ABSTRACT

GOSSELIN, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND. The Trainer-Assessor-Counselor (TAC) Staff School Revised Program of Instruction (POI) for Advanced Camp 2000. (Under the direction of Michael L. Vasu, PhD.)

The purpose of this project has been to develop the Trainer-Assessor-Counselor (TAC) Staff

School revised Program of Instruction (POI) for Advanced Camp 2000. It has been based on a

personal redesign concept and incorporates educational instructional training techniques to assist

faculty-cadre in assessing student officer potential through the leadership evaluation process.

The two-day course was taught at seventeen training sessions consisting of over 600 mid- to

senior-level executives during a five-week training period this past summer at Fort Lewis,

Washington. As the Director of the school and primary instructor, I tailored the program to

support four different types of required training scenarios and personally developed a multitude

of training aids for in-class use, homework and as reference material for on-the-job training

during evaluations. Consideration was given to past POIs and input from senior leaders from

across the nation. As a result of this project, the Leadership Development Program (LDP)

training for ROTC students and faculty-cadre has been standardized for Advanced Camp and is

now in circulation to 270 universities for use in On-campus training programs in preparation for

attendance at future year’s Advanced Camps.

THE TRAINER-ASSESSOR-COUNSELOR(TAC) STAFF SCHOOL

REVISED PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTIONFOR

ADVANCED CAMP 2000

By

CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND GOSSELIN

A culminating project submitted to the Graduate Faculty ofNorth Carolina State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Arts in Liberal Studies

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Raleigh

2000

APPROVED BY:

__________________ __________________ Steve H. Barr, PhD. Stephen Straus, PhD.

__________________________Michael L. Vasu, PhD.

II

Instructions for Compact Disc (CD) Use

In an attempt to create an interactive document and reduce the size of the project folder,

only the written portion of the project is contained in the package along with letters of

recommendation. A CD has been created and is designed to support the full review of the

project and all of its contents. It can be located at the back of the folder.

To review the project, a copy of Microsoft Office 97 or higher should be installed along

with Windows Media Player. The file extensions of .doc, .ppt, .mpg, and .jpg have been used in

formatting hyperlinks into MS Word documents and PowerPoint presentations throughout the

project. The purpose of this initiative is to allow the reviewer the opportunity to view supporting

documentation or reserve such viewing for a later time, perhaps following the full review of the

written portion.

In order to set-up the presentation on your desktop or laptop computer, the following

steps should be taken: (feel free to use shortcuts where feasible)

Step 1: Insert CD into drive; go to Windows Explorer and open the drive letter.

Step 2: Locate the My Documents folder on the C: drive and highlight; move the cursor to the

File command and select New, Folder; name the folder Project and leave the folder visible on the

C: drive.

Step 3: Double-click on the CD drive location to view the file/folder listings present; click on the

Edit command and click the Select All function; click on the Edit command again and select

Copy.

Step 4: Open the Project folder that should be currently empty, click on the Edit command and

select the Paste function. All files should now be present for hyperlink and separate viewing.

Step 5: Escape out of the Windows Explorer screen and Open the MS Office document found in

the My Documents/Project folder named Project.doc.

This completes the set-up process. As you review the written document, you will notice

that inside each blue “Click Here” hyperlink, there will be either a direct link to the document or

a secondary hyperlink to choose from, depending on your interests.

Specific hyperlinked documents require special procedures to return to the source

document. Upon completion of viewing the “Wazup” video, simply click on the “x” in the upper

III

right hand corner of the screen. Click on the blue “Back Arrow” when completing all Word

presentations. For PowerPoint presentations, you may prefer to minimize your computer screen

and close out the program on the Task Bar following viewing should you have program conflicts.

Additional information not necessarily hyperlinked in the presentation can also be found

in the project folders. Feel free to view or print selections of your choosing.

In the event problems are encountered with the CD itself or the hyperlinks, feel free to

contact me via email at crgossel@gmail.com so another copy may be provided. Any other

feedback or recommendations will be appreciated.

Christopher R. Gosselin

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

NEEDS ASSESSMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8

IMPLEMENTATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

EVALUATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19

SUMMARY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

APPLICATION OF GRADUATE WORK ------------------------------------------------- 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION

2

BACKGROUND

The mission of Cadet Command is to commission the future officer leadership of the

United States Army and motivate young people to be better citizens. Within this framework, the

Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC) Advanced Camp mission is to TRAIN cadets (college

students in ROTC) to Army standards, DEVELOP leadership, and EVALUATE officer

leadership potential. Advanced Camp is the single most important event in the career of a cadet

and it is often their first exposure to Army life on an active Army installation. Cadets travel

from various parts of the country to Fort Lewis, WA where they undergo a common, high quality

training experience. Advanced Camp is intentionally stressful and is designed to build individual

confidence through the accomplishment of tough and demanding training. The days are long

with considerable night training and little time off. Squad (approximately 10 personnel) and

platoon-level (approximately 40 personnel) competitions develop collective cohesion, also

known as esprit de corps, and emphasize the necessity for teamwork.1 Advanced Camp uses

small unit tactics training as the main vehicle for evaluating officer potential since it provides for

training comparison common to all 270 universities and is important when evaluating the basic

soldiering skills required of an officer.

Advanced Camp is 35 days in length and incorporates a wide range of subjects designed

to develop and evaluate leadership ability. The challenges are rigorous and demanding, both

mentally and physically, and will test intelligence, common sense, ingenuity and stamina.2

These challenges provide a new perspective on an individual’s ability to perform exacting tasks

and to make difficult decisions in demanding situations. Evaluation is constant and begins

immediately upon arrival at Fort Lewis, WA. The Trainer-Assessor-Counselor (TAC) Officers

and Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) advise, coach, counsel, mentor and ultimately render

an official evaluation of each cadet’s officer potential. This evaluation is a key part of the

Accessions process, a process that determines suitability for branching (specialty training) and

component (active-duty or reserve) selection for the newly commissioning Second Lieutenants in

the United States Army.

