# PERs : All issues questions...2018-current



## sailoraye123 (2 Feb 2018)

Hey guys,

                        I've been asked to write my div notes as well as my per for practice is there anywhere I can look or can someone help me with this process??


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Mar 2018)

I'm having an issue getting the MOS files installed on my home laptop.  I am away from the motherland right now and am hoping to get my PERs drafted.

- before I left, I installed CFPAS with no issues on my Win7 laptop.
- a few days after I got here, my laptop died so I bought a new one at the NEX.  It has Win10 on it...everything works except I can't get the MOS files to download.  I keep getting the error in the pic below. 

I verified I had the right stuff in the right places IAW...

Instructions for updating CFPAS MOS files after installation of CFPAS on a personal computer 
After the installation of CFPAS on your home PC is completed, you may set up CFPAS to automatically download any new MOS files from the CFPAS internet web site each time it is launched. Use the following procedure to set up the automatic download.
Launch the CFPAS program. 
Select the “tools” menu from the toolbar and then select “options”. 
Click on the “URL” tab in the popup window. 
The second text box in the window entitled “Internet URL”. In that text box, type in the following address: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp 
The third text box in the window entitled “Updates URL”. In that text box, type in the following address: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/doc
Ensure that there is only one check mark in check box next to “check for MOS updates at start up”. 
Click the “apply” button. 

Anyone else have this issue recently or on a Win10 machine?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm having an issue getting the MOS files installed on my home laptop.  I am away from the motherland right now and am hoping to get my PERs drafted.
> 
> - before I left, I installed CFPAS with no issues on my Win7 laptop.
> - a few days after I got here, my laptop died so I bought a new one at the NEX.  It has Win10 on it...everything works except I can't get the MOS files to download.  I keep getting the error in the pic below.
> ...



Could it be because of the DWAN address you have in the intranet location?


----------



## kev994 (9 Mar 2018)

I got the same error on win 10 after I updated CFPAS, I vaguely remember something about the update wanting an encrypted storage device so I assumed it had to do with that. I was only using the word picture so I didn’t really look into it much.


----------



## garb811 (9 Mar 2018)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Could it be because of the DWAN address you have in the intranet location?


That's exactly what it is.  Used to have that problem in the Embassy because the DFAIT system wasn't connected to DWAN.  I could still manually input the MOSID info as I was filling out the rest of the tombstone info though so it was no biggie.


----------



## brihard (9 Mar 2018)

Question- I am an NCO in a PRes unit. I have a couple soldiers on 89 day Cl Bs externally. I have been told that those Cl B employers are expected to do the PERs for these soldiers, with me to provide input. That doesn't seem to jive with what's in the CFPAS help file (Ch1 104.3)- as the 'parent unit' I thought we did that. I'm understandably getting some uncertain noises from the other supervisor, and I don't blame them one bit. Anyone have a policy reference at hand to cover this situation? One or the other of us is going to need to be able to go to our leadership and say 'here's what's supported by policy'. The most recent CANFORGEN 010/17 on PERs references the help file, so I take it that the help file carries some authority.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Mar 2018)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Could it be because of the DWAN address you have in the intranet location?



I don't think so....there's nothing in their install steps that mention that.  I did the exact same process on this Win10 laptop as my now-dead Win7 one......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Mar 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> That's exactly what it is.  Used to have that problem in the Embassy because the DFAIT system wasn't connected to DWAN.  I could still manually input the MOSID info as I was filling out the rest of the tombstone info though so it was no biggie.



Hmmmm.  I can't enter MOSID info at all, I think it auto-fills that field from the drop down menu to the left of it.


----------



## jitterbug (26 Apr 2018)

Can an OCDT sign a PER as a Supervisor?  Also, what is the reference for this?

Thanks!


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2018)

jitterbug said:
			
		

> Can an OCDT sign a PER as a Supervisor?  Also, what is the reference for this?


The reference is the CFPAS help file.  In the chapter describing how to complete the PER, you will find instructions on who can sign for each section.


----------



## 63 Delta (24 May 2018)

If a member is injured while participating in the FORCE Test, and is unable to complete the test afterwords due to TCAT, what should there PER say for the fitness test portion?

I feel it falls under the Not Tested category as the member was unable to complete the test to things out of his control. 

From CFPAS - Not Tested: A person was not tested for any reason with the exception of a medical category that covered the entire reporting period. Comment must be made in the narrative.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2018)

Oh man, I just saw this again. ;D

60 pages going back to 2003!!  

I'm so glad they're making it easier  

I'm also glad I'm retired.


----------



## Gunner98 (26 May 2018)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> If a member is injured while participating in the FORCE Test, and is unable to complete the test afterwords due to TCAT, what should there PER say for the fitness test portion?
> 
> I feel it falls under the Not Tested category as the member was unable to complete the test to things out of his control.
> 
> From CFPAS - Not Tested: A person was not tested for any reason with the exception of a medical category that covered the entire reporting period. Comment must be made in the narrative.



Not Tested Bullet, then use part of one of the precious 9 lines of the performance text to state that "an injury occurred during Force Test prevented completion during reporting period".


----------



## 63 Delta (27 May 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Not Tested Bullet, then use part of one of the precious 9 lines of the performance text to state that "an injury occurred during Force Test prevented completion during reporting period".



Thanks for the reply. It took a lot of digging, but we finally found the same answer. It's just unfortunate that the people who are supposed to know never seem to know, and give the wrong advice.

In this instance, went out of their way to change a members PT result from Not Tested to Failed.


----------



## Gunner98 (27 May 2018)

If I were the member in this case I would be more content with a Not Tested and an explanation than a Failed with no explanation, if the injury was beyond my control.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 May 2018)

With the extra room in the box, it'd be nice if the 'not tested' lines didn't count as part narrative.  It'd be easy enough to drop a hard return after and put in the mandatory bit to explain that they were injured.  Maybe that would be a helpful suggestion to send into the good idea fairies?  Would be an easy and minor change that wouldn't hurt anyone else, and actually apply a bit of common sense to the PER process.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2018)

Pretty sure this is the last year, or one of the last years for the PER in its current form. All the RUMINT I've heard is that narratives will be completely gone, so unless there's more options for PT than currently listed, you won't be able to explain why the member wasn't tested.


----------



## Mediman14 (4 Jun 2018)

Here I go again!!!
   Every year for the last 4 years, my PER had been written by a officer who has never did any PER's. I have requested to meet common ground 3 out of the 4 years, and have gotten what I deserved with some compromising involved. It gets very frustrating having to face this over and over again!
  I have been delegated on three separate occasions as A/CSM for a total of 1 month, received emails stating - "Good Job, etc". Somehow, those never make it on my PER. When asked, The response I got " I didn't think it mattered because you are not an CSM". One would think, this would be great under section 5 (Potential).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2018)

I think it should be included.

504. Section 3 - Details of Employment/New Qualifications

1.  Official Appointments/Duties. List the primary duties assigned to and performed by the person throughout the reporting period.   Primary duties assigned while away from the parent unit must be included. Abbreviations and job titles may be used. Duration for particular duties may be noted by parenthesizing the number of months (e.g. (3))

506. Section 5 - Potential

1.  General.  ....Potential assessments are ratings of the individual's ability to perform at the next rank level. Reviewing officers must use the potential factors and rating scale in Section 5 when evaluating the subordinate's potential. A description of the potential factors (PFs) and rating scale is contained in annex B of this chapter. Where possible, these evaluations should be based on observations made of the person when performing tasks or jobs normally performed at the next rank.

 :2c:


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jun 2018)

An acring position (as in when your boss is away, you fill in for him) doesn't belong to section 3, but certainly does in Section 5.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> An acring position (as in when your boss is away, you fill in for him) doesn't belong to section 3, but certainly does in Section 5.



Depends.  If you backfill for your boss for several months, it should be in part 3 as well, so the members of the board can say "Whoa, this dudette or dude was working at what would normally be the next rank level"; with the 9 line limit, sometimes details like that can get lost in from the narrative.


