Is LAMS now a mandatory requirement for all E-5s? I know you have to take LAMS to make E-6 after January 1, 2009 but what for paygrade E-5?

In order to compete for E6 you must be a graduate of LAMS effective 1 January 2009. So that means take it while you can either as an E5 or E4. Remember LAMS is targeted for E5's and O1's and 2's.

Also, it is good for only 3 years. I took it in May 2004 and I have to take it again in order to be eligibile to take the SWE in May 2009. You have to have it within 3 years of 1 Jan 2009.

quote:

Originally posted by knelson3956:
Also, it is good for only 3 years. I took it in May 2004 and I have to take it again in order to be eligibile to take the SWE in May 2009. You have to have it within 3 years of 1 Jan 2009.

Please cite your source.

What this requirement means for Reservists is that in order to qualify for the October 2008 SWE you have to have completed LAMS by July 1st, 2008 which is when you have to meet the requirements to sit for the SWE. A big challenge for a good number of people. I sincerely hope our active duty teammates are up to doing the LAMS training on weekends, and being flexible with the training dates. Elsewise, this will turn into another crap sandwich we are going to ask some of our folks to swallow. Possibly some online training and study, followed up with a two day seminar during a drill weekend would get it done?

Artic;
I have different hopes. I hope that leaders on both the AD and CGR side learn to read ALCOASTs very carefully before making direct statements. I hope when they read "...BEGINNING WITH THE MAY 2009 SWE AND THE OCTOBER 2009 RESERVE SWE, COMPLETION OF THE LAMS COURSE WILL BE MANDATORY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE E-6 SWE..." in ALCOAST 256/07 that they can tell the difference between the symbol representing the number EIGHT and the one representing the number NINE!

Next after that - the leaders and members take in to account ALL of the requirements needed for a member to PROOVE they deserve an OPPURTUNITY to COMPETE against their PEERS for the LIMITED advancement slots available. Proper use of all types of training time for the CGR workforce will clearly limit to some extent the need for weekend classes. Flexibility on the part of the CGR member is as important as it is for anyone else, maybe more so. It is the CGR member whose bank account will have the very direct benifit of an advancement. We have no responsibility to make things easier on a member, AD or CGR, to meet the requirements. We have a responsibility to make sure they are achievable, not easy.

Speaking of what I know,

There is talk of working a weekend course for reservists and Auxiliarists. Online training doesn't work as there is a requirement of time you must spend in the classroom to get the ACE credit. Also, a major part of the course is interaction and working as a team as well as role plays. You can't get that type of instruction online even if you use webcams and voip.


To help reservists and auxiliarists, as well as our civil employees, LAMS is on the road where we come to your unit upon request and budget premitting and we teach at your unit.

For Auxiliarists by the way, three slots of every class are open to just auxiliarists, so it would be nice if we could fill them.

Hope this information helps.

All of that said, becuase it is now an advancement requiremnt, the JOs, the AUXies and the Civilians are a lower priority now. E-5s and 'senior E-4s' must be priority one now. For everyone else, this is just 'nice to have' info. Hopefully we never say 'no space' to an E-5 or even an E-4 if there is even one single person not an E-5 or E-4 in the course. That would be a significant problem that the Silver Badge side should shot up through their Gold Badge chain.

You are correct that the target audience and priority are the second class petty officers, however, every effert is being made to accept anyone who wants to take the course.

I say the slots for Auxiliarists because in the six months I've been teaching I have only had one Auxiliarist in my class. I can also say that if you are voluntold to go to the course, you get out of it what you put in.

It is NOT touchy feeling training. While I won't say too much about how the training course is conducted, and I would ask those who have gone through the new training course to not say anything either, it isn't what one would expect.

Semper Paratus,

Mighty,
Rather than go with the wise a$$ comments about my ability to read, how about you talk to the folks that put out the ALCOAST.

"COMPLETION OF LAMS WILL BE MANDATORY FOR ALL ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE E-5 SEEKING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADVANCEMENT TO E-6 EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2009. BEGINNING WITH THE MAY 2009 SWE AND THE OCTOBER 2009 RESERVE SWE, COMPLETION OF THE LAMS COURSE WILL BE MANDATORY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE E-6 SWE."