1 HQs, Cadet Command, CC Circular 145-00-3, “ROTC Advanced Camp: Cadre Information” (Fort Monroe, VA, 2000): 2

2 CC Circular 145-00-3: 2

3

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Leadership Development Program (LDP) is to develop leadership in a

variety of training environments and evaluate potential to lead soldiers.3 Leader development is

a continuous process of training, assessment and feedback with the goal of instilling and

enhancing desirable behavior in military organizational managers. Within Cadet Command, this

process is facilitated through the LDP, modeled after principles spelled out in Field Manual 22-

100, Army Leadership, and is standardized in campus and camp environments across the nation.

The flexible methodology of LDP accommodates personalized, individual development at all

levels of proficiency throughout the cadet’s entire tenure, from ROTC program entry to

commissioning. The LDP includes basic leadership training, periodic assessment, and

counseling at both team and individual levels by experienced observers, referred to as TACs

(Trainer-Assessor-Counselors). Trends and corrective actions are identified and followed with

retraining and reassessment in a continuous cycle.4 Effective leader development is, therefore,

progressive - - building on lessons learned and maximizing individual potential.

Cadets train to meet the need of the Army for leaders of character who can take charge

under any condition. When properly administered, leader development provides cadets with

problem-solving tools and self-analysis skills that allow continued progress beyond ROTC

training. Although the LDP process occurs in its entirety during one leadership opportunity, it is

not likely to promote much leadership development without it being reapplied by different

assessors during a variety of leadership positions over a period of time. The Advanced Camp

environment provides for seven total leadership opportunities to assess future officer potential,

not to include the various Spot reports that can also account for significant behavior. Based on

some analysis, TACs are able to identify trends and coach cadets to reinforce or sustain strengths

while improving weaknesses. Since LDP is aligned with the Officer Evaluation Report (OER)

process, skills acquired during ROTC compliment skills cadets are expected to possess once they

are commissioned.5

In the LDP model, leadership is broken down into two component areas: Army Values

and leadership dimensions. Values are the core ideas/beliefs held by an individual. The Army

stresses values as a basis for ethical understanding and behavior. A leader’s VALUES include 3 HQs, Cadet Command, “Leadership Development Program Handbook” (Fort Monroe, VA, 1999): 34 Allen Cunniff, “Leader Development in the ROTC: Aids to designing the On-Campus and Camp Program” (Fort Lewis, WA, 2000): 15 Allen Cunniff: 1

4

Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. These are said

to be “shared” values that make an individual reach beyond self. Army Values build strong,

cohesive organizations that, in turn, become the source of strength and solidarity for their

members in difficult and turbulent times. Values-based leadership means setting the example

and creating a command climate where soldiers can put values into practice. It is leadership best

described by the simple principle “be, know, do.” Leaders must not only exemplify Army

Values in their words and deeds, “they must create the opportunity for every soldier in their

command to live them as well; to do anything less is to be less than a leader. 6” In the camp

environment, values are considered to be satisfactory and only deviations from such are noted

during evaluations.

The 16 leadership dimensions encompass the ATTRIBUTES of mental, physical,

emotional, the SKILLS of interpersonal, conceptual, technical, tactical, the INFLUENCING

ACTIONS of communicating, decision making, motivating, the OPERATING ACTIONS of

planning, executing, assessing, and the IMPROVING ACTIONS of developing, building and

learning. Over time at Advanced Camp, cadets exhibit some degree of proficiency (positive or

negative) in all dimensions. In the assessment process, behavior in each observed dimension is

quantified using set standards of performance called Leadership Performance Indicators. To

view these indicators, Click Here.

The group After Action Review (AAR) and individual leadership counseling is designed

to provide cadets with timely feedback on performance. At the end of each daily leadership

opportunity, the cadet’s progress (or lack thereof) is subjectively determined. Trends are

identified, performance in each leadership dimension is summarized, and summary counseling is

provided to assist in the reestablishment of new goals. Following commitment on behalf of the

cadet, they are charged to work continuously toward individual potential.

The key element to the successful evaluation of cadets is the proper training of cadre as

TACs. Effective mentoring by TACs encourages pride, initiative and self-reliance in the cadet.

An effective program of development produces leaders who are largely capable of analyzing

problems, developing solutions and organizing resources to overcome the problems. TACs

administer the development program by providing cadets with opportunities to learn and tools to

6 Dennis J. Reimer, “Army Values,” Military Review (January-February 1998): Insert

5

develop to their potential, given available resources. TACs properly fulfill their responsibility

by7:

- Providing the appropriate environment for learning to take place

- Being consistent in dealings with cadets

- Acting as a role model for behavior

- Instilling and enforcing discipline

- Establishing standards for performance expectations

The quality of LDP at Advanced Camp is reliant upon trained cadre assessors doing

careful, caring work inside the LDP process. The work focuses primarily on observing,

recording, classifying and rating behavior, followed by counseling. Training these assessors on

how to do these tasks proficiently is the primary responsibility of the TAC Staff School, the

purpose of this culminating project. The 11 regiments that receive training fall under the

responsibility of the Commandant of Cadets and the three committees under the Deputy Camp

Commander. The TAC Staff School operates on behalf of the Evaluation Section that is

subordinate to the Chief of Staff. Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of these relationships that

compliment each other in support of the Advanced Camp mission:

Figure 1

7 Allen Cunniff: 4-6

6

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

As the Director of the TAC Staff School for Advanced Camp 2000, it was my mission to

design an improved two-day course Program of Instruction (POI) and act as the primary

instructor for evaluator calibration training for over 600 mid- to senior-grade officers/NCOs.

The objective of the school was to ensure cadre assessors (TACs) learned and demonstrated

proficiency in how to effectively evaluate cadets in the Advanced Camp environment. To

achieve this end, four separate POIs required design and tailoring to meet the needs of 11

regimental cycles in Garrison operations and the committees of the Field Leadership Reaction

Course, Squad Situational Training Exercise (STX), and Platoon STX in tactical operations over

a five-week instructional training period. Additionally, training needed to be provided for

regimental and committee Liaison Officers (LNOs) to ensure compliance-oriented inspections

properly captured training skills received and to allow for measurement of the training transfer.

