Barracks Observation | "You Love This Place, and This Place Loves You Back"

"Old Self" (老己), Tell Your Story

■ Li Xingyou, Cui Haohao

[Photo caption: A certain regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region conducts live-fire shooting in unfamiliar terrain. Photo by Cui Haohao]

Summer. The barracks of the training detachment of a certain regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region. No lectern, no slides—the political instructor simply grabbed a stool and sat down in the middle of the soldiers. Dozens of people sat in an irregular circle around him; some cross-legged on the ground, some leaning against training equipment. The atmosphere was relaxed and easy.

"'Love your old self' (爱你老己) roughly means treating yourself as a dear old friend—with kindness and care." The political instructor got straight to the point. "Today we're not here for a class. Let's just talk about these four words—talk about something you think you've done particularly well."

After a brief silence, Sergeant Cui Peng'an spoke first: "I train during the day and stay up at night editing videos. I feel it's really meaningful to document my comrades' stories."

Staff Sergeant Second Class Zhao Kun pulled a notebook from his pocket, held it up, and gave it a wave. "Eight years. Every time I crawled under a vehicle to fix it, I wrote down the type of fault, the basis for my diagnosis, and the repair result. Every time I fixed a fault and the armored vehicle roared back to life, I felt completely at ease."

Staff Sergeant First Class Xiong Can has worked in the cooking squad since he enlisted. Researching new dishes, adjusting flavors over and over—he never minds the trouble. "The stove is my battle station. When I see everyone clean their plates, I'm really happy." His voice was soft, his cheeks faintly flushed.

Staff Sergeant Second Class Chen Cheng picked up the thread: "I like studying field survival subjects. In the last exercise, the group I led was the first to find a water source. I felt like my skills had actually come in handy."

Sergeant Xie Feifan said: "I use my rest time to study new equipment and have written several sets of reflections. I want to sharpen my skills and do more for the unit. Every time I figure out a new operating technique, I feel a real sense of accomplishment."

More than a dozen soldiers spoke in turn—some impassioned, some speaking quietly. The political instructor listened carefully, occasionally jotting a few notes. He noticed one detail: almost every soldier, while speaking, would unconsciously glance at the comrades beside them, as if checking whether they would be laughed at.

The political instructor asked everyone to anonymously write down one sentence: "The one thing I most want to be recognized for." The slips that came back were all over the map: "I sewed buttons back on for a new recruit three times." "I compiled years of real-world experience into a tactical pocket guide." "When a comrade was troubled, I took the initiative to go over and offer comfort, to ease the bad mood." …

The story session ended. The political instructor's notebook was filled with several pages—a list packed with the soldiers' contributions: the repair notebook kept under vehicles, highland recipes, self-composed instructional mnemonics, explorations in cross-specialty training… Every single item represented genuine, concrete effort.

But the more the political instructor looked, the more unsettled he felt. He held the list in his hands and thought back over the unit's current criteria for commendations and awards, and kept feeling that something didn't line up. The soldiers' contributions were real and tangible, yet in the system's forms, it seemed no space had been left for these contributions.

A glance at the commendation and award lists from the past two years reveals the problem. Heavy machine gun specialist instructor Staff Sergeant First Class Zhang Xiaokang, on top of his teaching duties, took the initiative to study image and video production software. The instructional courseware he produced was commended by the detachment on multiple occasions—yet these "extra" contributions had no corresponding entry in the evaluation criteria and were rarely mentioned when it came time for awards. Staff Sergeant First Class Bai Chang is an automatic rifle specialist instructor who also enjoys studying military physical education instruction and regularly uses his rest time to research scientific training organization methods. When the military physical education specialist instructor was away for study or leave, he stepped in voluntarily and earned unanimous praise from officers and soldiers alike—but at the year-end summary, all of this was glossed over in a single stroke.

The political instructor read through the slips one by one, then said to the detachment leadership beside him: "Which one of our soldiers isn't outstanding? They've honed their strengths to the utmost and actively contributed to the collective. The question is: does our evaluation system actually see these strengths?"

That night, the Party committee members held a meeting that ran until the early hours of the morning. An idea began to take root: let every soldier who "loves themselves" (爱自己) be seen.

---

"You Love This Place, and This Place Loves You Back"

■ Wang Jing, Li Xingyou, Cui Haohao

[Photo caption: The training detachment of a certain regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region conducts heart-to-heart talks during breaks at a highland training site. Photo by Cui Peng'an]

Why Are "Hidden Contributions" Overlooked?

Staff Sergeant Second Class Zhao Kun's story is representative. Over eight years of repairing vehicles, his notebook holds hundreds of fault records—every one of them hard-won, hands-on operational experience.

