Aannnnyyywaaayyyyy . . . The PTS?
3 Likes
Funnily enough, I always end up being hub or blue/green.
With the myres -brigg point & silver it made me wonder what the credibility of the subject matter for the PTS is.
So from gold level, ACLC was based on IOT & why it was a successful course and actively re-invested back in to the org. JL & QAIC both were underwritten by the ILM.
Blue is basic SMEAC & teamwork so it appears the silver & bronze have kinda been made up to fit the PTS.
Add into that, leadership theory is constantly evolving, yes some of the basics remain the same but society & culture change so do the ways of motivating people & the acceptable ways of interacting with them.
Likewise of areas we are shoe horning things in to make them fit the PTS levels when there’s no need to do so, creating blockages and barriers and just hoops for people to jump through rather than cracking on.
First aid has no proper gold level, shooting is a cluster with the different practises, space is babyish at blue,
I think the PTS was worth doing as a process to change & modernise but I think it’s run its course & now needs to go really, perhaps just have three levels & rename it initial, basic & advance.
Would save on badges cost too.
4 Likes
I see the merit of your thought process.
I can’t remember which part of the forum, but there was also some discussion about wrapping more into the core classification system so it wasn’t just the academic exams (thereby making your classification, eg “Leading Cadet” or “Senior Cadet” actually mean something in a literal sense).
Big cost savings and then you wouldn’t need to create distinct levels for every part of the syllabus, shoe-horned or outright unobtainable as some of them may feel.
Badges could then return to how they were in my day where, bar shooting, DofE, and wings, there was just one badge to denote high-level success and attainment in a certain area of specialist study / activity.
Be that the Nijmegen badge or the comms badge, for example, you knew the holder had done a significant amount of long-term graft to get the the point of achieving it.
2 Likes
Probably all well & good in days of yore (like wot I did), but if we went down that route, you would have to make sure that cadets do not miss out on required activities needed to gain the classification. Maybe not so easy to be “all inclusive” in some wgs / regions?
As a starter dump Blue as a specific level and integrate with First Class or Leading as appropriate?
Or the credit system I suggested above.
3 Likes
Very fair point. Perhaps as you got higher in the classifications it would become much more focussed?
First class being most of the blue stuff they do anyway, leading being a couple of very accessible bronze bits and maybe a less reliable blue, like a shoot.
Senior maybe getting another couple of bronzes, possibly a silver.
Basically a credits system to provide maximum flex.
I agree with your point though.
1 Like
So one of the push for blue badge was that new cadets were feeling they werent progressing so were leaving within the first year.
I like the blue badge system as part of first class but it feels up then we try & apply it to all levels forgetting its original purpose.
The system needs to be simple but perhaps we just say not everything has to be part of the PTS.
And therefore outdated and most in need of an update, which I think I heard was happening in one of the early Townhalls (before they moved to always being on Wednesdays).
See above. SMEAC was devised in the day when the designated leader was expected to come up with the solution (execution) on their own and brief it to their team. Now they explain the situation, mission, resources, limitations, etc. and we plan as a team.
Which often leads to a “nothing” plan, which the leader doesn’t understand, so the comms / control spirals down hill.
1 Like
SMEAC is fine for straight forward single objective tasks with a single team particularly on a short time scale. The leader devises & executes the plan & for basic leadership up to cadet Cpl it’s fine.
It’s not great for complex multi-objective, multi team plans or large exercises or events.
Part of the issue is that our culture with in the cadets is a “single tool approach” where only one methodology is permitted.
Teach SMEAC at blue / bronze & the more complex methodology like SDI at bronze/Silver.
Like a lot of the PTS is currently paradoxically too varied, too complex & too restricted.
2 Likes
Makes sense to teach other briefing formats as well like IIMARCH so as those who go on to roles outside of the military understand and can deliver that type of briefing.