Read literally, the first sentence contradicts the second. You response clarifies, so thanks. But I, like many other Reservists, have been bent over more than once over the years by different interpretations of policy. The first sentence above states "For advancement to E-6 effective January 1st, 2009" which if referring to the advancement itself means a Reservist would have had to take the October 2008 SWE, and would have had to met the requirements for it by July 1st, 2008. I do agree with you that the next sentence clarifies the policy. Unfortunately for me I got briefed on this by a fellow Chief and failed to read the message myself carefully. My bad, it is not the first time he has left me out on the plank by myself with my foot in my mouth and getting chastised for not being able to read by a MC! One day I will learn!

The main point of my post is that flexibility will be required to complete this requirement. To ask a person to schedule their annual active duty around a LAMS class is not realistic or reasonable. The annual training is many cases is not flexible and is needed to maintain certifications. My idea of an online class with a two day weekend wrap up is good, and should be seriously considered. I have faith the CG will do the right thing. As leaders we can only ask people to eat a crap sandwich a limited number of times.

This is the one I read, should have gone to the ALCOAST referenced here. It tends to confuse if you only read this message.


R 011701Z NOV 07 ZUI ASN-A05305000067 ZYB
FM COGARD TQC CHESAPEAKE VA
TO AIG 8996
AIG 4902
BT
UNCLAS //N01500//
SUBJ: SOLICITATION FOR LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
(LAMS) RESIDENT COURSE
COMDTNOTE 1500
1. TRACEN YORKTOWN WILL HOST A LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
SCHOOL (LAMS) RESIDENT CLASS THE WEEK OF 10DEC07. LAMS IS A
UNIQUE 5-DAY COURSE WHICH DEVELOPS LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS
FOR DIRECT SUPERVISORS AND MID-LEVEL LEADERS THROUGH AN EXPERIENCE-
BASED CURRICULUM. AS STATED IN ALCOAST 256/07, LAMS HAS BEEN
INCLUDED AS A PERFORMANCE BASED REQUIREMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT TO
FIRST CLASS PETTY OFFICER (E-6) AND IS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO
STANDARDIZED LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR MEMBERS PREPARING TO ASSUME
SUPERVISORY POSITIONS. COMPLETION OF LAMS WILL BE MANDATORY FOR
ALL ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE E-5 SEEKING ELIGIBILITY FOR ADVANCEMENT
TO E-6 EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2009. ALL SUCCESSFUL GRADUATES OF THE
LAMS COURSE WILL EARN 3 UPPER-LEVEL COLLEGE CREDITS IN
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.
LAMS FOCUSES ON THE LEADING OTHERS LEADERSHIP COMPENTENCIES. TOPICS
INCLUDED IN THE
COURSE ARE:
A. LEADER'S PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
B. MOTIVATION
C. STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
D. TEAM ACTIVITIES
E. LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATIONS
F. PERFORMANCE PROBLEM SOLVING
G. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
H. ETHICAL FITNESS
2. TARGET AUDIENCE: E-5. ELIGIBLE AUDIENCE: E-6, 0-1 TO 0-3; GS-7
TO GS-11, WG 5 TO WG-10, WL-5 TO WL-10,RESERVES; AUXILIARISTS. E-4S
WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WITH PRIOR APPROVAL FROM
THE LDC STAFF. PRIMARY CONSIDERATION FOR ATTENDANCE WILL BE BASED
ON GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF LAMS ROADSHOW.
3. COMMANDS SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT:
A. THE MEMBER MUST BE PRESENT FOR THE ENTIRE COURSE. A MEMBER
NOT COMPLETING THE ENTIRE COURSE WILL NOT GRADUATE.
B. THE MEMBER MUST BE COMMITTED TO THIS TRAINING AND NOT BE
INVOLVED IN OTHER UNIT ACTIVITIES. HOMEWORK AND READING
ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE GIVEN EACH NIGHT.
C. MEMBERS SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED LAMS TRAINING WITHIN THE
LAST THREE YEARS.
4. CLASS WILL CONVENE ON MONDAY 16NOV07 PROMPTLY AT 0800.
5. UNIFORM IS TROPICAL BLUE LONG UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED.
6. COMMANDS ARE TO ENSURE ATTENDEES ARE WITHIN THEIR MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE WEIGHT STANDARDS IAW PARA 2.I OF COMDTINST
M1020.8(SERIES).
7. SUBMIT ELECTRONIC TRAINING REQUEST USING DIRECT ACCESS. COURSE
NUMBER IS 340720. A MESSAGE REQUEST IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE.
SEE TQC’S WEB SITE
HTTP://WWW.USCG.MIL/HQ/TQC/DOCUMENTS/INITIAL%20REQUEST.DOC
SUBSTITUTIONS MAY NOT BE MADE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM TQC.
8. SUBMISSION DEADLINE IS 16NOV07.
9. POC: REGARDING APPLICATION IS RENEE ARNOLD 757-366-6585 OR
EMAIL RENEE.ARNOLD(AT)USCG.MIL.
10. POC: REGARDING COURSE CONTENT IS MSTC SHIPPERLEY, TEL
(757) 856-2535 OR EMAIL JONATHAN.SHIPPERLEY(AT)USCG.MIL.
11. INTERNET RELEASE AUTHORIZED.