----------



## Lumber (5 Jun 2018)

It can go in section 3, and again in either 4 or 5 (and potentially in 4 AND 5). Basically, if he just did it once, it should go in section 4, but if it is something he is regularly relied upon to do, it can go in section 5. I mean, really you can argue it either way, it's just in how you word it.

Section 3:
Platoon 2ic (10), A/CSM (2)

Seciton 4:
"Performed duties of A/CSM in their absence; adeptly manged numerous complex disciplinary issues."

Section 5:
"Performs often as A/CSM in their absence, providing Command with regular SITREPS on coy personnel; Command is well informed of the status of the coy, and is able to accurately plan and coordinate unit trg and exercises. "

Or something like that.


----------



## Mediman14 (5 Jun 2018)

A/CSM on three separate occasions, for a total of close to 1 month. That is two ranks above what I currently am, but yet I am developing. Four years in rank.


----------



## IceBlue (5 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It can go in section 3, and again in either 4 or 5 (and potentially in 4 AND 5). Basically, if he just did it once, it should go in section 4, but if it is something he is regularly relied upon to do, it can go in section 5. I mean, really you can argue it either way, it's just in how you word it.
> 
> Section 3:
> Platoon 2ic (10), A/CSM (2)
> ...




I read that as ineptly managed, which describes many people.

 ;D


----------



## TCM621 (6 Jun 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Here I go again!!!
> Every year for the last 4 years, my PER had been written by a officer who has never did any PER's. I have requested to meet common ground 3 out of the 4 years, and have gotten what I deserved with some compromising involved. It gets very frustrating having to face this over and over again!
> I have been delegated on three separate occasions as A/CSM for a total of 1 month, received emails stating - "Good Job, etc". Somehow, those never make it on my PER. When asked, The response I got " I didn't think it mattered because you are not an CSM". One would think, this would be great under section 5 (Potential).



Hey, my potential went down despite being in my third year of an A/ job and being selected for promotion off last year's Per. Somehow my potential is less this year than last year. I have yet to see any changes that positively affect the member vice the people writing it.


----------



## Mediman14 (14 Jun 2018)

I witness today a Nursing Officer telling a Cpl that her MH illness was a negative point in her PER. Because the Cpl did not tell the officer her MH struggles, it showed a flaw in her character. I was pissed at the officer and waited till the Cpl had left before I strongly expressed my thought on that approach. Turns out that I was also wrong, at least according to a Nursing Officer.
   Imagine, this is suppose to be a Medical Professional. I can't imagine what the NO thinks about other severely injured MH Mbrs.


----------



## Mediman14 (14 Jun 2018)

I should also add to my last, receiving a good job by an email for doing a task is apparently not the same thing as a Bravo Zulu (BZ). According to the English dictionary it is the same, only one is more formal than the other.


----------



## Lumber (15 Jun 2018)

If found that we hire NOs and MOs for their technical/medical skill, and not for their leadership skill. I can't believe the lack of basic management, administration and leadership accumen I've seen from medical det commanders.

I've literally had to quote to them their own medical leave policy to prove to them they were wrong about how much sick leave they could grant.


----------



## garb811 (15 Jun 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I witness today a Nursing Officer telling a Cpl that her MH illness was a negative point in her PER. Because the Cpl did not tell the officer her MH struggles, it showed a flaw in her character. I was pissed at the officer and waited till the Cpl had left before I strongly expressed my thought on that approach. Turns out that I was also wrong, at least according to a Nursing Officer.
> Imagine, this is suppose to be a Medical Professional. I can't imagine what the NO thinks about other severely injured MH Mbrs.


If the NO is the members chain of command, which it reads like the NO is since the NO didn’t have access to her medical file to access that info directly, the NO has no more right to that information than I would as a non-MH supervisor. Your medical category or MELs also cannot be used in that manner to directly justify a lower score on a PER simply because the supervisor wasn’t told the specifics of the medical problem. 

The Cpl should request a meeting with her next level in the CoC in a further attempt at informal resolution and specifically address that being brought up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jun 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If found that we hire NOs and MOs for their technical/medical skill, and not for their leadership skill. I can't believe the lack of basic management, administration and leadership accumen I've seen from medical det commanders.
> 
> I've literally had to quote to them their own medical leave policy to prove to them they were wrong about how much sick leave they could grant.



Lumber: This is not limited to the military. Civilian doctors and most nurses are totally useless at basic management or administration ... and don't even get me started on their leadership.

I should know: Two doctors in my immediate family.  ;D


----------



## brihard (15 Jun 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lumber: This is not limited to the military. Civilian doctors and most nurses are totally useless at basic management or administration ... and don't even get me started on their leadership.
> 
> I should know: Two doctors in my immediate family.  ;D



The world, generally, needs platoon warrants. In pretty much any enterprise or profession, you need some cranky, snarly people who've seen and dealt with way too much stupid BS and who have developed an innate ability to simply be effective and take care of stuff. Who can tactfully but firmly deal with superiors, and who can inspire, motivate, discipline, break down, mentor, and build up subordinates without breaking stride.

I think part of the problem is that in the CAF must necessarily use rank for pay grades, and consequently assigns further leadership / managerial tasks to people who wear a rank simply out of necessity to pay them equitably.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jun 2018)

I fully agree, Brihard.

Perhaps you remember the days when Padres, while wearing an officer cut uniform and belonging to the officer's mess, did not wear any rank on their uniforms, and worked on the principle that they "assumed" the rank of whomever they were talking to - so they would never be senior or subordinate to anyone in their "flock", so to speak.

So here's an interesting question. Is there any real requirement, in the CAF, for the NO or MO to actually hold a rank, other than being considered officers? I mean, if we are not going to train them properly or expect them to assume leadership, then does specific rank really matter or could we give them a separate pay scale (which they already have anyway) without tying it to a rank structure?

I don't know the answer, I am just musing here.


----------



## Mediman14 (17 Jun 2018)

I have to agree that there is no leadership training given to NO's and MO's, however, with many things the CAF get wrong, I don't how the CAF can expect leadership coming with a person who has degree. A degree doesn't make you into a leader.
 I have worked with some awesome NO's and MO's who are great at their jobs but what makes them great is that they listen to those who experience such as Warrant or Sgt. Then you have those who "show" or pretend to listen but really don't, the automatic attitude of I'm a officer therefore I am better and know better than you. That is what I refer to as because you have a degree, it doesn't make you a leader.

 There is a place in the CAF for NO's, only in the medical aspect with regards to patient care. Otherwise the rest of the military administration should be left to others.

Given all that, is the CAF setting up some of our officers for failure? Where is the accountability? What is Accountability?


----------



## mc876898 (27 Jun 2018)

Is it normal for a PER to be significantly worse than the last one?

My last year's PER was an immediate with 11 Mastered / 5 Exceeded Standard.
The one I just got was a ready with most circles on skilled.

Does the person writing the PER need to justify why they are severely lowering my scores?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jun 2018)

No,  because they technically should have never seen last year's scores so how would they know they are lower?


----------



## 211RadOp (27 Jun 2018)

The justification for your scores would be in your PDRs you received throughout the year.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2018)

mc876898 said:
			
		

> Is it normal for a PER to be significantly worse than the last one?
> 
> My last year's PER was an immediate with 11 Mastered / 5 Exceeded Standard.
> The one I just got was a ready with most circles on skilled.
> ...



Its not that they have to justify the lowering of your scores, its that author of that PER needs to be able to provide concrete examples and justification of all scores; good, bad, improvement or decline. 

They may never be called on to express that justification but they should have it readily available. 

Your PDR to PER cycle the preferred method.  