"He's not putting on a show. He genuinely loves to think things through and dig deep." Deputy Detachment Commander Liu of the training detachment of a certain regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region said: "Once, a piece of equipment broke down and the technicians all shook their heads. He took the equipment apart and checked the wiring one line at a time. In the end he successfully identified the hidden fault and repaired the equipment."

Yet because vehicle repair is not the training detachment's primary mission, Zhao Kun's "extra" contributions were rarely mentioned in past commendation and award processes.

The confusion felt by reconnaissance specialist instructor Staff Sergeant First Class Li Gang is even more widespread. As the detachment's "teaching ace," he trained more than a hundred students during his four years in the post and developed a "mountain squad tactics teaching method" that was promoted across the entire regiment. A soldier he trained earned a third-class merit citation, and a comrade joked with him: "The soldiers you trained have all earned citations—when are you going to earn one?"

Li Gang smiled and said nothing, but the remark set him thinking further: training tasks are certainly important, but he had used his spare time to innovate teaching methods and independently write instructional materials—could that effort be reflected somewhere on the ledger of contributions?

As a "field military school" (随营军校), the training detachment primarily undertakes specialized tasks such as pre-promotion command sergeant training courses, specialist backbone rotation training, and new equipment trial training. "These 'hard tasks' receive attention from higher levels and are tied to performance metrics, so the detachment Party committee's energy is naturally focused there. But there are also people who use their rest time to develop new teaching methods and independently tackle equipment innovation… Do these 'extra' contributions count as contributions?" A company-level political instructor gave voice to what everyone was thinking.

"Their passion and effort need to find a landing point in the 'score' of evaluation," the political instructor said. "This isn't about being mercenary—it's the simplest form of recognition."

In the view of the detachment Party committee, the training detachment's long-standing evaluation system has been somewhat one-dimensional—it seemed as though only winning competitions and achieving excellent marks on training assessments counted as accomplishments, while "hidden contributions" in certain posts were easily overlooked.

Over time, many people found that the hundreds of painstaking entries in their maintenance notebooks had no corresponding entry on the evaluation form; the new teaching methods they had developed in their spare time attracted little attention…

The political instructor said something at the detachment Party committee meeting that was recorded verbatim in the meeting minutes: "Every person carries a fire inside them. We are not here to judge whether that fire should burn—we are here to find ways to help it burn brighter. The evaluation system is the 'accelerant' (助燃剂)."

Letting "Diverse Growth" Be Seen

Consensus reached—but how to change things? The detachment Party committee decided to start with a baseline survey. They sorted and categorized the soldiers' individual strengths: those tackling equipment maintenance, those developing innovative teaching methods, those providing cross-specialty instructional support, those exploring new equipment operations… A thick "baseline ledger" gave the Party committee its first comprehensive view of the highlights hidden beneath the "average score."

"We cannot measure everyone with a single ruler." The detachment Party committee held multiple consecutive discussion sessions and ultimately resolved to reform the evaluation model, introducing a "strengths-contribution point system" (特长贡献积分制)—bringing contributions directly linked to combat effectiveness, such as instructional research and development, technical innovation, competition coaching, cross-specialty mentoring, and new equipment instructional breakthroughs undertaken by officers and soldiers on their own initiative, into a quantified evaluation system, to serve as a reference basis for commendations and awards, sergeant selection and promotion, and Party membership and academic study consideration.

Each item carries a defined point value, scored jointly by one detachment leader and two backbone representatives, and posted monthly on the detachment affairs public notice board. What everyone did and how much they did is visible to all.

The digitized instructional tutorial on new equipment operations that Sergeant Cui Peng'an produced was warmly received during its trial use in the training detachment and was recommended for study across the entire regiment. That same month, his name appeared on the points rankings board. The day the rankings were posted, Cui Peng'an shared a message on his social media: "Those late nights weren't wasted…"

The recipe formulas and research notes written by Staff Sergeant First Class Xiong Can were compiled into materials and promoted across the entire unit. Last month, he was recommended for the "Outstanding Cook" commendation. Xiong Can told his comrades afterward: "Never thought the little things at the stove could make the list—feels good!"

After the story session, Staff Sergeant Second Class Zhao Kun ran up to the political instructor clutching his well-worn record book and said: "Political instructor, these are all my fault-repair notes—can you recommend them to everyone?" After deliberation and discussion, his notes were soon photocopied and bound into volumes, formally incorporated into the training detachment's teaching archives, and distributed to all officers and soldiers in the detachment.