Artic,

If you have taken LAMS, then you understand there are situations used in the class that are hard to reproduce online. While the reading assignments can be done online, the time requirement of classroom instruction required by ACE, the role plays, and group and team excersizes can not be duplicated outside a classroom envirement.

There is a training course for all LAMS instructors this FEB where I will make sure to make your voice heard. In the meantime I am sure that those policy makers I.E. the school chief who I know well is giving such concerns their full attention.

Your concerns are very valid, and are importent not only to reservists, but also Auxiliarists. While those would say it isn't importent for the volunteers, the leadership gained benifits the whole Coast Guard so steps should be and from what I know about all LAMS staff at the LDC are being taken to maxumize the exposure of LAMS to all Coast Guard employees.

I hope this helps.

P.S. try reading ALCOASTS in braille <grin>. BTW have we met, you said something on another that explanes me very well.

So will there be a slowdown on advancements because there won't be enough billets for everyone to attend? If I remember there were never enough billets available for the CPO Academy. Imagine the cost for airfare, lodging, messing, per diem...

Are these valid concerns for today's Coast Guard or am I missing some exportable training going to the Sector level?

kb,
Good points, thanks for listening. I have not taken LAMS. During my career in business I took, taught and designed a number of leadership classes, in addition to helping create a Leadership Development Program for new managerial hires. You are right, there is so much that needs to be done in class. We used online chatting, video conferencing, videos, and reading to get to those folks who could not attend classes, or when we needed to roll something out fast. Some of our most important training done in the CG is done through mentorship programs. Perhaps there are a few ways to at least address the short term issue of getting people ready for the 2009 SWE cycle, then back to a more normal routine going forward from there?

Nobody,
Keep in mind, I just joined the team last march, so my information isn't complete. I do know that there are 28 instructors and 10 Auxiliarists assigned to the LAMS cadrey. Between the road shows and academy onsight courses we are trying to reach as many as possable. spaces are always a concern, but I know everyone is working as hard as is possable to get as many through as possable. Let me also add that this is not a "leadership mille" in that no corners are being cut to short sheet anyone's training.

Steps will be taken to always improve the prosess, but I won't know more until FEB when I go to the T3 course. Anyone wanting the most up to date information can always go to www.cga.edu/ldc or contact the leadership development center directly and ask to speak with the LAMS school chief. She is very very busy, but will try to sort out any concerns you may have.

I hope to see you in class.

AUX Dittman

Robert,
I spent a long time in Texas. Stations Freeport, Sabine, and Texoma, Group Galveston, and MSO Houston. My last four years prior to being recalled after 9/11 was at PSU 308 in Gulfport. In Boston since 1/2002, just got assigned to the BMCM billet at PSU 301 after almost six years at Group, now Sector Boston. My favorite Auxiliary types down your way are Bill and Diane Williams up on Texoma. They lead a great group of dedicated folks.

