Discussion Board Post
I need 2 replies to discussion board posts
As an Operation Sergeant Major (OPS SGM) or Command Sergeant Major (CSM), your role in the training management and leadership development process is critical. The OPS SGM focus is on their organization’s training management, while the CSM focuses more on leader development. The CSM or OPS SGM is not only responsible for the areas mentioned above, but must also focus on both training management and leadership development. According to FM 7-0, the noncommissioned officer corps’ primary responsibility is “individual training of Soldiers, crews, and small teams” (Department of the Army, 2016, p. 17). While this is true at the troop level, the OPS SGM is responsible for developing and implementing its training plan for the entire Squadron.
Training management starts with clear published training guidance; this guidance should include the commanders’ guidance, the operational environment, units, personnel strengths and weaknesses, and the training environment (Department of the Army, 2016). The OPS SGM will assist the Units operations officers developing the training and leader development guidance (TLDG). The TLDG provides subordinate units with guidance on conducting training and leader development for the training year. The CSM will provide valuable input on leadership development within this guidance, while the OPS SGM will focus on the training aspect.
Leader development is essential for organizations to grow. The CSM and OPS SGM play a vital role in the development of leaders within their organizations. Leadership development applies to enlisted Soldiers but officers as well. The CSM and OPS SGM are the most senior enlisted personnel within an organization and the most experienced. When developing a leadership development program, one must include all three development domains, which include institutional, operational, and self-development (Department of the Army, 2012). Any leadership development program’s end goal must be to develop leaders that can lead training and ensure their units are ready for all required missions. The basic principles that has been taught throughout the ages within the United States Military is to train as we fight. This means the units must attempt to replicate the complex and uncertain operational environments in training that the unit will likely face in combat and other operations (Department of the Army, 2019).
As an SGM/CSM you are tasked with ensuring that the Soldiers throughout your command are ready. Ready to engage, ready for war, ready to lead, and ready to follow. The basic principles of training are 1) Train as you fight 2) Train to standard 3) Train to sustain and 4) Train to maintain (Department of the Army, 2019).
One of the most important abilities to possess is speaking and to groups of people. To build the motivation amongst the team, CSM/SGM need to have the basic skills of speaking and informing people of by way of intellect, motivation, and enforcement. CSM/SGM need to have a hand in or at the very least provide a presence in ensuring that the planning, preparation, execution, and assessment of the information has been put out and understood by all members (Department of the Army, 2014).
Understanding the training management list and how to accurately account for each level is important the overall unit. Having a sense of understanding the proficiency ratings to ensure you are reporting the correct information and training on any deficiencies
The proficiency ratings are as follows: T is fully trained (complete task proficiency), T- is trained (advanced task proficiency), P is practiced (basic task proficiency), P- is marginally practiced (limited task proficiency), U is untrained (cannot perform the task) (Department of the Army, 2016). ***PLAGIARISM FREE***
***PLEASE WRITE IN ACTIVE VOICE***
DB Post Response # 1
In a minimum of 200 words, please provide a response to the post below, with at least one cited source. Please only use the military sources provided and one outside source if using more than one cited source.
Note: Rubrics attached.
RUBRICS.pdf
Form 1009C
Contribution to Group Discussion Assessment
Levels of Achievement
Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary
Quality and
Scope of
Posted Content
0 to 5
points
No or
irrelevant
discussion
participation.
6 to 8 points
Initial posting is
not on topic;
the content is
unrelated to
the discussion
question; post
demonstrates
superficial
thought and
poor
preparation. No
depth in
response to
classmates;
response does
not relate
directly, either
conceptually or
materially, to
classmate
postings.
9 to 11 points
Initial posting
demonstrates a
lack of
reflection and
answers few
aspects of the
discussion
question;
Development
of concepts is
not evident.
Provides
questionable
comments of
fails to offer
new
information to
other posts;
Responses do
not promote
further
discussion of
topic.
12 to 14
points
Initial posting
demonstrates
legitimate
reflection and
answers most
aspects of the
discussion
question; full
development of
concepts is not
evident.
Provides
relevant
comments and
new
information to
other posts; not
all responses
promote further
discussion of
topic.
15 to 17
points
Initial posting
reveals a clear
understanding
of all aspects
of the
discussion
question; uses
factual and
relevant
information;
demonstrates
proficient
development of
concepts.
Demonstrates
understanding
of other posts;
extends
discussion by
building on
previous posts
and offering
perspectives.
18 to 20
points
Initial posting
demonstrates a
thorough
understanding
of all aspects
of the
discussion
question; uses
factual and
relevant
information
from scholarly
sources;
demonstrates
full and
insightful
development of
key concepts.
Demonstrates
critical analysis
of other posts;
extends
meaningful
discussion by
building on
previous posts
and offering
alternative
perspectives.
Collaborative
Communication
Skills
0 to 5
points
No or
irrelevant
discussion
participation.
6 to 8 points
Rarely
provides useful
ideas when
participating in
group
discussions.
Does not
effectively
engage with
classmates by
acknowledging
and accepting
other points of
view. Publically
critical of the
work of others.
