If you could start over with your Platoon Sergeant
The CC/PL Team asked “What would you do different if you could start your relationship over again with your Platoon Sergeant or a new one?”
I had five PSGs in my time as an LT, so I had many “start overs.” There’s a lot that could be said, but here’s a short list of what I think is most important to building a positive PL-PSG relationship:
Platoon Leader Response:
1. Demonstrate that you respect his/her experience and value his/her input on your decisions.
2. Talk regularly, but also conduct formal written initial counseling and quarterly counselings. Be clear in your expectations of each other.
3. When he/she tests your authority (and it will happen), hold your ground but do so with respect. Do everything you can not to ever “show up” your PSG in front of the Soldiers.
At one time or another, I failed at each one of these, and my relationship with my PSG paid a price. When I learned to get these right, a lot of good things followed.
Good luck!
Platoon Leader Response:
To add my own input, my relationship with my PSG was also rocky. We were together for 14 months and I didn’t have a chance to make it right. If I could have done it differently, I would have done everything Pete mention and…
1) Establish a sense of duel ownership in the platoon. Make it clear that you care about the success of the Platoon and can’t make it so without his/her wealth of experience.
2) Talk Talk Talk. All the time. Communication is huge and the flow of communication will put out brush fires before they even start.
Platoon Leader Response:
Let him know right off away that you’re a team and you will always have his back. Communication always helps make this easier, and providing clear and definable goals and a vision and direction for where you would like to see the Platoon go.
One thing my PSG and SLs appreciate is their involvement in the decision making and planning for the Platoon. I develop a plan and have them help conduct recons to confirm the plan or we adjust fire as needed. Either way, they feel a better connection to our mission and are more enthusastic when it comes time to execute.
Platoon Leader Response:
I would have definitely given my PSG a “piece of the pie” so to speak. I had a somewhat poor relationship with my PSG. He didn’t put much effort into his job and didn’t care too much about the platoon. Instead of holding his feet to the fire and giving him some ownership of the platoon (so that he could also own our failures), I somewhat pushed him aside and did everything myself. Definitely the wrong answer!
Platoon Leader Response:
A simple tip that is not the be all end all is any event that is for both of you i.e Troop Training meeting, LPDs, and so on make sure you two sit together. It sounds kind of weird, but there will be an urge to sit with the other LTs you are friends with, but you are a team and sitting together is an easy way to demonstrate this. Also if you have a question or issue you are not sure about you quietly talk to each other before bringing it up to the group. The PL/PSG are a team and its the little things that can a long way with a more experienced NCO that wants to look at it as such.
Ironically, I am executing this right now. I started with one PSG, we consolidated from 3 to 2 platoons for mobilization, and then expanded back to three with a new PSG. Now I’m getting my original PSG back. Some of the key points I have (or am agreeing with from previous posts) are:
1) Pour everything you feel is important into your initial counseling. If you can get this done on time, and written/delivered well, it goes a long way. I didn’t do this well as a brand new 2LT out of BOLC the first time, but enjoyed a much better relationship with my 2nd and 3rd PSG’s.
2) Communication. Communicate about everything. The advice about sitting together is sound. As I got better, my PSG knew everything I was up to. What was my intent, what were my suspenses, where would I be if away from him, what I would want done if I had more time. The more I included my PSG (and SL’s), the better they were able to save me from myself. Fresh perspective, a re-evaluation of effective time-use, and a chance to explain my actions before the critics could deliver their versions of my actions to the platoon audience were all benefits I enjoyed.
3) Ownership. It helps with unity of command when one person owns something. The team thing is great (and see point 4), but some tasks don’t need two supervisors. Usually it sorts itself out, but sometimes I wanted to shake it up and we had to develop the habit of identifying an owner of every task so I could shake it up without causing confusion. PMCS was normally my PSG’s lane, but sometimes I had to come in and teach (2404’s, PLT maintenance board for deadline equipment).
4) Teamwork. For the rest of your career, and your PSG, we’re going to be working in teams with a counterpart. I like to talk about why that’s the case in big Army terms, and then figuring out how we’re going to make it work. I was big on us answering everything as a team. The 1SG might call the PSG, but the Platoon Leadership Team answers the question or performs the task. Relating to point #3, I wanted to be sure we made decisions as a group (or at least in a group setting with feedback opportunities).
5) Involvement vs Attention. Explaining how I defined these terms paid HUGE dividends for me. I didn’t do it with my first PSG, but I did with my second and on. Explaining that just because I’m not personally involved with something doesn’t mean I think it’s unimportant. If I stay out of Sensitive Item checks, it’s because I have confidence in your ability to do it. If I didn’t, I’d be involved. Also, suspenses are suspenses. Depending on the PSG I was working with, we would split up tasks differently. PMCS was important, but one of my SL’s works full-time for Surface Maintenance. We got more mileage with him supervising PMCS and me building retention papwerwork. I was willing to leave the most important task in someone elses hands to go meet a less important requirement elsewhere (it was still a requirement).