I think that what we all need to be concerned about is that the CG is making training "mandatory" while not increasing the compensation for the training. We are still at 48 IDT's and 12 ADT days per CY
(unless you at at PSU). This is a "part-time" gig for Reservists. Even suggesting reservists to take such training for non paid IDT or using up thier ADT for LAMS is not appropriate. We need to stay together and fight for change of policy to keep up with the times.

CoccoC;
The compensation for the training is that you will be ELIGIBLE to COMPETE for MORE MONEY for every drill, and if you get that far, Retirement. I may be misreading your post, but there seems to be a little whiff of entitlement in there. Now - I wouldn't suggest a POLICY that requires it to be done on a non-pay, non-drill status, but you know what, If it is something that can advance a persons career, then I would suggest that they take a little bit of personal time, to make themselves better and improve their chances of suceeding. The reserves are not a different service. A reserve E-6 should be defined by the same paramaters as an AD E-6. With a very few exceptions, like sea time and OinC Certs, they are. The proper use of a reservists ADT is a matter for leadership here. Remember the two significant parts of training and advancement - rating based and military based. Advancement is not a right or entitlement! It is something earned through completion of requirements. To play Devils Advocate, a person could argue that reserves have a HUGE advantage becuase of the minimal time in grade requirements in their 'part-time' world (your words) compared to the relevant experienced gained in the AD full time world.

Arctic - we pretty much agree that their needs to be flexibility, we might be off just a little on where the most bending needs to be done. I seriously doubt you have really been bent over much in your career. You are a Senior Chief Petty Officer. You have accomplished something that less than 4 out of every one thousand people who go through Cape May do. You are very well rewarded with great drill pay and will get a nice little retirement check. You also have some benifits and exceptions you recieved by being on the reserve side. As you know, in your particular rating, the definition of an AD E-8 and a CGR E-8 is more different than any other rating. There is good reasons for that! Putting the AD requirements on a reservist would be overwhelming for someone in your rating. This isn't the story on the LAMS side.

In my job, I knew about this plan long before it was approved. The overwheling demmand from all involved, especially the MCPO-CG was that we were able to provide reasonable access to the training for our people without making any undue hardships or making this a significant show stopper to advancements. Leaders out there - you need watch this carefully. You need to make sure your people know the scoop, you need to make sure THEY put forth a reasonable effort to ensure THEIR advancement, and then you need to make sure that they have a reasonable oppurtunity to complete it.

Mr Hecht: A vast majority of this will be done via exportable, within local commute. Special care will be taken to ensure the more isolated folks will indeed get it. As far as your question about an advancement slow down - I personally will put money on YES, their will be a slowdown. That will be nearly 100% on the members plate. EVERY TIME we change advancement requirements, no matter how much we advertise it, a certain percent just don't listen or prepare! The switch from MRN to EPME is agreat example. The first SWE (or two) that the EPME became the requirement, the numbers were way down. Why? Becuase people procrastinated or thought a bit to highly of their knoweldge or simply didn't choose to look into what the new requirements were. People went to take the E-8 EPME exam and hadn't done the performance factors. If they had done them, they didn't look at the knowledge factors. If they had, they didn't take it seriously studying wise and failed to pass the test in time. We took that into account too and choose an implementation to 'to be eligible to compete' when we did. Should be MORE than enough time to get it done.

MC

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mightyz90_93,

quote:

I think that what we all need to be concerned about is that the CG is making training "mandatory" while not increasing the compensation for the training. We are still at 48 IDT's and 12 ADT days per CY
(unless you at at PSU). This is a "part-time" gig for Reservists. Even suggesting reservists to take such training for non paid IDT or using up thier ADT for LAMS is not appropriate. We need to stay together and fight for change of policy to keep up with the times.

I am no expert, but I would venture to guess that most reservists and commands will have no problem working LAMS into the paid 48 IDT or 12 days of ADT (which can be extended to 15 days). The "T" in IDT and ADT is for "Training." It's just a different kind of training (and it's considered "formal" training too). I think it's appropriate for ADT-AT. LAMS just needs to be worked into the unit reserve training plan.

Well said sir!

I guess a lot of folks confuse the purpose of XDT with ADSW.