I came across this little tidbit:
http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...nts/Steele.pdf
1st thing that struck me:
Based on this:Outcomes-based training—training that
emphasizes end product over lockstep linear process and stresses flexibility
and adaptability among trainers
How much flexibilty will the trainer have? Can we change enough to get to where we need to go or will we continue to sink further down the micromnagement cess pool?Ken White: I do not think the FM places nearly enough emphasis on the fostering of initiative and acceptance of innovative solutions by subordinates. For example, Paragraph 2-3 states the Commander is the units primary training manger (true) and primary trainer (wrong) -- he cannot be and that phrasing sends a message that he should strive to do so, thus encouraging micromanagement and deterring delegation and the fostering of initiative. Words are important....
One of the single best changes IMO too bad it took us this long to get there.
Then as we continue along again the word commanders......Weapons handling is a basic combat training fundamental today. BCT soldiers are issued a weapon within three days of arrival, and it stays with them throughout their training, teaching them weapon accountability, clearing
procedures and how to avoid negligent discharges. It’s called “weapons immersion.”
Now back to leaders in general.Col. Currey explained outcomes-based training (OBT) to his fellow trainers by writing: “OBT is often best understood as commanders being allowed to be flexible and adaptive. When they determine the proper outcome, they can reverse-engineer the process to achieve the desired outcome. In the raditionally restrictive initial entry training environment, many regulations and limited resources stopped junior leaders from pursuing a higher level of training. The mental intangibles delineated in the five established outcomes require leaders to engage soldiers thoroughly.
So which is it? This is what I always thought was squad training, derrived by the squad leader based on strengths and weaknesses. Amazing what a little imagination can do in training. I'll take it if we are truely going to try an incorporate this throughout. My only fear is that with the state of the Army today how effective can we be at this? Perhaps 5-10 years down the road when these new recruits move into positions of influence.“One size does not fit all in training. Hence, junior leaders need to vary techniques to realize the best, most effective results. Leaders may have to try new ideas to see what works—being flexible until the best outcome is achieved.”
Impress the hell out of me if this one is true, someone taking responsibility, in today's age.......The five main “desired outcomes” (goals) of BCT assert that each graduate
is:
1. A proud team member, possessing the character and commitment to live
the Army Values and Warrior Ethos.
2. Confident, adaptable, mentally agile and accountable for [his or her]
own actions.
They just don't have to be physically fit or within any kind of height/weight standard.3. Physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally ready to fight as a
ground combatant.
Would these be the warrior tasks? What environments?4. A master of critical combat skills and proficient in basic soldier skills in all environments.
Hope I'm not being over critical, I like the thought behind it, but also can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm with Ken on the old task, conditions, and standards. Was kinda funny how the conditions rarely if ever changed. I just have a hard time believing this soldiers are truly being pushed to new limits they didn't know they had.5. Self-disciplined, willing and an adaptive thinker, capable of solving
problems commensurate with position and experience.
Bookmarks