2 Likes
SMRLACPDACE isn’t a “more complex methodology”, it’s simply a development with the times: the leader briefs the objective elements and checks understanding, the teams develops a plan and the leader delegates roles and checks everyone understands the plan and their part in it, then execute it. It’s literally the same simple methodology except with the burden of developing the plan being shared.
1 Like
It’s 11 letters rather than 5 & can’t be referred to really as a pronounceable noun (SMEE-ACK)
IIMARCH is another good example of a simple to
remember mnemonic.
So for in an introduction to leadership particular for verbal briefing SMEAC works as a good starter at blue level.
But then you move to picsie for bronze & then SMRLACPDACE (whatever it stands for) 
I keep reading that as SMRLAPDANCE
2 Likes
If cadets can be expected to learn the 13 enlisted and 13 commissioned ranks of the RAF, PAWPERSO and the six section battle drills in fieldcraft, etc, then they can manage SMRLACPDACE: especially considering 7 of the 11 letters have the same meaning they do in SMEAC, two are repeated, and the others are simply resources, limitations, plan, and delegate.
Not taught anything above Blue Leadership, and last did my senior officers course at Cranwell in… a while.
What does SMRLACPDACE refer to?
It’s a bit of psychologically not information. Ranks follow a logical and progression i.e. more is greater than less, flts are smaller than sqns that are smaller than wings that are smaller than groups so rank named and the system of 1/2 band, 1 band, 2 band & broad band for the seniors is logical & intuitive to learn.
While I expect my junior cadets to learn tri-service at the start which multiplies I only expect them to know the five NCO ranks from L/Cpl to WO & the three officer ranks from Plt Off to Flt Lt. they should be familiar with the field ranks of Sqn Ldr - Grp Capt & then just know the rest exist.
So it’s not actually that many & follows a logical order. (Although PO abbreviation causes some confusion due to staff & SCC cadet ranks we keep clear from - baby steps at the start & all that)
If SMRLACPDACE (Which thanks in part to the above post is now lodged in my head as the SMELLYLAPDANCE method) is only a detailed SMEAC then teach SMEAC at blue then the SMRLACPDACE as extended SMEAC at bronze so it has a place but we build up to it rather than trying to do it in one go.
2 Likes
But SMEAC has no place in the modern concept of team leadership: it isn’t good leadership to impose your own concept of execution without consultation. Someone might have a better idea. The designated leader might have no idea or a bad idea: going straight to execution is simply insane.
If SMRLACPDACE is ‘too much’ for blue then blue should concentrate on things like followership (which is sometimes an issue, for example when the leader is using SMEAC but another cadet has a better solution and takes over), emotional intelligence, understanding your own strengths and weaknesses, etc, and save the command tasks until they’re ready to do them properly.
Edit: You could include a leaderless task to get them used to the concept and learn why leadership is necessary.
1 Like
It does if it is being orientated towards a more military style of leadership.
Even at Blue (or very basic level), a lot of the simple command task exercises I’ve observed / assessed on our sqn have failed miserably due to the “I haven’t got a clue, team, what do you think” approach. This invariably ends up with a plan (if you’re lucky) that the leader doesn’t really understand, so comms, delegation, control, supervision of standards, re-planning, timing, the whole palaver, goes out of the window.
The better results have been when the leader doesn’t jump in, but takes a sensible amount of time to appraise the situation & assess suitable plans. Not (straight away) - “I haven’t got a clue,” team bun fight commences
One possible way to approach this for the leader to individually ask one or 2 of the team - but of course this ekes into the time constraints - “I have a basic plan - do you have any suggestions that might improve it?”
In some commercial situations (or an SAS team!), yes, you might have the time / luxury to brainstorm colleagues for the best solution. However, often, the big plan is set up by the supervisor, the team have to put it into effect.
For cadets, it’s not good letting them have the easy option of letting the team throw in their 2-penny worth - they won’t develop critical thinking if they rely on others all the time.
3 Likes