The following four-step instructional design was used to develop the training course8:

1. Conduct a Needs Assessment

2. Design and Develop Training Plan

3. Implement Training

4. Evaluate Training Effectiveness

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

In conducting the organization, person and task analyses, it was evident that certain

philosophical changes would need to be made in order for the instruction team to achieve a more

effective level of instruction through a revised POI. Since attendance at TAC Staff School was

mandatory for all TACs attending Advanced Camp and it was the major training event supported

by Cadet Command in the summer months, the organizational support was unquestioned. The

motivational/work design issues were the most important factors in the person analysis. They

supported the need to identify more reasonable standards for training in order to achieve “one

voice” on how LDP was to be conducted at Advanced Camp.

While attending the Pre-Camp Conference in February 2000, several planning sessions

occurred allowing Subject Matter Expert (SME) involvement in the issues affecting the quality

8 Jim Burrow, “EAC 786: Methods and Techniques of Training and Development” (NC State University Distance Learning, 1999): Lesson 2, Page 4

7

of past TAC Staff School training. In a large part due to my personal experience as a Platoon

TAC in 1998 and a Regimental LNO in 1999, I was able to gain concurrence from SMEs and

senior leaders to provide a more directive course content through revision of the POIs. The

change left fewer options open to imaginative cadre as it pertained to conducting evaluations.

This philosophical adjustment, along with four months of planning and development, paved the

way to the redesign of the Advanced Camp 2000 TAC Staff School POI.

Based on the high quality and caliber of TACs attending training, it was expected that a

high level of self-efficacy would result. The cognitive abilities of verbal comprehension,

quantitative ability, and reasoning ability for the tasks at hand were not expected to pose major

problems9. In fact, a plan was put in to place to train additional assessors from the staff sections

of each regiment and committee in the event of emergency departures or evaluation problems

with specific TACs. Taking into account that many of the TACs at Advanced Camp usually

ranged in LDP experience from cursory to over three years, the level of instruction needed to be

tailored to the most inexperienced TACs while allowing for inclusion of more senior assessors

during discussion periods.

In the task analysis, it was determined that specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and other

considerations (KSAOs) were adequate for the planned training.10 It was believed that the step-

by-step training methodology would overcome any knowledge barriers and that the redesign

would better allow for skill and ability improvements in the Advanced Camp environment.

Of final consideration was the composition of the TAC Staff School instructional team.

As the Director, I was the primary instructor for the three-person team consisting of two officers

and one senior NCO. All instructors had prior experience at Advanced Camp and were to be

used to instruct subject matter areas as required. The management of the facilities and all other

resources were expected to be accomplished daily with instructional materials being updated as

necessary. Limited refreshments were to be made available allowing the establishment of a fund

to offset costs for daily replenishment.

DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT

In designing a revised POI for TAC Staff School, a concerted effort was put forth to

structure the curriculum incorporating the two goals of performance-based training. The first

9 Raymond A. Noe: 60-6110 Raymond A. Noe: 66

8

goal was that training must result in each trainee obtaining the requisite KSAOs necessary for

effective performance and the second was that the assessor must be able to transfer the

performance that was developed during training to the job.11 To meet the two goals, I found it

necessary to carefully structure the learning experience by:

1) introducing the cadre to the new performance requirements (accomplished through

senior leader briefings and prepared handouts).

2) ensuring the cadre understood what would be expected and the importance of the

training (emphasized during “Introduction to LDP” instruction, use of the Blue/Yellow Card

Checklist, and through planned inspections).

3) demonstrating the new performance elements in ways that were readily connected to

cadre experience and understanding of the job (related to On-campus experience, prior Advanced

Camp experience, sample Blue Cards and Cadet Evaluation Report (CER) guidance).

4) giving the cadre the opportunity to practice the expected performance in order to

practice and improve (through homework exercises, video practical exercise, cadre feedback

during practical exercise review, and cadet practice leadership opportunities).

5) applying the new learning in a real work environment to ensure that performance could

meet job expectations (accomplished by formally evaluating cadets and through inspection

feedback).

By utilizing this structure, I was confident that the goals could be obtained. When

training sessions are followed up with on-the-job support, up to 300 percent return is realized on

every dollar invested. Conversely, little retention of skills occurs after training if management

fails to reinforce it.12

Revision of the four POIs was the first essential step. Since the required regimental

training consisted of a two-day, classroom-based training design, it was necessary to determine

which training topics were most directly related to TAC performance needs and then structure

the training sequence for learner understanding. Based on the concepts of training outlined in

Army Field Manuals 25-100/101, I chose to incorporate the “crawl, walk, run” method of

training due to its performance-based methods. This required that initial basic skills training be

provided (crawl), then applied at a practical level through creative exercises (walk), and then

11 Jim Burrow: Lesson 1, Page 312 M. Silberman, “Active Training: A Handbook of Techniques, Designs, Case Examples, and Tips” (New York: Lexington Books, 1990): 183

9

ultimately tested through the conduct of formal evaluations (run) on cadets at camp. Click Here

to view the Regimental POI that formed the basic foundation for the training and time sets.

Three other POIs were developed to meet committee specifications and, although some of the

basic LDP training was standard, the examples and practical exercises were tailored to relevant

scenarios in the tactical environments. Click Here to view the finalized POIs for the committees

of FLRC, Squad STX, and Platoon STX.

The training sequence for TAC Staff School was based on the layout of the Master

Training Schedule (MTS) for Advanced Camp 2000. This document, along with the key dates

memorandum for regimental commanders provides a guideline for Advanced Camp operations.