I run my sections as follows: 

Q1:  You should have recently received your PER from the last year and now I am issuing a PDR Pt 1, 2; 
Q2:  You submit a PDR Pt 3 and 4 to us we use this in combination with our own material and issue you a Pt 5;
Q3:  You submit a PDR Pt 3 and 4 to us we use this in combination with our own material and issue you a Pt 5;
Q4:  All of the above and all our material is combined to create and issue you a PER. **This phase is usually prescribed by command**

A caveat is that in the RCN we also keep Div Notes. These are frequently updated on the performance of a sailor and reviewed annually.  

Then the cycle starts again.  

A PER should never be a surprise.  If you read your PDRs you should have a good idea of where you are going to end up.  Also a PDR also contain Pt 5c.  This is the action plan.  Upon reading it should involve a discussion with you and your superior(s) about how you and they will help you over come any areas for development you have.


----------



## mc876898 (27 Jun 2018)

If it makes any difference, it was a tour PER for a 7 month tour.
I only received one PDR half-way through the tour with only a single point to improve on.
The part that ticks me off the most was that the person who wrote it is not even deployed anymore so I can't discuss it with them. They wrote my PER and then immediately popped smoke.


----------



## MJP (27 Jun 2018)

mc876898 said:
			
		

> If it makes any difference, it was a tour PER for a 7 month tour.
> I only received one PDR half-way through the tour with only a single point to improve on.
> The part that ticks me off the most was that the person who wrote it is not even deployed anymore so I can't discuss it with them. They wrote my PER and then immediately popped smoke.



The best way to deal with this is to redress the PER as you are likely past the informal route that you can take overseas.  Having seen a number of them over the years the best redresses always addresses what the mbr wanted for all 16 AFs & 6 PFs with substantiation for each one.  That and honest self assessment are key to building a strong redress that will see success.  Ones that failed often failed to consider personal actions, failings or weaknesses.


----------



## Mediman14 (20 Jul 2018)

My frustration with the PER process or the fairness continues. I seen a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER. One bubble short of an MOI. How is that possible? I always knew that most of the system was a "who you know" system for some people. I asked to see their PDR that was done, under section 5B, all it said was "nothing major to report". I couldn't believe my eyes. The PDR was written by a 32 years serving opposite sex Military Member.

  The honest hard working soldier does not have chance!


----------



## garb811 (20 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> My frustration with the PER process or the fairness continues. I seen a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER. One bubble short of an MOI. How is that possible? I always knew that most of the system was a "who you know" system for some people. I asked to see their PDR that was done, under section 5B, all it said was "nothing major to report". I couldn't believe my eyes. The PDR was written by a 32 years serving opposite sex Military Member.
> 
> The honest hard working soldier does not have chance!


This raises questions for me as well.  

How was it you saw the member's PER?  I'm presuming you're talking about the PER that was issued this  year, which should no longer have any copies floating around the unit as it was due at the processing center long ago.  Unless there is a reason like an informal resolution going on or a grievance which means you should only be seeing it as someone involved in that informal resolution or grievance process and should be professional enough not to be doing what you just did.  

Your post also leads me to believe you aren't in their direct chain of command, where you would have been involved in writing and substantiating the PER.  You would also then have access to their PDRs without having to ask for them.  Both of those documents are designated and are only supposed to be accessed for official reasons.  Be interesting to know what you thought yours were...

I suppose the member could have trusted you enough to show their copies to you for some obviously misguided reason. If that's the case, it's sad to see that trust is misplaced because all you are using it for is to bad-mouth that member on an anonymous internet forum and implying the only reason they got the PER they did is because someone more senior and apparently much older than they are, isn't professional enough to see past the fact they are the opposite sex.

EDIT TO ADD:

And I'm going to say what I always say to a subordinate who comes to me to try to complain about what "someone else got" on their PER.  If you are so worried about your own promotion prospects that someone else's PER is an issue, stop worrying about what others are getting and start focusing on what you can do to improve your own.  

Almost every single subordinate who complained they were getting screwed over by the system on their own PER was really the one screwing themselves because they were too worried about fighting the process as opposed to understanding it and maximizing their own chances for success.  In those rare occasions when someone actually has gotten "screwed over", the ones who understand and work within the process are able to go to the informal resolution, or in the worst case a grievance, with a slam dunk.


----------



## MARS (20 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I seen a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER. One bubble short of an MOI.



That is so awesome!!  I was lucky enough to have someone like that under my Command once....I couldn't promote him fast enough!  Literally years. I (he, actually) had had to wait the YEARS required at each rank before EPZ kicked in.  I was fortunate enough to be the person to promote him one of those times and fortunate enough that he served under me for the duration of my Command.  It was a pleasure to write his PER.  You wonder why this person chose our profession to devote his talents to, and not any number of civilian careers where he would certainly be making TONS of cash, and moving up a corporate ladder much more quickly, where his talents could be better recognized and compensated for.  And you hope that person NEVER thinks the grass is greener.  Those people are rare, almost like unicorns.  And it is indeed an awesome experience to serve with and for them, isn't it??  You are SO lucky to have a person like this in your unit.  i envy you.


----------



## Mediman14 (20 Jul 2018)

Garb811,
   You are right about the assumption about the Member showing me the PDR and PER, I also showed them mine, actually I finished above that member, except with more time in rank. We both thought it was a joke and laughed at it. The conversation was about how a person received PDR's with no points for developing. 

  I was not bad mouthing them, I just have issues with the people writing them and how things are perceived. This year I was on a PER board and witness a MCpl who got promoted on MATA leave and receive a ready as well without working one day as a MCpl. One of co-workers had asked how was that possible.

 It is not one person getting screwed over, it is all of us. Could you imagine having a Snr commander with very limited years in? Experience comes with years in. Promoting people fast only hurts them in the long run. We should be developing them for the next rank not pushing them faster into that rank not prepared. That is how the honest hard worker don't have a chance.


----------



## MJP (20 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> It is not one person getting screwed over, it is all of us. Could you imagine having a Snr commander with very limited years in? Experience comes with years in. Promoting people fast only hurts them in the long run. We should be developing them for the next rank not pushing them faster into that rank not prepared. That is how the honest hard worker don't have a chance.



There are quite a few people that don't need much experience at certain levels in their careers and should be pushed to the next rank as soon as possible.  Seen it, agreed with it and helped it along when it was my dude(ette).   It shouldn't' just be done to fill spots which happens in some areas but pushing the right people along faster than the average hard worker is just good pers management IMHO.


----------



## Mediman14 (20 Jul 2018)

No doubt there is some awesome soldiers out there who have outstanding future in the CAF. In my career I have seen some outstanding soldiers get promoted fast only to fall hard, because of not being prepared, not being exposed. An example of this, one of my closest friends has an MCpl with a great work ethic and is awesome at administration as a subordinate, with a section of 13 people. Went on MATA/PATA leave, never ever did a PDR/ PER and did not know that a PDR interview was ever a thing. How do you write them up? In my opinion, they are not ready for the next rank. They are one of the many who got promoted fast. Many people are great in certain ranks, but struggle in the next rank. 
  Then we get into the debate on who's fault is it? Is the member at fault? Or is the supervisor that promoted them at fault for not preparing them? Is it the system?


----------



## garb811 (21 Jul 2018)

Mediman, you need to take a step back for a second here I think, and take a look at how you're coming across in this conversation.  

Take a read of your posts from the perspective of someone who doesn't know you. Do an honest assessment of what you've just portrayed about yourself as a leader and more importantly as a peer who someone confided in, and then re-read what I added to my post via the edit.  I think you have a bunch of growing to do before you start complaining about what is going on with everyone else.


----------



## ballz (21 Jul 2018)

I've seen plenty of people promoted to too fast and it hurts them, because for some reason there are senior leaders (commissioned and non-commissioned) who think the CAF is great at deep-selecting and "developing" people. I've seen plenty of people promoted far too slow because they weren't deep-selected and there is glut of "experienced" folks ahead of them and they just have to wait their turn. Neither is good in the grand scheme of things.

But I always find it funny when people argue about "experience." Which bubble on a PER is experience exactly? There is no bubble for experience because experience is not a skill or personal attribute. So why is experience important?

