Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
I came across this little tidbit:...
I goofed and didn't put the in link to the article you found when I cross posted here. Sorry. Fixed now.
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?
Change is never easy. Change in an Army is never ever even close to easy...

We'll see; all we can do is hope.
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.
I don't see any real difference in what they're saying. Lots of folks use 'leaders' and 'commanders' almost interchangeably.

You're right on the last item. This is starting change at the bottom and letting it grow into the system -- as you know, this system doesn't change much from the top down...
Hope I'm not being over critical, I like the thought behind it, but also can be dangerous in the wrong hands...
True, Outcome Based Training isn't the gold standard. It has good and bad points and it can be misused. Hopefully, we'll get it right and since most people want to do what's right, it should offer a big improvement over todays marginal at best processes.[quote]I just have a hard time believing this soldiers are truly being pushed to new limits they didn't know they had.[/quoter]Ain't no doubt that would really be different, wouldn't it?

It's long overdue, the kids can do a lot more than we ask of them. Let's hope it takes and spreads.