Often displays
unproductive
communication
that instigates
a negative
response
rather than
promotes
collaboration.
9 to 11 points
Rarely
provides useful
ideas when
participating in
group
discussions.
Publically
critical of the
work of others.
Rarely displays
a positive
narrative.
Rarely shares
with and
supports the
efforts of
others.
Sometimes
causes undue
tension or
issues in the
discussion
forum.
12 to 14
points
Usually
provides useful
ideas when
participating in
group
discussions.
Rarely
publically
critical of the
work of others.
Often displays
a positive
narrative.
Usually shares
with and
supports the
efforts of
others. Does
not cause
undue tension
or issues in the
discussion
forum.
15 to 17
points
Routinely
provides useful
ideas when
participating in
group
discussion.
Never
publically
critical of the
work of others.
Always
displays a
positive
narrative.
Regularly
shares with
and supports
the efforts of
others.
Maintains a
productive and
collaborative
discussion with
classmates.
18 to 20
points
Always
provides
creative ideas
when
participating in
group
discussion.
Supports the
work of others
while keeping
discussion on
topic. Always
displays a
positive
narrative.
Regularly
shares with
and supports
the efforts of
others. Leads
a productive
and
collaborative
discussion with
classmates.
Critical and
Creative
Thinking
0 to 5
points
No or
irrelevant
discussion
participation.
6 to 8 points
Demonstrates
a lack of
proficiency in
conceptualizing
the problem;
viewpoints and
9 to 11 points
Demonstrates
limited or poor
proficiency in
conceptualizing
the problem;
viewpoints and
12 to 14
points
Demonstrates
developing
proficiency in
conceptualizing
and providing
15 to 17
points
Demonstrates
considerable
proficiency in
conceptualizing
the problem
18 to 20
points
Demonstrates
mastery in
conceptualizing
the problem
and presenting
Name
Description
Rubric Detail
Page 1 of 2
Levels of Achievement
Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary
assumptions of
experts lack
analysis and
evaluation;
conclusions
are either
absent or
poorly
conceived and
supported.
assumptions of
experts are not
sufficiently
analyzed,
synthesized,
and evaluated;
conclusions
are either
poorly
conceived and
supported.
context to the
problem;
viewpoints and
assumptions of
experts are not
sufficiently
analyzed,
synthesized, or
evaluated;
conclusions
lack clear
rationale.
and presenting
appropriate
perspectives;
viewpoints and
assumptions of
experts are
accurately
analyzed,
synthesized,
and evaluated;
conclusions
are logically
presented with
applicable
rationale.
logical
perspectives;
viewpoints and
assumptions of
experts are
superbly
analyzed,
synthesized,
and evaluated;
conclusions
are logically
presented with
detailed
rationale.
Reference to
Supporting
Sources
0 to 5
points
No or
irrelevant
discussion
participation.
6 to 8 points
Does not refer
to assigned
readings or
other sources;
fails to cite
properly and/or
cites
questionable
sources.
9 to 11 points
Refers to
questionable
sources.
Attempts to cite
sources with
major
deficiencies in
citation format;
fails to use two
or more
sources in
initial post.
Fails to use
any source in
response to
classmates.
12 to 14
points
Refers to
scholarly
sources from
assigned or
outside reading
and attempts to
cite sources
with few
deficiencies in
citation format;
fails to use two
or more
sources in
initial post.
15 to 17
points
Refers to and
properly cites
scholarly
sources from
assigned or
outside reading
and research
with two or
more sources
cited in the
initial post and
at least one
source cited in
response to
classmates.
18 to 20
points
Refers to and
properly cites
recent and
relevant
scholarly
sources from
assigned or
outside reading
and research
with two or
more sources
cited in the
initial post and
at least one
source cited in
response to
classmates.
Style and
Mechanics
0 to 5
points
No or
irrelevant
discussion
participation.
6 to 8 points
Writing
contains
numerous
wordy, vague,
or poorly
constructed
sentences.
Frequent
instances of
grammar,
spelling, and/or
punctuation
errors.
9 to 11 points
Writing
contains few
wordy, vague,
or poorly
constructed
sentences.
Occasional
instances of
grammar,
spelling, and/or
punctuation
errors.
12 to 14
points
Writing
displays a
developing
sense of
academic
writing with
structurally
sound
sentences.
5-10 errors in
grammar,
spelling, and/or
punctuation.
15 to 17
points
Writing
displays a
proficiency of
academic
writing with
clearly written
and structurally
sound
sentences.
Less than 5
errors in
grammar,
spelling, and/or
punctuation.
18 to 20
points
Writing
displays a
mastery of
academic
writing with
clearly written
and structurally
sound
sentences. No
errors in
grammar,
spelling, and/or
punctuation.
Assignment
Requirements
-31 to -31
points
One or more
posts
contain
plagiarism.
-15 to -15
points
Failed to meet
assignment
requirements
and one or
more
submissions
after due date.
-10 to -10
points
Failed to meet
assignment
requirements.
-5 to -5 points
One or more
submissions
after due date.
0 to 0 points
Met all
requirements.
0 to 0 points
Met all
requirements.
Page 2 of 2