Well, I'd argue it's important because it can make you perform better and can enhance your personal attributes. In that way, to me it is a force multiplier. The value of that experience will show up in every single bubble of scoring criteria. 

But, if you multiply anything by zero... it's still zero. So no matter how much experience you have, if you're incompetent you are still incompetent and should be scored as such.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Mediman, you need to take a step back for a second here I think, and take a look at how you're coming across in this conversation.
> 
> Take a read of your posts from the perspective of someone who doesn't know you. Do an honest assessment of what you've just portrayed about yourself as a leader and more importantly as a peer who someone confided in, and then re-read what I added to my post via the edit.  I think you have a bunch of growing to do before you start complaining about what is going on with everyone else.



{going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.

That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...



			
				Mediman14 said:
			
		

> ..a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER...



But this part was a  ??? for me:



			
				Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I always knew that most of the system was a "who you know" system for some people...The PDR was written by a 32 years serving opposite sex Military Member.
> 
> The honest hard working soldier does not have chance!



MM14, that doesn't come across very professional.  What does the supervisors sex have to do with the PER?


----------



## garb811 (22 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> {going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.
> 
> That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...



It is a valid question for sure, but right now all we are seeing is one side of the story from a source with an obvious bias...

I'm not sure how that PER world is running, but in my PER world, a PER like that would require every other WO in the unit, a MWO, maybe a CWO depending on the unit, and at least a Capt to be involved in the shenanigans to pull it off if it wasn't on the up and up.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> There are quite a few people that don't need much experience at certain levels in their careers and should be pushed to the next rank as soon as possible.  Seen it, agreed with it and helped it along when it was my dude(ette).   It shouldn't' just be done to fill spots which happens in some areas but pushing the right people along faster than the average hard worker is just good pers management IMHO.



And that underlined portion is how we get into trouble with PO1/WOs and above who have tons of technical knowledge but couldn't lead a kindergarten class in a rendition of the wheels on the bus with any marked degree of success. 

I have seen examples of golden children who rise to fast then end up crashing when they discover they actually have to look after their people first and not themselves.  One in particular comes to mind, as the member deployed and was repatted 3 weeks later because he crumbled under the weight.  It lead to him leaving the CAF at around the 15 year mark. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> {going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.
> 
> That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...



I think this has allot to do with how we inflate PERs so much and the poor wording that was chosen.  E.g. Developing, Ready and Immediate.  I am of the opinion that we should be promoting predominantly from the ready group with the immediate being few and far between. 

Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.



So good he didn't even have to show up to work regularly, apparently.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.



There is an entire chain of command that failed in that situation...  :facepalm:

But yes, we're terrible at inflating PERs. It takes 1 supervisor at 1 unit to allow someone who the entire trade knows is substandard to make a formation merit board before 1st year pers are given immediate promotion recommendations. We also fail ourselves by not allowing a person to be skilled in performance but have outstanding potential, or vice versa. Promotion recommendation dot should be a total score, not just rely on potential. Hopefully the new PER system will fix that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So good he didn't even have to show up to work regularly, apparently.



In his defence he was pretty sheepish about it and points to it in humor; and as an example of how we have made a mockery of our personnel evaluation system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There is an entire chain of command that failed in that situation...  :facepalm:
> 
> But yes, we're terrible at inflating PERs. It takes 1 supervisor at 1 unit to allow someone who the entire trade knows is substandard to make a formation merit board before 1st year pers are given immediate promotion recommendations. We also fail ourselves by not allowing a person to be skilled in performance but have outstanding potential, or vice versa. Promotion recommendation dot should be a total score, not just rely on potential. Hopefully the new PER system will fix that.



Exactly 100% on point.  There is no reason your performance and potential have to match.


----------



## MJP (22 Jul 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And that underlined portion is how we get into trouble with PO1/WOs and above who have tons of technical knowledge but couldn't lead a kindergarten class in a rendition of the wheels on the bus with any marked degree of success.
> 
> I have seen examples of golden children who rise to fast then end up crashing when they discover they actually have to look after their people first and not themselves.  One in particular comes to mind, as the member deployed and was repatted 3 weeks later because he crumbled under the weight.  It lead to him leaving the CAF at around the 15 year mark.



I have found that the number of people people that succeed while being pushed as fast as possible exceeds the folks that crash and burn.  There will always be natural attrition, people may be excellent at one rank but not succeed at the next right away.  It is then up to the CoC to guide and mentor them.  Some people will have the ability to push through, others not so much.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> I have found that the number of people people that succeed while being pushed as fast as possible exceeds the folks that crash and burn. There will always be natural attrition, people may be excellent at one rank but not succeed at the next right away.  It is then up to the CoC to guide and mentor them.  Some people will have the ability to push through, others not so much.



What qualifies as success ?  I am of the opinion that we do a piss poor job of actually maturing, mentoring and growing leadership.  Instead we assign leadership a course code and give someone the title of leader for having passed that course. 

Speaking for my own trade, Sup Tech, we have consistently promoted people because they are capable technicians.  Unfortunately this account for almost SFA the further you get away from the LS/Cpl rank.  

On my previous ship I had an Army MCpl who had been in rank 4 years.  And that was his first time having subordinates.  Yup, a 4 year MCpl who had never even written a PDR let alone go through the whole process, and first time leading anyone other than himself.  Its not his failure, its ours as a trade and leaders.  We let him get to this position.  Hell I know WOs in my trade that honestly think EPZ means expected promotion zone and couldn't understand why they weren't MWOs in minimum time. 

Speaking only on the knowledge I have of my trade I strongly feel we promote too fast, and we do not place enough emphasis on leadership. 

MJP I think we have to agree to disagree.


----------



## MJP (22 Jul 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What qualifies as success ?  I am of the opinion that we do a piss poor job of actually maturing, mentoring and growing leadership.  Instead we assign leadership a course code and give someone the title of leader for having passed that course.
> 
> Speaking for my own trade, Sup Tech, we have consistently promoted people because they are capable technicians in my trade.  Unfortunately this account for almost SFA the further you get away from the Cpl rank.
> 
> ...



I agree with you that generally right now the Sup Tech trade is pretty weak and is as you describe.  I am certainly not talking about them when I talk about pushing the right people through.  Although I have seen it happen for a few, they are far and few between in my experience with the Sup Trade.  I generally find the Sgt/PO2- MWO/CPO2 is fairly weak with your description of EPZ example being rampant.  Lots of excellent junior leaders coming up though, been impressed with the younger state of the trade.  However the problem is they don't have great leaders above them to develop them properly.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Jul 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> I agree with you that generally right now the Sup Tech trade is pretty weak and is as you describe.  I am certainly not talking about them when I talk about pushing the right people through.  Although I have seen it happen for a few, they are far and few between in my experience with the Sup Trade.  I generally find the Sgt/PO1- MWO/CPO2 is fairly weak with your description of EPZ example being rampant.  Lots of excellent junior leaders coming up though, been impressed with the younger state of the trade.  However the problem is they don't have great leaders above them to develop them properly.



I really can't argue with anything you have said above.  I think its an honest and blunt critique of my peer group in general terms. 

Slight correction for you the RCN equivalent of Sgt is PO2 not PO1.  PO1 = WO to the Army and RCAF folks.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2018)

I think part of the solution is already happening: streaming technical trades into leadership/technical senior positions. A lot of the CWO Sigs positions are being dropped to MWO as they are purely technical in nature and do not need the leadership/clout of a CWO rank to accomplish. I'd like to see us extend technical MWOs with more IPCs so we can get the benefit of their technical expertise without clogging up the succession planning boards.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jul 2018)

Some of those are occupational structure issues.  A healthy occupation requires a pyramid - so there's no constant rush to fill the next level, regardless of who's ready.  If you have 55 Sgts and want 50 WOs, almost every Sgt will become a WO.  (Add in the reality of higher attrition rates at higher ranks due to increased age and Years of Service, and the pressure can become greater).