Click Here to view these documents. In referring to the bottom lower portion of the MTS, it can

be noted that the first training session at TAC Staff School was scheduled for the FLRC

committee, also serving as the “test bed” for the instruction material. Subject to any necessary

design changes following this training, the POI would be focused on the first five regiments to

arrive at camp. By the 6th Regiment, the committee POIs had to compliment the regimental ones

since simultaneous training was necessary at two different facility locations. Two back-to-back

Squad STX training sessions followed by three Platoon STX training sessions overlapped the

regimental TAC Staff School training cycles for the 6th through 10th Regiments. Since all

tailored training classes were to be conducted by the same instructor to the extent possible,

instructors were required to provide training in two locations on a daily basis during this overlap

time period. Some cross training by instructors in subject areas was required in order to prevent

training session shortfalls. In all, 17 two-day training sessions would be completed in five weeks

affording quality instruction and ensuring maximum calibration for TAC teams.

The major resources required for the training were:

- 2 separate training facilities - 4 proxima video projectors

- 3 overhead projectors - 1 desktop and 1 laptop computer

- 3 portable projection screens - 1 office area with storage room

- 3 speaker systems with amplifiers - 3 IntelliPoint remote control devices

- 3 butcher block easels with writing pads - 50 cases of pre-printed forms

- 3 boxes of highlighters, pens, and pencils - 650 (5 X 8) three-ring binders

10

The learning environment was prepared from both the physical and the social/

psychological perspectives.13 As for the physical, the primary location was a traditional stand-

alone World War II vintage facility with tiered seating levels and a stage (previously a movie

theater). Its size, decor and layout were adequate and the seating was excellent (TAC teams

were in the same row). The lighting and ventilation were barely adequate (no air conditioning)

with the acoustic and equipment resources being superb. From the social/psychological

viewpoint, learner comfort and safety were excellent, the structure and timing of training was

appropriate, and the climate and instructor effectiveness was outstanding. At the secondary

location, the only differences were that access to the classroom was controlled (inside an

Education Center), it was a one-level classroom with no stage, and the air conditioning made the

location more comfortable for the learner. All other interaction and learning could adequately

take place. Although not preferred, the physical location was on the opposite side of the Fort

Lewis installation.

In order to facilitate the instruction in the classroom, a 208-page slideshow presentation

was developed to serve as a guide throughout the course. Although many of the slides existed

previously in the prior year’s slide package, revisions and additions were necessary. All slides

had to be formatted to fit the revised POI outline and were tested for visibility and readability

prior to instruction. Background and color contrast issues were resolved during preliminary

testing. Additionally, instructors were required to rehearse their portions of the slide briefing

prior to the first day of class and were critiqued by the Evaluation Section Chief prior to

receiving certification. As the Director and primary instructor, I was charged to create “note

pages” capturing the teaching points during the presentations for standardization and future

year’s reference. This was a new requirement, one necessary since no teaching points had been

filed in year’s past. Click Here to view the final slideshow with attached “note pages.” The

committee slideshow presentations varied only slightly in the practical exercise portion and are;

therefore, not included. Another initiative this year was to include an “ice breaker” video to

introduce the concept of assessing leadership. A video clip labeled “Wazup” was used to

introduce the audience, in a pre-test, to the idea of identifying the significant leadership being

displayed by Air Force officers in the video. As you will see, it helped to provide the right

13 Jim Burrow: Lesson 8, Pages 2-7

11

mindset as well as lightened some of the seriousness associated with attending the school. Click

Here to view the video clip.

To ensure the regiments were aware of some of the administrative requirements for

attendance at TAC Staff School, a memorandum was drafted by the Evaluation Section Chief

addressing coordination issues, meeting times and resource requirements. As a secondary use, it

attempted to adjust any pre-set attitudes concerning the training that the regimental TACs were

about to receive. For some of the returning TACs, displeasure with the previous year’s

instruction set a disinterested tone upon arrival at camp. To get the most from this training

opportunity, it was necessary to ensure a different tone would be set making learning fun,

interactive and useful. Click Here to view this document.

To support the design of the course, several initiatives were undertaken to develop

supporting materials that could be taken by the TACs in the form of handouts to refresh their

cognitive memories of the evaluation requirements following course instruction. The preparation

of these handouts was accomplished during the four months preceding arrival at Advanced

Camp. Due to my experience as a TAC and LNO inspector, I knew what information was

needed in order for TACs to feel more self-efficacy in their job. One of the pre-designed tools

already in circulation but in need of revision, was the 1999 Cadre Reference Guide (CRG), a

handy “user friendly” quick reference guide for the TAC binder. Through several months of

revision, the final product for 2000 turned-out to be very useful based on the feedback received

from TACs this summer. Click Here to review the CRG. For use in committee training, a

tailored guideline was developed closely mirroring the Leadership Performance Indicator Cards

for reference when observing leader behavior. To view these tactically oriented indicators, Click

Here.

Incorporated into the separate slide presentations were four scenario-tailored, sample

Leadership Evaluation Report cards, referred to as Blue Cards, representing the proper STAR

(Situation, Task, Action, Result) format to be used during evaluations.14 Click Here to review

the regimental sample format. Due to the need for the three Garrison leadership opportunities to

be scheduled properly, a Leadership Opportunity Roster (LOR) was developed which stipulated

the “rules” to follow when scheduling cadet leadership opportunities. Although the basic roster

format had been used in year’s past, adjustments were made to the rules which were

14 Leadership Development Program Handbook: 14

12

subsequently placed on the backside of the pre-printed blank forms. Additionally, I developed a

sample LOR for reference of what “right” might look like when the form was properly

completed. It was designed as a guide, with an accompanying legend, to act as only a reference

due to the intentionally programmed deviations from the practice forms for in-class exercises.

Click Here to review a sample of this completed LOR and Click Here for the rules.

In designing an appropriate homework assignment, consideration was given to the

expected end state of instruction to be reached by the end of Day 1. An individually focused set

of 10 Action statements was designed for handout and completion for the following morning’s

training on Day 2 (an adjusted homework assignment was created for the tactical committees).

