We spend a lot of time conducting training on SHARP, Suicide Prevention, Resilience, etc. Do you think we are spending too much time on them?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:19:19 -0400

I see value in all of these and others, but are we at the point of diminishing returns?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 8 at 2016 8:35 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:35:07 -0400

"Opportunity Cost"

It's not that we are spending too much time on any one of these subjects, it is that we only have so much time, and therefore ANY time we spend must be at the expense of something else.

There are 250 training days in a year (365/7*5 - 10 federal holidays). Each Service Member accrues 30 days of Leave (22 usable if you account for weekend loss). So call it 225~ days.

There was a great article mentioned a few weeks ago about (Congressional) Mandated Training. It exceeded the number of total available training days.

So when we add in "common sense" subjects which are important, it takes their toll on operational requirements like the Range, Swim Qual, Pro-Mask, etc. Would we rather sit in a Death by PPT, or do Military Themed Training that "feels" useful to our day to day work?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 8:35 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:35:22 -0400

Sir, I believe we overall have cookie cutter classes and need to rely and teach instructors how to make the material theirs so its fresh and new and more meaningful for the audience.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 8:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 08:49:12 -0400

Sir,
When resiliency training requires staying late to get it completed. This is very counter productive. The comment, I can't commit suicide, they are killing me by PowerPoint has been spoken at one of these training sessions.

The key to a successful program is fresh, relevant material and an instructor that cares about the subject.

The check the box mentality that comes with these redundant classes ruins any chance of the training doing any good.

Response by LTC George Morgan made Apr 8 at 2016 9:09 AM

LTC George Morgan — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:09:26 -0400

Time spent on producing expertise in this arena saves lives. It is the loss of a life that constitutes a diminishing return. Not a letter you want to write I feel sure.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Apr 8 at 2016 9:54 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 09:54:50 -0400

While all this training may be good and proper, has anyone ever added up all the required training hours a SM is required to attend which is other than field training, professional technical training etc? Even in the distant past it always seemed like there was always a training quota to be met every day of the week for seemingly worthwhile subjects outside the scope of basic infantry field exercises such as honing skills in fire and maneuver, live fire, tactical exercises, etc.. In keeping track of everyone every day we often found that out of a rifle company of 150+ Marines, we could barely scrape together 90 to take to the field.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 10:01 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:01:17 -0400

Personally, I can't keep track of all the training we need to complete. I don't think there is value in online training. If the the military wants to maximize the value in the training, it needs to be face to face.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 10:06 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:06:17 -0400

I don't think it's the time we spend, but the quality. Almost everyone makes jokes and take the training lightly; we could spend less time if people took the training seriously and put the skills into use.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Apr 8 at 2016 10:18 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:18:39 -0400

As usual, I normally think of policies in a business sense. How much time (expense) are we investing? How effective has the policies been? Standard cost/benefit analysis. Based on the results of those questions, you have my opinion as to whether it is worthwhile.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 10:34 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:34:03 -0400

Having been an MRT for about 2 years now I can say that indo believe in the program, and it works when applied appropriately. I will state though, the material is very difficult to teach in an impactful way. Essentially it takes a very good instructor with adequate life experience, and an audience willing to be open minded to get something out of it.

My goal every class it reach at least one person in the audience. Have one person come up to me after and ask more about what we discussed.. It may be slow, but even one at a time will eventually get there.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Apr 8 at 2016 10:40 AM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:40:10 -0400

Would it make more sense to spend time screening the soldiers?

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Apr 8 at 2016 11:07 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:07:23 -0400

Yes Sir-particularly MRT. I don't "hate" it, but I highly question its effectiveness in the real world. I find to be barely above a generic, pop-psychological, shotgun approach done in desperate hope of hitting home with some troubled soldier who MAY possibly be swayed by certain aspects of the program. Time, money and energy would be better spent on better identifying and helping troubled soldiers specifically; and in general, giving leadership time and support to work with and develop their soldiers.

But I digress.

Yes some of that training we DO need, but the question as you stated is what training and how often. At least Active Duty can better absorb the time required to do such training--whether its truly beneficial or not--Guard and Reserve simply cannot, which leads some brilliant minds to conclude that "gosh, more training time is needed". No, better time management and (this I think is key) a more critical evaluation of the real tangible benefits of the training we are saddled with is what is needed. Drilling soldiers should not have to cut their training time in HALF just to satisfy some on High regarding questionable, yet mandatory "training".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 11:15 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:15:34 -0400

Sir, I don't believe we are spending too much time on them. I think we are doing it to check a block now versus the trainings being an actual learning experience. With all of the funding that we do put into the programs we should also put in the effort to mix up the training, train the trainers how to not sound so cookie cutter, and to make the trainings more interactive.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 12:23 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:23:46 -0400

A few questions, if I may. How much time does the Army spend on these topics? Is it a few hours a year, or days of training quarterly, etc? What is resiliency training? And finally, what does MRT stand for? Thanks.

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Apr 8 at 2016 2:29 PM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:29:38 -0400

As a reserve commander, these programs never made sense to me and only added to the ever growing burden of non-mission required training. We got no returns, much less diminishing returns, from these programs and the others we had to conduct. When we added up all the hours of this required training I think we exceeded the time allotted for two weeks annual training and 48 drill assemblies. To get any individual or mission essential training done we had to find "creative" ways to meet the requirements.

