What Makes A Good OC/Evaluator?

[psyopspec]

Spun off from this thread:


The general rule I've developed is, as an OC, keep one step ahead of the abilities of the group and their leadership so that there is pressure to perform. We've all probably been through a scenario or a lane in which the trainer later argued that it wasn't in fact "impossible," all you had to do was split up the squad so that Alpha team went for Henry's journal in Berlin while Bravo headed out Egypt to collect the staff of Rah, while the leadership copped the stones of Sheba, etc. All it generally does is lower the quality of training and turn an AAR into a bitch session. How do we strike the balance? Is there a way to self-correct (aside from the obvious '99 out of a hundred passed/failed my lane, this can't be right.') For me, if the SGT or LT seems to be on top of things and can't be overwhelmed, then it's time to kill him off and see how good their succession/SOP is and give the lower grades a chance to step into the role.

I'm still looking for the same basic standards in leadership, tactics, ingenuity, etc, but the idea is to set up the scenario so that those characteristics will be drawn out of them, as opposed to making it a cakewalk or making it fall apart. One note on that, while I'm never afraid to add a variable to keep one step ahead, if the S starts to HTF, I won't pull off a variable - that's when it's make or break, and it's on the leader to get back control.

There's a lot of different templates for evaluation (OC-dependent or TAC-dependent are terms I've heard used in regards to cadet evaluations, and that's largely true). I'd like to hear your guys' thoughts on what makes a good evaluator, or what makes a good evaluation method. What questions do you apply to litmus test good training from bad?

 

[Jeff White]

A good OC has to be technically and tactically proficient, that goes without saying. But he also must be open minded enough to know that all knowledge isn't already published in the FM. He also has to be very experienced at the level he's working at. You don't want a SSG with a lot of squad leader time running a platoon lane. You want a senior platoon sergeant who has a lot of time working at the platoon level in a couple different units.

An OC absolutely must be able to conduct an AAR. There are ways of conducting it so it doesn't turn into an uncontrolled bitch session. To me that was one of the biggest problems with unit conducted training. OCs who came from within the chain of command tend to lecture through the AAR or not lead the discussion to bring up certain points because they know the soldiers involved personally.

Another big problem I encountered when I was on active duty was that the chain of command often would get too ambitious in their planning and try to accomplish more in a training exercise then they had time to train to standard. You need to start with one or two tasks, train them to standard in relatively easy conditions and then make each iteration progressively more difficult by changing the conditions. Daylight changes to dark, good commo changes to degraded commo, MOPP 0 changes to MOPP 3, casevac is added to the scenario.

It's very hard to reach top proficiency under all conditions you might fight under because of personnel turbulence. An AC unit deals with soldiers being missing for medical, dental, legal appointments, leave, passes, special details...the RC even has greater problems, squads that must be reconsituted every couple drills, soldiers absent from drill due to job conflicts, school conflicts, assisting the recruiters....the whole world conspires to keep you from training your unit, or it seems that way. You need to recognize these things are going to happen when you are planning your training.

I'll have some more thoughts later, have to get back out on the street.

Jeff

 

[marksman13]

A good OC has combat experience, preferably, recent combat experience. I won't go so far as to say that someone with that experience can not do the job, but he will not do it as well as someone who has seen the battlfield, all else being equal between them. This holds espescially true with our current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our enemies are smart and adaptable and a good trainer will adapt his tactics accordingly. A good OC must keep his information as current as possible. The tatics being used last year are already somewhat dated this year. That was the biggest beef I had with my OCs when I MOB'ed. We trained to fight a certain way, and once we hit the ground, the fighting was something totally different. I know they don't have a magic ball to see into the future, but we watched the news every night and even we could see that things were different from our training.

A good OC is also a confidence builder, as well as being a confidence breaker. He must be able to show a unit it's strengths and weaknesses without overloading on either one. A confident soldier is more willing to fight and quicker to react. An over confident soldier will become lax and may get himself or others killed. A good OC recognizes when individuals and whole squads need a confidence boost, and when they need to be put in check.

A good OC is patient and demanding at the same time. The really good ones know their tactics to the letter and know how to bring other soldiers up to their level. He will work with soldiers who are having problems until they get it right. He will not, however, make life easy on the soldeirs. He will demand their best and knows how to get their best.

A good OC is fair. He doesn't pick sides. He doesn't have favorites. He strives to make tasks difficult, but still attainable. He knows how to swallow his pride when he makes a mistake because he knows that training for war is training for life and death. He also knows when to stand his ground for the same reasons.

These are just my thoughts on what an OC/trainer should be. I'm sure there is a training manual out there somewhere that delves into specifics.