To enhance the understanding of the applications of LDP, I created a sample answer key that

highlighted a “blocking technique” used for determining observed behavior in the leadership

dimensions to assist in the review. Additionally, since a rating exercise would follow, I created

another document for the slideshow displaying the ratings associated with the dimensions for the

blocked areas. This was designed only as an assistance tool, not necessarily as an answer key. I

had to emphasize this point since all TACs view leadership differently and will hone in on

certain dimensions they identify as relevant, which may or may not be necessarily the same

among a group of TACs. The instruction emphasized that as long as TACs supported the ratings

assigned with the dimensions used, the evaluation would stand-up under scrutiny and during

inspections. This allowed for individualism and the acceptance of other views based on cadre

experience. Click Here to view these samples.

Based on input from inspections the previous year, I decided to include what is known as

the Blue/Yellow Card Checklist in the handouts this year. This checklist assisted TACs during

their Blue and Yellow Card reviews and served as the primary document for Regimental LNOs

during inspections. Since it had first-line level relevance, it made sense to include it as a handout

since it would force quality control (QC) efforts to begin at the lowest levels, enhancing the

process of review by allowing TACs to check the simple mistake areas. Click Here to view this

checklist along with other checklists used during the regimental inspections. To assist in quality

control processes, I developed a QC Process chart that was incorporated into the CRG and

slideshow presentation as a recommended flow for evaluations which, ultimately, was adopted

by the regiments at Advanced Camp this year. This served to reinforce the need for adequate

13

time management practices within the TAC teams due to the high daily operational tempo in the

platoons. Click Here to view this recommended flow.

The Cadet Self Assessment Report, often referred to as the Yellow Card, is a required

card that allows cadets to assess how they believe their leadership position went throughout the

24-hour period. It is turned in at the end of the day for TAC review and consideration. To assist

the TACs with examples of Blue and Yellow cards completed to standard, I created two

Advanced Camp scenarios and had the two leadership position opportunities duplicated as

handout material. The Blue Card was designed as a TAC reference and the Yellow Card was

designed to be posted in cadet areas to display the standards required of completed cards. Click

Here to view the sample Blue and Yellow Cards. In addition to these, two sets of Yellow Cards

were prepared to align with film vignettes edited for practical exercise (PE) purposes. They were

handed out during PE training to assist TACs when filling out Blue Cards to incorporate the

cadet Yellow Card assessment of their performance in the TAC Action statements. To view

these two PE Yellow Cards, Click Here. Editing of the video vignettes was necessary for not

only Garrison operations, but also for committee training. Since recent video was not available

depicting cadet behaviors in a Garrison environment, an older version containing many teaching

points was used. Two other editing sessions prepared two 45 minute lane scenarios for FLRC

PEs and a separate Squad and Platoon STX scenario which was used in both committees to gain

maximum training benefit during PE training. The current video from live training exercises the

year prior provided realism and relevance in the committee training scenarios.

Two other important documents were created for use in TAC Staff School. One was a

Sample Evaluation Plan that I designed to assist TACs in identifying leadership as they observed

it, while at the same time, associating the proper dimensions with it. It served as a job aid to help

TACs avoid dimensional “blindspots,” those dimensional areas they may not have been

identifying on a regular basis during the course of evaluations. The second document was a

Sample Operations Order (OPORD). Although it was expected that TACs were familiar with

how to write an OPORD, it assisted TACs in properly formatting the Garrison activities in the

Advanced Camp environment. I developed this merely for familiarization for those TACs who

may be new to ROTC and Advanced Camp. Click Here to view both of these job aids.

As an aid to counseling, I worked hand-in-hand with an SME to develop a standardized

marginal performance counseling format for use outside of leadership opportunity counseling. It

14

served a variety of counseling purposes while requiring less writing by TACs and incorporating

all the legal terminology pertaining to marginal performance by cadets while at Advanced Camp.

Click Here to view this form.

Lastly, I developed two critiques to support TAC Staff School training. I incorporated a

time series evaluation design that allowed for the analysis of training outcomes over time, a

period of about seven days from the completion of training.15 The first critique was issued at the

end of the course and was designed to elicit basic information from TACs attending the course as

to the management tools provided, quality of instruction, strengths and weaknesses of training,

administrative/logistical comments and recommended changes. The second critique was focused

on the training transfer. It was issued five days into on-the-job performance during the Day 5

Initial Inspections conducted by the Regimental LNOs. It focused on skills acquired,

recommended adjustments to the course design, and evaluation of personal ability levels as a

result of the received training. Click Here to view these critiques.

Based on this level of preparation, the instructional team, given the resources available,

was prepared to ensure the success of the revised program.

IMPLEMENTATION

The finalized Program of Instruction formed the basis of all instruction and aligned with

the slideshow presentation. Class sizes averaged around 38 personnel coming from over 270

universities across the nation. TAC teams were formed in the regimental areas upon arrival at

Advanced Camp. The normal TAC team consisted of a senior NCO, referred to as the PTNCO,

a newly commissioned Second Lieutenant, the PTLT, and a Captain or Major who acted as the

Platoon TAC Officer, or PTO. This three-person team’s goal was to achieve calibration in the

way they rated observed leadership behavior and to agree upon acceptable standards for

Excellence, Satisfactory, and Needs Improvement levels of performance for leadership positions

requiring evaluation.

Multiple presentational methods were used. Lecture, audiovisual and hands-on methods

proved to be most effective in the presentation of the material. In using the lecture method,

senior leader guest speakers introduced the training and its importance, introductory training

followed, team teaching occurred, and student presentations were given. Audiovisuals were used

15 Raymond A. Noe: 147

15

in the form of a standard MS Office PowerPoint presentation, Windows Media Player for

presenting the “Wazup” icebreaker video, a VCR for video vignettes, and an overhead projector

for student presentations. The hands-on method was incorporated during PE review sessions,

homework exercises, and during the completion of the Blue Card video PEs. For ease in

understanding, only the Regimental POI is elaborated upon to capture the implementation of the

training.

