of contention has been this list here:

B.  THE FOLLOWING NON-ARMY MANAGED OCCUPATIONS:
(1) MP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(2) MSE OP (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(3) SUP TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(4) RMS CLK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(5) COOK (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(6) AMMO TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)
(7) POSTAL CLK (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(8.) COMM RSCH (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(9) INT OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(10) CBRN OP (ALL ENVIRONMENTS)
(11) TRAFFIC TECH (LAND ENVIRONMENT ONLY)

Now, if you're an MP, Postie, Comm Researcher, Int Op, or CBRN Op, then it's really no big deal. One trade, one merit list, one standard. Whether you dressed in Air, Navy or Army uniforms, you were required to complete PLQ-Army in order to advance against your peers.

The problem was really with the other trades: MSE, Supply, RMS Clerk, Cook, Ammo Tech, Traffic Tech. In that case, people with Army uniforms were required to do a measurably more difficult course, but were being merited for advancement in their trade against Air Force and Navy uniform pers who only had to do CF PLQ.

My thoughts? Purple is purple. And all our purple trades that we expect to send to the field should do the hardest standard of PLQ -- PLQ Army -- the "only Army uniforms" thing was a cop-out -- so long as we still send Air Force Clerks and Navy Cooks to brigades, they need to have the appropriate training, and they need to be fairly assessed for promotion within their trade. The MP's and the Posties were right.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My thoughts? Purple is purple. And all our purple trades that we expect to send to the field should do the hardest standard of PLQ -- PLQ Army -- the "only Army uniforms" thing was a cop-out -- so long as we still send Air Force Clerks and Navy Cooks to brigades, they need to have the appropriate training, and they need to be fairly assessed for promotion within their trade. The MP's and the Posties were right.

In a perfect world, I would agree.  However, reality adds a challenge...

What of the reality that some of the folks from a trade like Clerk, for example, who had 10 YOS but had been posted to a Wing, then a HQ and then NDHQ and are now sent on PLQ-Land.  Is that setting the member up for success?  I don't think so.

Common PLQ for all.  Those who need the harder training because of being posted to the Army, let them get it if/when they go Army.  I am of the generation who did the old CLC.  My fire team partner was a Fin Clerk.  You wouldn't have wanted her leading a section if the SHTF, before or after CLC.  I am sure she was a great Fin Clerk MCpl however.

I know people don't like to hear this, but not everyone is a soldier first.  I wear the Air Ops cap badge and fly.  If I go down, I am not a 'soldier' because I am on the ground with a weapon.  I don't train for that possibility like cbt arms types train to operate.  I don't even have the same goal at that point.  Not everyone is a 'soldier first' and our Jnr Leadership training should reflect that reality.

Like I said before, there was ZERO wrong with having JLC , CLC (CSS, Armd, Engr and Arty) and ISCC (Inf only) back in the day.  Like our rank insignia, we are messing with something that wasn't broken in the goddamn first place.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What would have been valuable, CF Writing, Deepend CFPAS trg, Disciplinary and Administrative measures trg; you know those admin tasks that really start creeping into your career as you move from LS to MS to PO2.

I was introduced to some of this on my PRE-CLC course and informal PD from my Cpls/MCpls/Sgts before and after CLC (now PLQ).  Point being, the formal course part is only one tool Jnr NCOs are exposed to.  We've dropped the 10 Principles of Leadership formally, but I still carry the card in my wallet.  "Develop the leadership potential in your followers".  A good Jnr/Snr NCO starts that before someone is sent on PLQ, IMO.