BOTTOM LINE - These social engineering Band-Aids are useless and are a distraction from our mission and purpose....to kill people and break things in the pursuit of our national objectives.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Apr 8 at 2016 2:34 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 14:34:12 -0400

Sir, I am an MRT Level 2, ASI 8J, and have trained hundreds of Soldiers, Family members and DA civilians, and yes, we spend too much time on it...but I say that with a caveat: we have trainers who don't "own" the material, and a similar paradigm is at work with most, perhaps all of the Army's other "Human Resources" initiatives.

The skills taught in MRT are basic life skills that most of us of a certain age or older acquired by living before we raised our hands and took an oath. But the talent pool from which we draw has changed, and new Soldiers adapt to the technical side of the Army lifestyle with relative ease, but often struggle with the human side: They struggle to communicate effectively. They struggle to deal with failure. They struggle with perspective.

So anything that the Army values, it standardizes and replicates, in my opinion, to the detriment of the real, meaningful interactions that were the hallmark of Army service before.

My very very small Army MOS has lost three senior NCOs to suicide in the last six months, so in full disclosure, I'm a little mad and very frustrated, because I don't know how to fix the human element of the Army. We are supposed to be built to take relatively incompetent young men and women and develop them into competent, skilled, confident officers and non-commissioned officers. That is the critical capability that enables us to fulfill our mission: "deter war, win in combat when called upon."

It seems that the more formal we get, the more undesirable outcomes we see.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2016 3:50 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:50:16 -0400

http://taskandpurpose.com/how-classroom-training-is-hindering-army-mission-readiness/

How Classroom Training Is Hindering Army Mission Readiness

Does the value we gain from these classes outweigh the opportunities lost by sticking every soldier in a seat for two weeks?

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Apr 9 at 2016 9:34 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:34:18 -0400

I don't believe that the issue lies in the amount of time being spent rather the amount of time spent spreading the message in the same drawn out manner. We all have the basic concepts down, it's now time to instruct in such a manner to make them operational. It could be as simple as mixing SHARP in with MRT, EO in with Suicide Prevention, etc. All of these subjects touch each other in one or more ways, let's begin taking advantage of utilizing the quad-dimensional geographic effect. Shut down the computer system (DTMS) that has become the training publication mandator and allow leaders to use situational awareness within their formations to focus on problem areas.

Response by LTC Peter Hartman made Apr 10 at 2016 10:02 AM

LTC Peter Hartman — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:02:10 -0400

These are check the block courses so command can pass the buck when something goes wrong. They replace leadership. We use to cover this in short commander safety briefings before weekends and holidays.

Response by LTC Ron Haynes made Apr 15 at 2016 5:58 PM

LTC Ron Haynes — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:58:52 -0400

Seems out of wack, but with 22 vets committing suicide a I think we should do whatever we can. BTW, have you all called a battle buddy this week?

Response by Jordan Gaudard made Apr 15 at 2016 7:00 PM

Jordan Gaudard — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:00:55 -0400

Sir,

I think we spend too much time on certain training and not enough time on others. I realize the Army's priority is readiness, followed by SHARP, but I am tired of sitting through cookie cuter training month after month, to get online and do the same Computer Based Training (CBT) for SHARP. I think it takes away from the other training we shove down Soldier's throats such as Suicide Prevention and Resilience.
I am trying to make a difference in the unit I am currently in with MRT, and hopefully soon I will be qualified to train for SHARP as well. I have had the good, the bad, and the ugly for each one of those trainings. I think the most memorable are also the ones I took away the most from. I try to replicate that training when I teach those classes. Pretty much saying exactly what CPT Maurelli said in the same amount of words.
Basically, the I see a lot of units still aiming at the 150meter target ensuring they are covered during QTB. When the real issue is right under their nose.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2016 5:29 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Apr 2016 05:29:15 -0400

Some of those are beneficial. But we do spend a lot of time on 350-1 online training which the majority of the members just click through. But I know where you're coming from.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2016 7:44 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:44:10 -0400

There could be two ways to look at this -- repetition equals muscle memory........and, if the training results in preventing even a single suicide or sexual assault, wouldn't that be the best return on investment possible? The training / education is merely a vehicle to continuously provide a forum for dialogue / discourse.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2016 1:46 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:46:16 -0400

It is a serious problem. Lots of units still do not have appropriate SOPs and battle drills to respond when a SHARP problems happen.

Response by COL Jonathan Cohen made Dec 20 at 2016 11:21 AM

COL Jonathan Cohen — Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:21:46 -0500

Absolutely...especially if you want to call what we do training. Looking at slide decks and signing attendance rosters is a total waste and based on blotters and number of suicides, the training is not helping. Just my two cents.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2017 8:29 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:29:49 -0500

We just had another suicide in my state recently. I'm not sure about diminishing returns or spending too much time on the subject but I'm beginning to become convinced that what we're doing isn't necessarily the most effective. I'm with you though. I see value in any attempt to preserve human life; especially one of our Warrior's life. Might be time to re tune the programs we have and start applying the most up to date data on the subject.

Response by MAJ Michael Cummings made Jan 24 at 2018 11:14 AM

MAJ Michael Cummings — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:14:29 -0500

What I have observed over the years is a reliance on "checking the block" by doing the training more and more online so reports can show that "we did our job" when in fact FLLs are forgetting what it means to know your soldiers.

I believe that if FLLs were doing their job, they would recognize the indicators and head off many of the problems.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2018 3:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:25:13 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member I think it depends on what is taught, how it is taught, who teaches it, and what emphasis is put into it after it is taught. If you only give it lip service to meet the requirement you missed the mark. I found the more effective classes are when the leader (with either professional or personal authority) get up and share their views and have passion on the topic. If it is just the randomly assigned NCO or junior officer who gives the same slideshow each time it can be one minute or four hours you will not get much out of it.