The detachment also introduced "diverse growth files" (多元成长档案), dividing officers' and soldiers' growth paths into three directions: command and management, specialist technical skills, and strengths contributions. Zhao Kun's "number of faults cleared," "technical innovation results," and "number of personnel mentored" were written into his "diverse growth file," carrying equal weight with his troop-leading experience.

Recently, a "chassis rapid diagnostic tool" developed by Zhao Kun was awarded the regiment's "Outstanding Innovation Award," worth 8 points. Combined with his fault-clearing count and mentoring results, his total score ranked near the top. Due to his outstanding performance, he was rated "Good" in this quarter's "Four Haves" (四有) outstanding soldier evaluation.

Learning to Apply "Strengths-Based Evaluation" (长板评价)

"The incentives now are reflected not only on the honor board, but in the overall positive and upward atmosphere." The political instructor said that after the system had been in place for some time, certain changes had quietly taken shape.

In the most prominent position in the training detachment's corridor hangs a "Strengths Contributions Board" (特长贡献榜), listing officers and soldiers who have contributed to the detachment's specialist instruction, technical breakthroughs, and combat-effectiveness building over the past six months. Beside each person's photo are written their strengths and contributions.

The multiple instructional improvement projects Li Gang led and the training aids he independently developed earned him multiple rounds of added points, placing him near the top of the quarterly point evaluations on multiple occasions. "Instructional innovation contributions" have been incorporated as an important reference in the annual commendation and awards process.

Instructor Yang Changsiu drew on years of training organization experience to compile a complete "quantifiable teaching evaluation system" (可量化教学评估体系), which not only enables newly promoted instructors to get up to speed quickly but also provides the detachment with a tool for assessing the quality and effectiveness of instructors' teaching. This set of standards has been formally adopted by the detachment as a reference benchmark for evaluating instructors.

Company Commander Wang developed a "training data auxiliary analysis system" (训练数据辅助分析系统) that enables one-click chart generation on the existing training statistics platform, providing support for training situation analysis and lesson plan adjustments. This system has recently been upgraded into a smart office assistant promoted across the entire regiment.

Tactics instructor Staff Sergeant First Class Xu Jingdong led a cross-specialty joint teaching reform and developed an "arms branch teaching cross-training method" (兵种教学交叉培训法)—introducing multi-specialty knowledge modules covering maintenance, communications, and reconnaissance into pre-promotion command sergeant training courses, strengthening future command backbone personnel's integrated thinking and multi-skill awareness of the overall situation. After trial training, this teaching method produced significant results, and the experience has been reported to higher-level authorities.

A specialist backbone soldier mentored by Zhao Kun recently placed second in the repair specialty at a higher-level professional competition. When that soldier stepped up to receive the award, he said: "The person I'm most grateful to is Instructor Zhao Kun from the training detachment. There's one thing he said that I've never forgotten—the deeper you dig, the farther the armored vehicle runs."

The political instructor told this reporter that they conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey with the question: "Has the team seen my contributions?" Before the "strengths-based evaluation" (长板评价) was implemented, the agreement rate was just over 40 percent; after the system had been in place for some time, that figure rose to over 80 percent. Another question—"Am I willing to develop long-term in my current post?"—saw its agreement rate rise from just over 50 percent to around 80 percent as well.

From individual soldiers willing to use their remaining energy to temper themselves and illuminate others, to an institutional innovation that gives every strength a chance to be displayed—this is an achievement of mutual pursuit. The political instructor said: "Young people are willing to keep refining themselves in their own posts. Can that passion be seen by this collective? We have tried to respond through institutional means—as long as it contributes to combat effectiveness, we will walk alongside you on the road to leveraging your own strengths, helping you plant your feet firmly and stand your ground."

As the interview was drawing to a close, the latest edition of the "Strengths Contributions Board" had just been updated. Beside Cui Peng'an's photo, a special notation read "Quarterly Strengths Star." Zhao Kun had also made the board; beside his photo was a line of text: "Staff Sergeant Second Class. Has cleared hundreds of faults in total. Has mentored five technical backbone personnel." After Xiong Can's name was the notation: "Developer of highland special-supply recipes. Officer and soldier satisfaction rate 98%. Rated the unit's sole 'Stove Vanguard' (灶台尖兵)."

In the lower right corner of the "Strengths Contributions Board," someone had written lightly in chalk—no one knows who: "You love this place, and this place loves you back."

This simple sentence is perhaps the most direct response the training detachment's officers and soldiers have given to "love your old self" (爱你老己).

---

I Made the "Strengths Contributions Board"

■ Staff Sergeant Second Class Yang Changsiu

When I was mentoring new instructors, watching them agonize over their lesson plans, I always felt anxious for them. The truth is, I went through the same thing myself: veteran instructors would say "listen more, practice more," but after listening I still didn't know where my gaps were; they'd say a class was "well taught," but I didn't know what made it good; they'd say "it still needs work," but I didn't know where to start.