The actual training on Day 1 began with an introduction period. This was an opportunity

for the Evaluation Section Chief to “Welcome” the cadre to the school, introduce the TAC Staff

School instructors, show the icebreaker “Wazup” video and cover basic information referring to

attendance at Advanced Camp (Click Here to refer to the slideshow presentation for flow).

Following this, by design, a Regimental TAC Officer (RTO) who experienced the initial problem

areas associated with the first 3-5 days of receiving cadets in the regiment, briefed the regimental

orders process to the follow-on cycles. Initially, we requested the 1st Regiment RTO, a returning

RTO from the previous year, to provide this briefing for the first three regiments. Thereafter, 3rd,

6th, and 9th Regimental TAC Officers, respectively, completed the briefings through the 11th

Regiment. Soon to follow were the senior leader briefings that served to support the need for

TAC Staff School training and to emphasize the importance of the transfer of training to cadet

evaluations during Advanced Camp.

The next phase of training focused on associating TACs with management tools and

handouts available to them to make their job easier. Additionally, specific instruction was given

pertaining to assigning cadet leadership opportunities and on how to use the LOR. After

explaining the rules, the TACs had the opportunity to individually fill-out the LOR for the first

seven days using the fictional cadet platoon roster while incorporating the rules. The training

stepped-up as cadre were required to react to cadet drops from the rolls due to failures during the

physical fitness test on Day 7 or for medical reasons, usually reported on/about Day 3. This

exercise required TACs to adjust their rosters. Since this was an individual exercise, the

homework to follow was designed as a group building (TAC team) exercise. The assignment

was to complete one LOR out to three leadership opportunities (about 24 days) mirroring camp

requirements for the platoon. It was inspected by the Regimental LNOs, along with the

Company TAC Officers (CTOs) upon arrival on Day 2 with courtesy evaluation feedback. This

evaluation of the exercise allowed the chain of command for QC to get involved while in the

16

school environment and determine which platoon TAC teams may require additional assistance

prior to the Day 5 Initial Inspections by the Regimental LNOs.

In order to associate levels of knowledge and experience at Advanced Camp, the cadet

responsibilities portion of the training was designed to elicit behavior modeling, both by the

instructor and by the TACs. This was the portion of training that focused TACs on determining

the reasonable expectations for cadets in certain leadership positions equating to Excellence (E),

Satisfactory (S) or Needs Improvement (N) levels of performance. This two-way discussion was

designed to get the TAC teams interactive and led into discussion of the performance standards

for LDP existing in the Performance Indicator Cards (referred to earlier), also known as

“Salmon” cards due to their color. During discussion of the Seven Army Values and 16

leadership dimensions, extensive role-playing was used to get the TACs involved with situation

analysis and problem solving. It was designed for two-way communication and lent itself well

for establishing a firm understanding of the definitions of each value and dimension as well as

provided an idea of when TACs might see behavior exhibited. An introduction to the required

STAR format was the basis for beginning the Blue Card training. Discussion of evaluating cadet

OPORDs and using an individualized evaluation plan was highlighted.

At the conclusion of Day 1, a 10-question individual homework exercise was issued in

addition to the team scheduling exercise of the LOR product. TACs were told to assume they

personally wrote the provided Action statements on the page and to determine which

values/dimensions they would select.

Upon arrival to school on Day 2, all LORs were collected allowing the CTOs and

Regimental LNOs to grade the team products in the back of the classroom. With four platoons

per company and two companies per regiment, a total of eight rosters were graded. Meanwhile,

transparencies were passed out to one company’s four platoon TAC teams and company-level

TAC team with one selected homework Action statement on it. Each team was instructed to list

the values/dimensions they used and then, one by one, send a representative forward to the

overhead projector on the stage to explain why they chose their selections to the class. I, as the

instructor, facilitated their thoughts and tried to make them defend their selections through

reliance on the Salmon Cards. Once defended, the floor was opened to other suggestions from

the class in order to consider other options that might apply. Once additional values/dimensions

17

were defended before the class, I approved their posting to the transparency as possible choices

to align with the specific Action statement.

Once all five Action statements were completed, TACs were taught how to justify E/S/N

ratings. Following this instruction, time was provided to post ratings to the previously used

Action statements. The five transparencies from the first company were now traded laterally

over to the second company. It was now their mission to remove any values/dimensions that

were posted on the transparency, add any they thought were necessary, and then send a

representative forward to defend their ratings of “E” and “N,” the focus of all evaluations.

Satisfactory ratings were not reviewed in the interest of time. Once the ratings were defended

through use of the Salmon Cards, the representative then returned to their seat and applause was

usually received due to surviving the scrutiny level provided by the instructor and the class. In a

simultaneous effort during the defense phase, the Salmon Card dimensions were projected on

another screen for full room viewing and reference. This learning technique reinforced the

training standards and served as a prelude of what to expect during QC reviews by CTOs on a

daily basis and Regimental LNOs during inspections. To wrap-up the learning experience,

instruction was given on how to properly complete the backside of the Blue Card through the

summarizing of dimensional areas and the determination of overall net assessments for the

leadership opportunity. Additionally, a review and emphasis was provided on the use of ad-hoc

Spot reports which accounted for cadet leadership behavior 24/7. These were said to highlight

noteworthy performance of cadets as followers or team members outside the required three

leadership opportunities in the Garrison environment. Acts that indicated unusually strong or

weak character, potential, teamwork, or personal conduct were of particular interest for Spot

reports.16

Having received the aforementioned training, the TACs were now ready for the practical

application of the STAR-TAR-TAR (an adjusted Advanced Camp style) format and the actual

filling-out of two Blue Cards during video PEs. The exercise was intended to simulate the daily

requirements of simultaneously filling out two cards at a time. It was broken down into three

video clips and, although outdated, each encompassed two leadership positions and their relevant

Tasks, leader Actions, and observable Results. The video PE was introduced on an overhead

transparency with the Situation statements, the names of the cadets being evaluated, and the

16 Leadership Development Program Handbook: 26

18

Tasks to be observed. After preparing the Blue Cards with all administrative data and filling the

cards in with Situation and Task statements for both, the first video clip was played on the VCR

through the proxima. Following the first clip, certain TACs were chosen to share their Action

statements with the class to see if they were “on track.” Once all the cadre felt they were

accounting for about the same type of leader Actions, the instructor provided them time to

complete their Results statements and then prepare the second Task for each card (the beginning

of the first TAR). The next two Tasks on video were completed closing out the STAR-TAR-

TAR format and culminating in the completion of the backsides of each Blue Card. The pre-

filled out Yellow Cards for the cadet positions were then provided to the TACs to represent what

the cadets might have turned-in for consideration by the TAC of their performance.