For example, Int Op used to have a rank structure that wanted more MCpls than Cpl/Ptes; more Sgts than MCpls; and more WOs than MCpls.  So there was little to no time for development; a PER reading "Has a pulse" could see someone promoted (Note: This is a joke.  Barely).  The recent restructure created a more balanced structure that permits more time in rank and avoids constant panics to make someone "the next", ready or not.


----------



## Mediman14 (23 Jul 2018)

I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.

Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true! 

I swear this stuff only happens in my trade!


----------



## garb811 (23 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
> I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.
> 
> Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true!
> ...


While theoretically it is possible to see a low performing/high potential PER, it is unlikely.  The whole point of the potential portion is to try to forecast if someone is able to effectively perform the duties of the next rank level.  If they are unable to perform at a level above most of their peers in their current rank, it is going to be almost impossible to substantiate a high score in potential.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> While theoretically it is possible to see a low performing/high potential PER, it is unlikely.  The whole point of the potential portion is to try to forecast if someone is able to effectively perform the duties of the next rank level.  If they are unable to perform at a level above most of their peers in their current rank, it is going to be almost impossible to substantiate a high score in potential.



I think what you are really expressing is the current situation of abuse and misuse of our PER system and their scoring methods.  

Performance can hinge on many things.  And it is not indicative potential.  If you are writing a PER for a new MCpl, who was also accelerated to Cpl previously,  has performed excellently their whole career but know has only say 3 months in rank is it wrong to say they have a high potential to succeed at the next rank while still learning the ropes of their new rank ?   

That MCpl is not in EPZ and still has 2-3 years to express performance while still maintaining the potential to succeed at higher ranks.   

What about the reverse where performance is high, but the member lacks the potential to succeed at the next rank ?  This would fall in line with the technical Cpl who is great at their primary function but does not hold the qualities to lead people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Performance can hinge on many things.  And it is not indicative potential.  If you are writing a PER for a new MCpl, who was also accelerated to Cpl previously,  has performed excellently their whole career but know has only say 3 months in rank is it wrong to say they have a high potential to succeed at the next rank while still learning the ropes of their new rank ?



I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.   :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.   :2c:



Don't forget EPZ is going to hold people in rank for at the very least minimum time, then they join in competition with their peers where many many other factors come into play.  Could not their performance grow over the years to match a steady outstanding potential ?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2018)

Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".

Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.

Yes on the steady potential thing.  The problem I see, particularly in my trade at the MCpl level right now, is people are getting promoted faster than they should be or the wrong people are being promoted for the wrong reasons and then it becomes obvious the promotion was too early.

Overall, I see a NCM/NCO corps who is weak in things like admin, GSK, the 3 Ds, etc ; if we promote these people too fast without time to grow, we will only suck that lack of knowledge into the Sgt and WOs/Petty Officer world as well (actually it has already happened...but we can mitigate it some...I hope).


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".
> 
> Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.
> 
> ...



Ya I am not arguing that this is correct COA more that it can happen and it is reasonable to expect such. 

Nothing guarantees ones performance in the future, having said that past performance is generally what we base our expectations of the future expectations on.


----------



## Mediman14 (24 Jul 2018)

I know on countless times, I have had Jnr NCO's ask "How come my performance is less this year than last year, that's not right!" I always end up trying to explain to them that their performance can change year from year for whatever reason and they should never based their previous PER with the current one.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.   :2c:



I have to agree with Eye in the Sky saying that if you are still learning the ropes in a new Rank, then you are not ready for the next. Unfortunately most people in my neck of the woods doesn't believe in that! If you didn't give them a good first PER then you are in their "bad books". They think you are hindering their career instead of helping them in the long run. Thank God for the EPZ! I honestly feel that knowledge is a powerful thing a person could have, you would be more respected than the person in the leadership position with little or no knowledge!


----------



## TCM621 (24 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
> I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.
> 
> Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true!
> ...



I have never actually seen one before but I have seen a lot of times it could be used. A good example would be a Sgt remustering as a Cpl, he clearly would (should) have the leadership potential despite not having the performance in this new job.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I have never actually seen one before but I have seen a lot of times it could be used. A good example would be a Sgt remustering as a Cpl, he clearly would (should) have the leadership potential despite not having the performance in this new job.



A great example.  I wish I had thought of it. 



			
				Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I know on countless times, I have had Jnr NCO's ask "How come my performance is less this year than last year, that's not right!" I always end up trying to explain to them that their performance can change year from year for whatever reason and they should never based their previous PER with the current one.
> 
> I have to agree with Eye in the Sky saying that if you are still learning the ropes in a new Rank, then you are not ready for the next. Unfortunately most people in my neck of the woods doesn't believe in that! If you didn't give them a good first PER then you are in their "bad books". They think you are hindering their career instead of helping them in the long run. Thank God for the EPZ! I honestly feel that knowledge is a powerful thing a person could have, you would be more respected than the person in the leadership position with little or no knowledge!



I think you equating potential with immediately ready for promotion.  One can show great potential but not be ready at this time.  My Cpl in my last unit is an excellent example.  Almost limitless potential; but hes not ready yet.  But there is a high degree of potentiality that he will be soon.


----------



## garb811 (24 Jul 2018)

On pondering this discussion for a bit...

Like it or not, given the current state of affairs, people are, and will continue to be, promoted too quickly compared to what many of us experienced simply because of the gaping holes that are littered throughout the rank structures of various trades due to attrocious human resource management and attrition forecasting.

At this point I kind of look at things as taking a risk on those who I do see potential in vice simply accepting the fact that someone who isn't ready, at all, and who has demonstrated little to no real potential in the big scheme of things is going to get promoted via the numbers game. 

Not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination but that isn't the fault of CFPAS or even, in many cases, supervisors who are just trying to make the best of a terrible situation.  End of the day when the vast majority of your personnel in a trade are spending minimum amount of time in rank before being promoted anyway, maybe being a bit generous with a subordinate with visible potential isn't as bad as it looks.


----------



## TCM621 (25 Jul 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".
> 
> Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.
> 
> ...



One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.

I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jul 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> On pondering this discussion for a bit...
> 
> Like it or not, given the current state of affairs, people are, and will continue to be, promoted too quickly compared to what many of us experienced simply because of the gaping holes that are littered throughout the rank structures of various trades due to attrocious human resource management and attrition forecasting.
> 
> ...



I think you are right.  And CFPAS is not the problem, we are as the users.  We have abused it and caused massive over inflation.  Who hasn't been in a bun toss where they see unit/sect/sqn cluster f**k getting immediate PERs ?  When I was a LS I had Sgt explain to me that the knock on effect from that Cpl Cluster f**k getting over inflated PERs is now all the other folks have to inflate theirs higher to try and keep garbage from rising to the top.  



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.
> 
> I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.



This isn't just the RCAF its pretty much SOP for all Log Trades and has been for the entirety of my 19 years and counting.  First you get promoted then you gain the pre-requisite quals.


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.
> 
> I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.



The problem with making a course an absolute requirement before promotion is that many times a member isn't able to go on course due to lack of training space, or operational requirements. So people that should advance would be held back, and members who are less "operational" would advance. Or by posting message a career would be held back because their unit isn't able to spare them when another unit can easily absorb the loss of a member for a month or two. 

An example of that is my trade, where one unit has around 80 positions assigned to staff a 24/7 office with multiple(4-5) pers on a shift. My office has at best seven people to maintain a 24/7 office with one person on shift. As soon as MELs, leave, and personnel shortages are added, sending people on course is almost impossible. Now include the 5 1/2 month career course required to be a substantive MCpl and it is impossible to send troops on training. 

Should troops be denied the chance at promotion because their unit can't let them attend a PLQ/ILP?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Should troops be denied the chance at promotion because their unit can't let them attend a PLQ/ILP?



Should troops be denied the chance at training because their higher CoC won't resource level to permit their absence?


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jul 2018)

If it will bring operational capacity to an unacceptable level?  Absolutely.


