Considering we teach scenario-dependent leadership styles,and sometimes it is necessary to go in with a plan…
We also break it into SMEACEAC, which accounts for that consultation.
1 Like
I would argue it depends but it comes down to the original principle of knowing your team & knowing yourself.
What I was taught on my ATF officer’s course was SMEACEAC which included a quick (5 second) where you as leader go round the team asking for their immediate thoughts.
At the early stages of leadership development it’s good to force people to take charge & deliver. If they need a plan they call in their 2ic.
Too often things are failing because the team is too involved & change things around too much.
Things don’t need to be run by committee comrade 
This is why we have an AC after planning and delegation, to ensure everyone (including the leader) understands the plan and their respective roles.
This is still fundamentally flawed as execution is too early in the process not be flawed by the leader’s biases.
Yep, & more times than not, it’s still a b*gger’s muddle! 
What’s biased about giving information on resources and limitations? That’s the first execution.
Second is planning.
That’s where my thinking is at currently.
Blue to be more about teamwork and then an initial introduction to leadership concepts. The leaderless ex is a good vehicle for that.
Then next level introduces more specific leadership concepts, such as mission command, styles and methods (smeac or whatever the latest thing is).
1 Like
Im till waiting on an answer for what SMRLACPDACE /LAPDANCE /SARLACPIT means?
So, it sounds like SMEACEAC is simply SMRLACPDACE, only with RL mislabelled as E and PD also mislabelled as E.
Situation
Mission
Resources
Limitations
Any questions
Check understanding
Plan
Delegate
Any questions
Check understanding
Execute
1 Like
Yes. Exactly right, but an easier acronym for a 12/13 year old to wrap their head around.
Maybe we should focus on things other than briefing tools given they are such a small part of real leadership
I suggested that earlier. Ditch the dated and flawed SMEAC at blue and teach self-awareness, followership, and leaderless tasks for the practical aspect.
They have to be able to “hang their hat” on something that isn’t so free-flowing at the outset.
Once they have bounced around SMEAC over several sample tasks (as leader & in a team), then some extra nuances can be explained. A big factor that they often ignore, if they are in a team of 10, & each person does a command task, they are leader once but a team member 9 times. Which is more important? Discuss.
Do not know if it’s still the same, but when going through OASC selection, the first team exercise was always leaderless. Later on, when I was an instructor at Cranwell, you had to do the PSOC (Personnel Selection Officers Cse) - so went through a very detailed interview trg module, plus covered all the elements of the individual / team exercises.
At Cranwell, after the initial command task “learning” exercises, the subsequent “cross the shark-infested custard” exercises had the leader, 8 team members, with the other team member (the previous leader) as an observer, accompanying the flt cdr. That part of the process was excellent for (a) giving a little more feedback (if necessary) but (b) to get them to watch the exercise & discuss it “live” as things progressed. They were amazed at how much could be seen - a good pointer to show that stepping back from the task & just watching is often a very good thing to do; don’t get involved!
1 Like
I remember that being very useful on IOT.
Zero pressure and all the time in the world to pass comments with the flight commander and think about different ideas.
It was an excellent trg vehicle if used correctly.
We do exactly the same with the cdts on Blue exercises - they pick out so much more than when leading or in the group doing
If it worked for us at IOT then it should and does work for the cdts as well
2 Likes
in some cases this is evident across alot of PTS topics!
1 Like
With leadership there is a danger of teaching methods of management (which is really what the syllabus does) that lead people to believe are the only ways of completing tasks. The focus after initial suggestions of ways should be much more dynamic, and have an actual focus on how leadership is successful in completing tasks rather than just using one particular management style.
1 Like
We also do a debrief together with the leader asking to reflect on themselves and then the group as a whole giving their feedback - allows everyone to learn from the mistakes & strengths of each other.
That was also an IOT style - ask the leader, then ask the team, then summarise the exercise. Obviously use open questions to direct towards particular points that you want to be emphasised (strong points & weak points) - “Team, how effective was the leader’s overall control?”
It’s always been very effective, & emphasises that over-involvement with a task as leader, rather than supervising / directing / communicating / delegating, really degrades a leader’s effectiveness.
Forgot to mention, it’s also a bit challenging for cadets to sometimes open up about mistakes that their mates / peers have made - it’s a novel approach for many of them. You have to advise them that it’s a learning exercise for everyone, not just the leader - & if they don’t come up with debrief points, you certainly will. At times, it’s a stronger message if it comes from peers.