Over time I realized that the teaching tradition of the training detachment cannot rely solely on "word of mouth." How veteran instructors teach, how new instructors learn—everyone has their own "approach." This creates a problem: "the good can't be explained clearly, and the bad can't be articulated clearly." Good experience doesn't get preserved, and it doesn't travel far.

I thought about how to "make sense of the teaching business." For a single class: was the preparation thorough enough? Was the delivery clear? Did the students understand? Did they take something away afterward? … List out these stages one by one, assign an evaluation point to each stage, and new instructors can look at it and know where their weaknesses are, while veteran instructors mentoring students have something to reference.

During that period, I led training during the day and worked overtime at night to compile the teaching process. I'd finish one draft, feel it was wrong the next day, and start over from scratch. For the single stage of "classroom management" alone, I revised it more than ten times—when to follow up with a question, when to demonstrate, how to judge whether students have understood—every detail had to be thought through completely. Sometimes at night I'd be lying in bed and suddenly have a new idea, and I'd get up and write it in my notebook.

My thinking in doing this was simple: if this knowledge stays only in my head, and one day I get transferred or demobilized, the people who come after will have to start from scratch all over again.

After the detachment introduced the "strengths-contribution point system," my set of materials was formally adopted as a reference benchmark for evaluating instructors. Seeing my name posted on the corridor's "Strengths Contributions Board," I felt completely at ease. Not because I made the board, but because I felt that all the time I'd spent thinking through these things—the detachment found them useful, and they can help the new instructors who come in.

Now, when I mentor new instructors, I no longer rely purely on experience. Instead, I go through that set of standards item by item—how is classroom management? How is the teaching effect?—it's all immediately clear. New instructors are progressing faster, and I feel more confident too.

---

PLA Daily, Page Five Editor in Dialogue with the Political Instructor of the Training Detachment of a Certain Regiment of the Xinjiang Military Region——

There Is a Science to "Scoring" Soldiers

Editor: How were the point values for the "strengths-based evaluation" determined?

Political Instructor: These standards were not decided by our leaders on a whim—they were sorted out one by one from the soldiers' own lists of contributions. We divided their "strengths" into several categories: one category is instructional research and development, such as the teaching evaluation method Yang Changsiu compiled; one is technical innovation, like the chassis diagnostic tool Zhao Kun developed; one is mentoring and skills transmission, such as who has mentored someone to the point of independent competency. Then we assigned points accordingly—for example, an instructional video promoted at the regimental level is worth 5 points, a technical innovation result is worth 8 points, and mentoring one person to competency is worth 4 points. How were the point values set? We held several discussion sessions. The general view was that these things genuinely took thought and effort, and the point values should reflect the relative size of the contribution to the collective. Put plainly: give every strength a "price tag," and that "price tag" is one everyone puts on together.

Editor: How do you ensure the scoring is fair?

Political Instructor: There is a science to "scoring" soldiers. Fairness cannot rest on words alone—it requires institutional safeguards against loopholes. We implemented "three disclosures and one oversight" (三公开一监督): First, the point-value standards are posted on the notice board at the start of each month—everyone knows from the outset what contributions can earn points that month and how many; Second, when scoring any given contribution, it is not decided by any single person—one detachment leader and two backbone representatives score together under their real names, with the scores tallied on the spot; Third, the monthly point ledger is fully disclosed—what everyone did, how many points they earned, who gave what score and why—all of it is visible to everyone. In addition, after posting there is a three-day objection period: if you think a score is too high or too low, you can appeal, and the detachment will re-verify. Doing it this way effectively places the scoring authority under everyone's eyes—the organization is subject to oversight, and officers and soldiers accept it. At the start, some people suspected it was going through the motions, but after the first posting, when someone raised a question, we immediately pulled out the records and verified and explained on the spot. No one has questioned it since.

Editor: How do officers and soldiers evaluate this system?

Political Instructor: We used an anonymous questionnaire to take stock, and the rising agreement rates speak to everyone's attitude. But more telling than the numbers are the genuine thoughts of the officers and soldiers themselves—Xiong Can put his head down and worked at the stove for more than ten years; after making the "Strengths Contributions Board" this time, he told his comrades, "feels good"; Zhao Kun's notebook was incorporated into the archives, and he tells everyone he meets, "never thought the detachment would actually treat it as a treasure." The soldiers themselves summed it up in one sentence: "You love this place, and this place loves you back." I think that is the best evaluation of the system.