I have been reserving my thoughts during the first week of the Master Resiliency Training Program in an attempt to receive a full and objective view of the program, its true potential and our expectations. After the first full week the course I have mostly positive views of the course but I do have some questions and concerns which I’m not sure if we as a force are anywhere close to answering.
My overall thoughts about the program are that I believe the program is necessary, useful and relevant to everything Soldiers do. I believe our military can find usefulness whether it’s normal daily interaction with fellow Soldiers and family members or dealing with out of the ordinary Soldier issues. I am one of the few that volunteered to attend this course as opposed to be selected. I volunteered because I believe it is long overdue that we put resources toward our total fitness instead of just telling Soldiers they needed to be better “whole” people. I wanted the chance to be a part of the beginning of actual action and effort. I am very passionate about our ability to care for Soldiers allowing them to care for their families and to serve our country and its people. Therefore I find myself just as passionate about this program and its ability to help us take care of our Soldiers.
I have begun using the life tools consciously and subconsciously from day one of the training. I have used them within the last 24 hours when talking with family members. I have used it to dissect conversations I have had with loved ones over the last few months. I realize how I could have better communicated my thoughts and feelings and how the other person might have been thinking and feeling. I have personally seen a marked improvement in relationships with my family and peers. I’ve noticed a better understanding and a more clear view of the other person’s thoughts, feelings and actions. The improvements in only a week make me very optimistic.
We have begun discussing how authenticity is needed to teach the tools to others and actually reach your audience. It all comes down to caring for Soldiers and other people. We as teachers must be authentic to ourselves but mesh our thoughts with what is authentic and tuned to the receivers. I think the best thing about this course is that we are being taught how to teach this course. Instead of teaching us, presenting us with certificates and sending us forth to do great things. We are first taught how to use the tools within our lives and professions. Then in separate modules we are taught what to teach and how to teach it and finally given the opportunity to practice teaching it. During this module we are taught what tools must remain the same and what for example can be changed to fit my authenticity and my audiences
The major questions and concerns I currently have are: What is going to be the unit level requirement for training. I am wary of the belief or at least the current omission of the requirement that units will not have to provide evidence of training and that no metric will be used to gauge if it is being completed and received at unit level. Once a metric is decided on and published along with the requirement to provide training evidence as I believe it will be, it will then be added to the training schedule at a required frequency. Will that frequency be quarterly, annually, etc?
I am also curious to know how master trainers will remain certified over time. For instance, 2 years from now will I have to be pulled from my unit to certify my knowledge on the tools of resiliency? Will I have to take an online certification test/course? How will changes, upgrades to tools and advances in the science be pushed to the master trainers? One of the positive things about this course is that it isn’t taught by only military instructors. There is a mix of both military and civilians within the same large and small group sessions. The civilian instructors and facilitators bring a fresh viewpoint that helps us, even if only briefly, to break from military cultural beliefs that many times constrict our viewpoints.
Another concern is that not surprisingly some of the military facilitators have begun training leaders within their units with the expectation for them to train their soldiers; which, I understood was not the intention of the certified masters. This makes me wonder if the Army has already begun straying from the intended use of the program. We are being taught to use the tools provided and taught how to teach the tools we have learned. But do not have a program in place have our certified Army trainers to train future trainers to teach these tools, at least not within this training course.
I realize that the idea was to push what we have to the field and worry about the rest of the particulars later. But I find these issues to be paramount to the continued life of the program. This is an incredible breakthrough by our senior leaders to recognize the importance and to resource the program. But if we disregard the importance of realizing we are not at the “train the trainer” knowledge level yet then we risk losing Soldiers to the disruptive changes to the program and losing current buy in from Soldiers here for this course. The questions of how to best implement training, maintain trainers and sustain Soldier buy in are tough but necessary questions. But the risk of getting them wrong could do more harm than good to the program and more importantly to the well being of our Soldiers.
MAJ Ronnard Green, Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