Given sufficient time for closing out the Blue Cards, a team-teaching technique was then

incorporated. First, six typed pieces of paper with the cadet leader name and Task were passed

out, three for the Tasks of the 3rd Squad Leader and three for the Tasks of the Platoon Sergeant.

Two instructors facilitated the teaching points while one TAC at a time stood-up and read their

observed Action statements aloud, assigning values/dimensions and subsequent ratings.

Following cross talk in the classroom for each leader Task, discussion ended and an attempt at

determining calibration was undertaken. Using a butcher-block pad and beginning with the 3rd

Squad Leader, one instructor elicited feedback on the number of dimensional E/S/Ns for the card

while one transferred the total numbers. Once all 16 dimensions had been reviewed, it was

evident which dimensional areas had outliers (those TACs with significantly different results).

For those noticeable areas, outliers were identified for a particular dimension and were asked to

read their Action statements aloud to allow the class the opportunity to determine whether the

dimensional ratings were justified/supported through the use of proper adjectives aligned with

the Salmon Cards. This exercise was then replicated in the same fashion for the Platoon

Sergeant position. Although many TACs realized they failed to support E or N ratings, the

exercise served to assist in calibrating the level of performance observed in the scenarios

provided by the video vignettes. The next step was to calculate the overall net assessment using

the same method to remark as to the overall calibration of the TACs within the regiment. For

committees, a similar flow was used, except that more recent, tailored tactical scenarios served

as the training medium.

19

Having conducted the ramp-up practical exercise, it was then necessary to cover other

important topics for TAC knowledge. A quick review of how to conduct After Action Reviews

(AARs) at Advanced Camp was provided delineating the differences between a Change of

Command AAR and an Individual LDP Counseling AAR. Click Here to view a visual

breakdown of the two types of AARs. Additionally, instruction was provided for filling out the

Cadet and Assessor-focused Job Performance Summary Cards (JPSCs). The Cadet-focused

JPSC served as a final roll-up mechanism for all seven leadership positions held at Advanced

Camp while the Assessor-focused JPSC served to aid TACs in identifying dimensional

“blindspots” becoming trends in their daily evaluation plans. The latter could also be used as a

reference tool for on-the-spot inspections as well as a reflection of proper ratings should a

cadet’s Blue Card be misplaced while in the QC review process. It was stressed that the trends

identified on the Cadet-focused JPSC analysis may be used to adjust the plan for future

leadership positions. A prime example would be if a cadet was to show a weak trend in making

decisions, the TACs may want to adjust the LOR to assign the cadet to a particular leadership

position in which decision making would be an important element. In most cases, the cadet

would then succeed and also gain both skill and confidence.17 Click Here to view an example of

a cadet and assessor JPSC card. A review of the recommended QC Process was then elaborated

upon with emphasis on TAC time management to avoid falling behind in job requirements.

Inspection result trends from Day 5 Inspections of preceding regiments were shared with new

regiments to forewarn them of some of the consequences should they fall behind in cadet

evaluations.

The last phase of training pertained to camp scoring. To view the Cadet Evaluation

System (CES) scoring breakdown for Advanced Camp, Click Here. Following a review of the

point values, the instructor focused on end-of-camp requirements expected of TACs, primarily

the production of a Cadet Evaluation Report (CER) for cadets as they depart camp. Although

these were not at the forefront in the near transfer scope of the TACs, they served as a

preliminary introduction to the scoring system and TAC responsibilities. A plan for further

follow-up training on the CER was scheduled on the MTS to ensure complete understanding of

the requirements just prior to CER production. Click Here to view the blank CER form.

Following this last block of instruction, the TAC Staff School training was complete.

17 Leadership Development Program Handbook: 28

20

EVALUATION

Prior to releasing TACs to return to their regimental areas, it was necessary to conduct

the first phase of evaluation through the issuance of an end of course critique used to elicit

feedback on the instruction received during the two-day course. All TACs were required to fill-

out the one page form. Once completed, I, as the Director, perused each critique to identify

issues prior to turning them over to the Evaluation Section Chief that evening. In the format of

an AAR, the staff from the Evaluation Section met to discuss the critiques, actions to be taken

and to review inspection results conducted by the two Regimental LNOs of a regiment in its fifth

day.

An overwhelming majority of critiques emphasized abolishing the necessary senior

leader briefings for the opportunity to conduct more practical exercises. Due to the political

climate, this was not a feasible option. Other comments focused on the revised structure stating

that it was vastly improved from years past and that the methodology made it easy for the novice

TAC to acquire the requisite skills in two days to conduct evaluations at Advanced Camp. In

reviewing over 600 critiques, only 3-5 stated issues with the instruction team, many of which

were personality-driven (e.g. I would not say or do it in this way - - or that way, etc.). With that

being the case, the instruction team felt confident we were providing the necessary level of

content in a manner that was easily understood. Minor time changes were adjusted for and

revised inside the POI, as appropriate. Based on the approach to training used during the

slideshow, a huge demand was placed on the TAC Staff School by the attending cadre to provide

disk copies of the instruction. Since the file size required four 3 ½ inch disks, it was placed on

the local server, with the completed note pages for download and has recently been distributed

nationwide to assist in training On-campus LDP programs.