----------



## TCM621 (25 Jul 2018)

Furnitures argument is the most common one I hear but I have to agree with you. It's a career course, make it work. If you can't afford to send a guy on a 6 week course, you are past failure point. 



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Should troops be denied the chance at training because their higher CoC won't resource level to permit their absence?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If it will bring operational capacity to an unacceptable level?  Absolutely.



There has to be a trade-off.  My trade and unit, if you don't come into the Sqn having PLQ as a remuster, and you merit, you will be an A/L MCpl.  Then, they have what...2 years max? to get the full qual or they revert.

We don't have that many flying positions, really, in the big scheme of things.  If we never sent people on PLQ because of "op tempo/requirements", we'd never send anybody.  Of the 5 MCpl's I have right now, all of them are A/L.  Our unit won't sign off their Lead appointment (required CO appointment IAW the FOM) unless they have PLQ (even though FIC would be the better required qual...that's a different story...).  If we don't send them, we don't produce Leads.  If we don't produce Leads, we don't put crews out the door and we don't create space for new B cats to move onto crews...so sometimes you have to "go slow now" so you can "go fast later"... :2c:

I don't remember a single person from our Sqn going on PLQ during Oct 2014 - present (the busy IMPACT times and immediate time following).  We're feeling that now with 5 A/Ls who have to go soon.

Heck, do they even load Cpl's on PLQ anymore, or is the A/L backlog not taking over the loading priority?


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Furnitures argument is the most common one I hear but I have to agree with you. It's a career course, make it work. If you can't afford to send a guy on a 6 week course, you are past failure point.



What do you do when a trade is at or past the failure point in several locations? Stop promotions and make a bad retention problem even worse? Easy to say it's the way it should be when you aren't the one being held back compared to your peers by virtue of a posting message and not your performance.

Having A/L ranks are not ideal, but with mentorship and guidance from their supervisors a Jr. leader should be able to pick up 99.99% of what the CF PLQ teaches. If you are learning anything shocking or new on PLQ your leadership up to that point has failed miserably in my opinion. 

CFPAS is imperfect, but at least the PER process is slowly improving by getting away from being a writing competition between bosses in different units. I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.


----------



## TCM621 (25 Jul 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> What do you do when a trade is at or past the failure point in several locations? Stop promotions and make a bad retention problem even worse? Easy to say it's the way it should be when you aren't the one being held back compared to your peers by virtue of a posting message and not your performance.
> 
> Having A/L ranks are not ideal, but with mentorship and guidance from their supervisors a Jr. leader should be able to pick up 99.99% of what the CF PLQ teaches. If you are learning anything shocking or new on PLQ your leadership up to that point has failed miserably in my opinion.
> 
> CFPAS is imperfect, but at least the PER process is slowly improving by getting away from being a writing competition between bosses in different units. I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.



If you are at a failure point, promoting unqualified people won't help. They still need to take the course and then you lose an even more important person because you tend to have less people at each rank level. I totally agree that PLQ is a bit of a waste but it has been watered down to virtually a guaranteed pass course. Make PLQ difficult and make people actually go on course and be put in charge every day with immediately feedback as to their shortcomings. Use that time to properly teach the CFPAS system, administration, the importance of dress and deportment, etc. 

Part of the problem is that leadership often have no idea how this stuff works because they were never taught. I can't tell you how many Senior NCOs I know who don't actually know how CFPAS works or who to properly staff memos or grievances.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jul 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.



Personally, I am not.  Why?  Because the same people will either ignore the rules in place and/or make up the ones they want to get the output they want, just like happens now in CFPAS.

This years CANFORGENs state "score controls have been eliminated".  No they haven't.  Unit boards shouldn't influence PER scores.   :rofl:  M'kay!

People who OT or are posted out during the APS don't get the PER that they are supposed to get (dealing with 2 of those this year who were OTs, both MCpls in their previous trades...they didn't even know they were supposed to get a PER covering 01 Ap 17 to their COS date when they OTd).  The list goes on.

CFPAS is not the problem.  The users and their desire if they are higher up on the food chain to impart their own "direction" is the problem.  CFPAS is simple and easy to use, it is the people who fuck it up.

I am, however, 100% confident "senior leadership" will take the next system and warp it like they have CFPAS.   :nod:


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Jul 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is that leadership often have no idea how this stuff works because they were never taught. I can't tell you how many Senior NCOs I know who don't actually know how CFPAS works or who to properly staff memos or grievances.



This is not a new problem. I did my SLC in 2000, and was astonished at the number of Sgts and WOs who could not construct a simple memo, let alone understand the components of effective personnel evaluation. The most cited reason was that they were too busy doing their real jobs. They could not understand the irony of their response.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Jul 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This is not a new problem. I did my SLC in 2000, and was astonished at the number of Sgts and WOs who could not construct a simple memo, let alone understand the components of effective personnel evaluation. The most cited reason was that they were too busy doing their real jobs. They could not understand the irony of their response.



Never said it was new. I hear the too busy working excuse all the time. I don't know about you but I always have a section in my part 1 about developing and evaluating subordinates.


----------



## Brood (2 Feb 2019)

I downloaded the latest CFPAS and help files, but I'm missing the opt out option within PERX. Do I have to sacrifice a private first?

*EDIT*: It was the updated MOS files that I was missing, which CFPAS won't download since I don't have access to the Intranet.  I'm not sure how that was ever supposed to work, but fortunately I knew someone who had the updated files.


----------



## Quirky (15 Mar 2019)

Here is a new one for me. Finished a 2 dot ES PER for a developing, jnr Cpl. Lines for ES were accepted but PER was kicked back to me needing justification for S's to 'fluff up' the narrative section. I guess having a two-line PER for a new Cpl isn't accepted anymore?  :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Mar 2019)

Writing 2 lines to sum up an entire year of work for a Cpl is laziness and does that member a disservice. I believe the standard for a "Ready" PER is 9 lines performance, and 5 lines potential. Still significantly better than the old "fill the space" method of PER writing we so recently got away from.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2019)

The majority of write up's I've done for my own subordinates gets vetted and changed by 2 or 3 levels of the CoC so many times that it's not in my words anymore.

What they actually did isn't as important as whether I use improved or enhanced. Majority of my time is spent on synonyms. It's ridiculous.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Majority of_By and large_ my time is spent on synonyms_crafting similar verbiage_. It's ridiculous_foolhardy_.



FTFY


----------



## Quirky (15 Mar 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Writing 2 lines to sum up an entire year of work for a Cpl is laziness and does that member a disservice.



Not when it falls within the writing policy of the unit and CF. I don't recall it stating "when only two lines of narrative are used, comment on S's as to not offend the member". The whole point of the new CFPAS system was to reduce the unnecessary time spent on crap like this. I've handed out double N/As PERs before without issue.


----------



## kev994 (15 Mar 2019)

I recall seeing direction lately that if they are straight S, at minimum you need to record their accomplishments for the year. For potential “N/A” is acceptable for Ready.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2019)

I was having some issues with the Help files on my home PC (Win7), contacted the CFPAS helpdesk and they were able to get me sorted out.  Not a fix I'd of thought of; picture attached to make it easier.

- Installing the updated help files, once you download the ZIP file, before you extract the files, right click on the zip folder and select _*Properties*_;
- a window should open up (the image on the left in the attached pic).  Ref the red box...click the _*UNBLOCK*_ and then _*APPLY *_buttons;
- you can verify the security stuff is fixed by selecting Properties again, the window should look like the image on the right of the attached pic;  and
- you can then extract/overwrite the Help files and everything works (or it did for me at least).


----------



## stellarpanther (8 May 2019)

Does anyone have the reference to opt out of receiving future PER's?


----------



## mariomike (8 May 2019)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Does anyone have the reference to opt out of receiving future PER's?



See also,

PER opt-out denied  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/119446.0
OP: "Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?" 