The second phase of evaluation was conducted through the follow-up critique during the

Day 5 Initial Inspections of the TAC’s work. This time series approach provided both verbal

feedback to the inspectors along with the written feedback critiques. These confirmed that the

appropriate level of content was provided and that the TAC skill sets represented the desired

amount of training transfer. Based on this feedback, no changes were directed or necessary to

the POIs.

21

The final phase of evaluation was self-directed. Based on informal feedback and

considerations put forth from instructors on the team, I prepared a TAC Staff School written

After Action Review to provide information concerning instructor team recommendations and

provide continuity for next year’s staff. To highlight, the following recommendations were

made:

1) that TAC Staff School begin one day earlier to allow TACs the extra day following the

school to prepare for receipt of cadets based on the information learned while in the school.

2) to increase the length of the course by a half-day to incorporate another set of PEs

which would allow TACs to fill out another set of Blue Cards for practice.

3) to reproduce new Garrison video excerpts during the coming school year that are of a

professional quality, relevant to the committees to be trained, and more extensive in the number

of Tasks to be completed (These could be used during the additional half-day of training.).

4) to scale down the number of senior leader briefings to two, specifically the Deputy

Commanding General of Cadet Command and the Camp Commander.

5) set-up specific times in the regimental areas for additional senior leader briefs not

directly related to the conduct of TAC Staff School.

The instructional team was recognized by the Camp Commander during the last

regimental cycle briefing with the presentation of commemorative coins due to the tremendous

efforts expended during 17 sessions of training. Additionally, a written recommendation was

forwarded on my behalf requesting that I be awarded the Army Commendation Medal for

championing the revision of a design that created a highly effective and successful training

program.

SUMMARY

Based on the feedback received from senior leaders and cadre TACs, the revisions to the

TAC Staff School POI for Advanced Camp 2000 were positive ones indeed. Senior leader

comments indicated that the two-day course was “on target” in providing tailored “user friendly”

blocks of instruction. The purpose of this revision was to create a performance-based training

approach to support evaluations derived from the Leadership Development Program. LDP is a

systematic, personalized process that focuses not only on current levels of proficiency, but on

individual strengths, weaknesses and capacity for continued growth. The challenge this

22

represented for the cadre was in the planning and executing of a coordinated program of

development that effectively and simultaneously addressed each cadet’s individual needs and

maximized efficient use of resources such as time, human, and material.18 It is my belief that this

year’s instructional program contributed immensely to this end while personally and

professionally developing the future cadre instructors from across the nation who will now carry

this program to the next level.

APPLICATION OF GRADUATE WORK

In addition to my military training experience over the past 11 years, my learning

experiences from graduate school at NC State University helped form some of the theoretical

underpinnings for my approach to this project. I found that three graduate courses, in particular,

assisted me as I went about determining the approach I would take to revise the TAC Staff

School. The courses I refer to were Organizational Behavior (Dr. Stephen Straus), Leadership

Management (Dr. Steve H. Barr) and Total Quality Management (Dr. Michael L. Vasu).

In the Organizational Behavior course, the models of behavior and stakeholder interests

were emphasized, organizational structures were reviewed, and a focus towards team-based

organizations was presented. The systems thinking approaches and the human behavior aspects

to include the personal Human Patterns Inventory taken proved to be helpful as considerations of

leadership style and motivational factors arose.

The Leadership in Management course again exposed the organizational behavior

concepts. Additionally, it went in to depth in the areas of conflict management, motivational

theories, group structuring, and goal measuring. These topic areas were helpful in restructuring

the four POIs as I analyzed group needs and performance objectives. Considerations were also

given towards measuring improvements in the design of evaluation critiques.

In the Total Quality Management (TQM) course, I was introduced into a new paradigm

of management. The course incorporated all the relevant organizational behavior topics and put

them in to the perspective of TQM. Since the goals of the project were defined early on and

change was expected, I was able to force continuous improvement initiatives and efficiencies to

benefit the training program. The idea of quality control being implemented prior to bottlenecks

was realized in the program plan. Much of what the Baldridge criteria advocate was also present

18 Allen Cunniff: 16

23

in the redesign of the course. Since TQM is a long-term approach, the years ahead will

determine the success of this initiative.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Noe, Raymond A. “Employee Training and Development” (Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw Hill, 1999).

2. Silberman, Mel “Active Training: A Handbook of Techniques, Designs, Case Examples, and Tips” (New York: Lexington Books, 1990).

3. Craig, Robert L. “The ASTD Training and Development Handbook: A Guide to Human Resource Development” (New York, NY: Magraw-Hill, 1996).

5. Burrow, Jim “EAC 786 Methods and Techniques of Training and Development” (NC State University Distance Learning, 1999).

6. Reimer, Dennis J. “Developing Great Leaders in Turbulent Times,” Military Review (January-February 1998): 4-12

7. Reimer, Dennis J. “Army Values” Military Review (January-February 1998): Insert

8. Cunniff, Allen “Leader Development in the ROTC: Aids to designing the On-Campus and Camp Program” (Fort Lewis, WA, July 2000).

9. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Field Manual 22-100: Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do” (Washington D.C., 1999).

10. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Field Manual 22-100: Training the Force” (Washington D.C., 1988).

11. Headquarters, Department of the Army, “Field Manual 22-101: Battle Focused Training” (Washington D.C., 1990).

12. Headquarters, Cadet Command, “Leadership Development Program Handbook” (Fort Monroe, VA, 1999).

13. Headquarters, Cadet Command, “Cadet Command Regulation 145-3: Precommissioning Training and Leadership Development” (Fort Monroe, VA, 1996).

14. Headquarters, Fourth ROTC Region, “Cadre Reference Guide” (Fort Lewis, WA, 1999).

15. Headquarters, Cadet Command, “Cadet Command Circular 145-00-3: ROTC Advanced Camp - Cadre Information” (Fort Monroe, VA, 2000).

24

TAC Staff SchoolRevised

Program of InstructionCD

25