CANFORGEN 014/16 CMP 011/16 281603Z JAN 16
CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2015/2016 REPORTING YEAR

REF: A. CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14 
B. CFPAS HELP FILE 
C. CANFORGEN 120/15 CMP 055/15 061540Z JUL 15 (CAF ANNUAL SELECTION BOARDS FILE REMOVAL DUE TO EXPIRED FITNESS) 

Reply #1252 
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/636/post-1415270.html#msg1415270
C.  OPTING OUT, ANOTHER DRT INITIATIVE, HAS PROVEN VERY POPULAR AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN MANAGING PER WORKLOADS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPECTATIONS. IAW REF B ARTICLE 125, OPT OUT REMAINS AN OPTION FOR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT WISH TO HAVE AN ANNUAL PER. PERSONNEL WHO OPT OUT, DO NOT NEED TO RESUBMIT EACH YEAR, BUT UPON POSTING SHOULD INFORM THEIR NEW CO OF THEIR ELECTION TO OPT OUT. TO ENSURE EFFICIENT UNIT PER ADMINISTRATION, A MBR SHOULD SIGNAL THEIR INTENTION TO OPT NLT END OF JANUARY 2016. MEMBERS AND COMMAND TEAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW ARTICLE 125 OF REF B FOR OPT OUT PROCESS IMPLICATIONS AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 



			
				AK said:
			
		

> Has anyone here opted out of the PER process?


https://navy.ca/forums/threads/636/post-1424065.html#msg1424065

etc...


----------



## AKa (9 May 2019)

"Opt Out/ Opt Back In" is in Chapter 1, section 125 of the CFPAS Help file.  

However, I found the link to the official memo format isn't working for me now.  If anyone else has the same issue, feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to share mine privately.  When I was down south, I didn't have access to the updated CFPAS help files and submitted a non-standard memo requesting opt out.  My CM was rather shirty about it.  Don't make the same mistake as me!

I've opted our for four years now.  It's been liberating. 

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 May 2019)

Does anyone know if the ref for PERs for postings to the ATL was updated for this year?  Expect to get one for the first portion of my reporting period from my last unit before starting the PGT, but want to double check.


----------



## Zephyrcaptain (5 Feb 2020)

If you only have 5 months in the reporting period as the remainder was on sick leave and mandated by the flight doc to recovery, does this mean you are still given a normal PER as a majority of the year is not represented and puts you at a disadvantage to compete with peers.

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge that can help?


----------



## 211RadOp (5 Feb 2020)

From the CFPAS help file article 118. PER Exemptions:

1. There is no defined minimum observation period to produce an Annual PER. However, in those rare instances where observation is so limited as to render it impossible to accurately report upon a person's performance and potential, then the unit CO may consider rendering a PER Exemption (PERX). The CO's authority in this regard must be exercised judiciously with an awareness that under no circumstances should an exemption be selected simply to save staff effort. Where uncertainty exists, DMCSS 2 should be consulted.


----------



## MJP (5 Feb 2020)

Zephyrcaptain said:
			
		

> If you only have 5 months in the reporting period as the remainder was on sick leave and mandated by the flight doc to recovery, does this mean you are still given a normal PER as a majority of the year is not represented and puts you at a disadvantage to compete with peers.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience or knowledge that can help?



How does only having 5 months puts someone at a disadvantage?  Tour PERs are 3 months + and are used in conjunction with annual PERs or stand alone if home unit does a PERX. Generally one's performance and potential isn't influenced by the amount of time but rather their ability/capability to perform at a certain level.  An average person generally doesn't get above average just because they were observed longer.


----------



## CountDC (5 Feb 2020)

5 months is enough time to observe and produce a PER that would be better than a PERX unless the member or his superior is useless.  The other option would be a PERX which when merited for promotion does not count as high as a PER.  Logically writing a PERX on a good worker simply because they are only observed for 5 months due to illness/injury would be a penalty. 

Here's another good one.  Mbr gets promoted near end of Mar.  As they are the new rank prior to end Mar their PER has to be written for the new rank even though they have only worked a day or two in that rank while still doing the exact same job.


----------



## MJP (5 Feb 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> 5 months is enough time to observe and produce a PER that would be better than a PERX unless the member or his superior is useless.  The other option would be a PERX which when merited for promotion does not count as high as a PER.  Logically writing a PERX on a good worker simply because they are only observed for 5 months due to illness/injury would be a penalty.
> 
> Here's another good one.  Mbr gets promoted near end of Mar.  As they are the new rank prior to end Mar their PER has to be written for the new rank even though they have only worked a day or two in that rank while still doing the exact same job.



Aye I am in complete agreeance a PERX for 5 months of supervision without strong justification is just poor leadership.  More than enough time to ascertain mbr's performance and potential.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> a PERX which when merited for promotion does not count as high as a PER.



It counts as a *0* effectively;  the other PERs are averaged.  

Sounds like a member who was grounded for X months with X months of sick leave and also with 5 months of 'fit flying';  didn't the unit gainfully employ the mbr after the extended grounding?  A new/modified initial PER should have been raised if there was significant changes to the mbr's critical tasks/expected outcomes...

I'm assuming the mbr wasn't on 7 months of sick leave (excused duties, at home, posted to IPSU, etc).


----------



## Damien248 (5 Feb 2020)

While we are on the topic of PERX.

My situation is a little odd, a year ago I came back from a deployment. Upon returning to my unit I was selected for an OUTCAN posting and was not given a function; literally was told to just take care of my admin. So from March to August that's what I did, volunteered for whatever I could. Once I got to my new posting I've been having accounts issues, due to the nature of my work I wasn't able to take any responsibilities or have any assigned to me. Now my CoC is pushing to write me a PER but been told ahead that it wasn't going to be a good one because I did so little this year. My last two PER (new in trade) were O/I but not enough at this time to push me within the promotion threshold but really close. Worth mentioning; already got a degree, language profile,  specializations etc.

From your experience/opinion do I have any recourse?

Edit: Forgot to mention, on top of the above, my CM doesn't have my Theater PER and the boards already sat. Someone somewhere really f***ed up. Again just seeking some wisdom. Love my job but couldn't care less about the CF anymore.


----------



## sidemount (6 Feb 2020)

Have you been issued a PDR part 1 to detail what is expected of you in your current position. Have you been given any follow on PDRs to substantiate what they plan on giving for a bubble score. Do you have anything to substantiate what score you think you should have.


----------



## Damien248 (6 Feb 2020)

I'm pushing for a PERX, since I was never assigned any tasks although I have a pretty generic PDR PART 1. The opportunity to be evaluated in my field of work has not been available and due to the restrictions imposed by events outside of my CoC control (and out of my control as well) there were little to no other areas to be evaluated by.


----------



## sidemount (6 Feb 2020)

That is one route to go if you can argue the observation period was insufficient.


----------



## Damien248 (6 Feb 2020)

The interesting aspect in this is not the reporting period, it's about the substance of what to report on. When a MWO tells you for the first 6 month of the year to just hang tight, do your personal admin and the rest of the years you don't have the accounts required to perform your function, in a foreign country. The CFPAS manual is not very clear for cases like this one. My perception is that the "intent" of the PERX applies here since an accurate and fair evaluation cannot be performed.


----------



## sidemount (6 Feb 2020)

That's why, imo, it mentions the observation period. If it wasn't possible to observe you doing your expected job (accounts and such problem) then a PERX may be appropriate and worth looking into.


----------



## Damien248 (6 Feb 2020)

In regard to the missing Theater PER at the CM level, would a grievance be the best course of action? Board have already sat so it would need to be a supplementary board. 

That said since the error is very obvious (PER didn't get transmitted) the solution *should* be simple; send a copy to CM and he/she should on their own accord convene a supplementary board.


----------



## MJP (6 Feb 2020)

Damien248 said:
			
		

> In regard to the missing Theater PER at the CM level, would a grievance be the best course of action? Board have already sat so it would need to be a supplementary board.
> 
> That said since the error is very obvious (PER didn't get transmitted) the solution *should* be simple; send a copy to CM and he/she should on their own accord convene a supplementary board.



Instead of grieving it first have you even broached the topic?  If you have tried and are not getting any answers then yes grievance or at the very least NOI to Grieve would be appropriate.  Low level is always best.


----------



## MJP (6 Feb 2020)

Damien248 said:
			
		

> The interesting aspect in this is not the reporting period, it's about the substance of what to report on. When a MWO tells you for the first 6 month of the year to just hang tight, do your personal admin and the rest of the years you don't have the accounts required to perform your function, in a foreign country. The CFPAS manual is not very clear for cases like this one. My perception is that the "intent" of the PERX applies here since an accurate and fair evaluation cannot be performed.



It may be the best route especially if you already have a tour PER in the FY as well as.  In essence your tour PER becomes your "score" for the boards for that year.  However that does not sound like you have a tour PER for this FY so three things to take into consideration based on the policy, your posts and profile:

1) a PERX keeps your score neutral in terms of board cut offs.  That can be good or bad but just keep in mind no PER means no increase in score relative to your peers/cohort when it comes to being seen at the board.

2) While you didn't work "in trade (or the job you are OUTCAN for)" there are many people that work out of trade and get PERs that count.  Further your profile says LS and at the end of the day it isn't hard to write a PER for a LS (or anyone really) that still meets the intent of giving the institution an idea if a person should be considered for the next rank.  One doesn't have to be doing in trade work to be appropriately assessed.  That goes both ways if your CoC is saying that then they are as wrong as your assumption that you need a PERX because of the not working in trade.

3) It isn't your choice to have a PERX or not but the CoC's in consultation with career folks.  While you might think it is the right choice and they should listen to your reasoning, at the end of the day it is their choice to move forward with issuing a PER or PDR as they see fit.


----------



## Damien248 (6 Feb 2020)

> 1) a PERX keeps your score neutral in terms of board cut offs.  That can be good or bad but just keep in mind no PER means no increase in score relative to your peers/cohort when it comes to being seen at the board.



The objective is not necessarily to get a better score but rather the integrity of an accurate evaluation or in this case the acknowledgement that the quantity of .



> 2) While you didn't work "in trade (or the job you are OUTCAN for)" there are many people that work out of trade and get PERs that count.  Further your profile says LS and at the end of the day it isn't hard to write a PER for a LS (or anyone really) that still meets the intent of giving the institution an idea if a person should be considered for the next rank.  One doesn't have to be doing in trade work to be appropriately assessed.  That goes both ways if your CoC is saying that then they are as wrong as your assumption that you need a PERX because of the not working in trade.



If I had the opportunity to work in an out-of-trade fashion I wouldn't be posting here, not to be snarky but when I say that I was told to just take care of my admin and on the second half not having the ability to do anything I am not exaggerating the end goal of that wait was definitely worth it. The circumstances are frustrating but no one in the CAF area of influence is at fault. 

On the LS front, I want to keep this fairly anonymous, we can chat in private if anyone cares, that said; I have close to 20 years of services, did an OT not too long ago as I was getting very specialized in an area and the OT permitted me to get even more specialized (not through the CAF). My field of work is very niche and at this point rank is the last thing I care for but I do value the ability of the CAF institution to do the right thing an use the various mechanism that implemented to address the range of situation its members are facing or be flexible when new one arises.


----------



## MJP (6 Feb 2020)

It sounds like you have the right idea, understand the institutional side and know what you are looking for.  CFPAS and other policies are vague enough to allow for the interpretations/flexibility you are looking for.  Worst thing your CoC can do is say no and even then you have mechanisms at your disposal to pursue a final answer definitive answer.  Which based on your post you will likely have to enact.

Good luck!


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2020)

I hope this doesn't mean rewriting PERs

Canadian Armed Forces requires all personnel to stop using gendered pronouns (on PERs) 


> _“Based on a recent CAF cultural and normative shift to promote gender diversity and associated inclusiveness, CFPAS [Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System] writing policy and guide will also reflect this new reality where sex, gender identity, and gender expression are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Forthwith the use of gender pronouns such as quote he/his and she/her unquote are not to be used when drafting pers. Members will be referred to by rank and name or by using gender-neutral pronouns such as they/their.”_


https://www.thepostmillennial.com/canadian-armed-forces-requires-all-personnel-to-stop-using-gendered-pronouns


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

That was communicated after the PER directives were issued.  It should have been communicated through your CoC.  In any case, it should only really affect section 6.


----------



## Kilted (13 Apr 2020)

The title of this thread was very misleading.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2020)

Kilted said:
			
		

> The title of this thread was very misleading.



I know. If you ask nicely, they'll give you your money back


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2020)

Kilted said:
			
		

> The title of this thread was very misleading.



Yea you're right. I'll edit the thread title thanks.


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

The less inquisitive side of the right wing online commentariat is already starting to foam at the mouth over this one.

It makes sense to me. Still plenty of dinosaurs around, including on merit boards. If a PER reading 'MCpl Bloggins' instead of 'she' results in MCpl Bloggins getting more of a fair shake at courses and promitions because you don't get someone consciously or unconsciously pushing down females' PERs, I'm good with it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2020)

It's sad to think our senior leadership for both NCOs and officers are singling out women to keep them down. Not very professional of us. 

Is it really believable that members sitting on a merit board won't know someone's gender? When I seen files prepped for merit boards for a unit they included course reports and letters of reference, both with pronouns. Do national level merit boards work different?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's sad to think our senior leadership for both NCOs and officers are singling out women to keep them down. Not very professional of us.


I think it would have to do more with someone filing a grievance saying that they didn't get the promotion because "I'm a guy/girl/something else. Had it been gender neutral your Honour, I would have gotten it."


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Apr 2020)

Pretty sure your gender is on your MPRR and the national merit board has access to that.

I find it hilarious that for PERs we hide someone's gender now to remove bias but in recruiting if you're a certain gender your file is going right to the top to meet a quota.


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's sad to think our senior leadership for both NCOs and officers are singling out women to keep them down. Not very professional of us.
> 
> Is it really believable that members sitting on a merit board won't know someone's gender? When I seen files prepped for merit boards for a unit they included course reports and letters of reference, both with pronouns. Do national level merit boards work different?



Funny thing about that, unit level 'merit boards' (or 'raning boards', 'ranking committee', whatever you want to call it) for the PER process are actually banned by CANFORGEN and have been for years. This process of a company getting together, ranking its soldiers, and then adjusting PERs to suit isn't how it's supposed to be. I actually fought and won that fight on behalf of one of my Cpls in one of my last couple years in- chain wanted him ranked middle third based on grounds they couldn't articulate to me, while he'd done an absolutely bang up job as my section 2ic and was a rock solid performer. Highly effective rather than flashy. Happily I had a Pl Comd who had the spine to back me on my assessment.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Funny thing about that, unit level 'merit boards' (or 'raning boards', 'ranking committee', whatever you want to call it) for the PER process are actually banned by CANFORGEN and have been for years. This process of a company getting together, ranking its soldiers, and then adjusting PERs to suit isn't how it's supposed to be. I actually fought and won that fight on behalf of one of my Cpls in one of my last couple years in- chain wanted him ranked middle third based on grounds they couldn't articulate to me, while he'd done an absolutely bang up job as my section 2ic and was a rock solid performer. Highly effective rather than flashy. Happily I had a Pl Comd who had the spine to back me on my assessment.



Oh ya, you got that right. Like the shadow files that were banned. 

If gender is such an issue for promotion then maybe it's time we get rid of an opinion based approach to promotion and move to merit and technical proficiency.  Give me a PT test and 8 hour exam over a year of budsing in the smoke pit any day.


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.



Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per policy, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.

Easy for a guy in my position to say 'No, here's my honest assessment of my soldier'. A lot harder for a Sgt in battalion to buck the CSMs/RSM on that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per police, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.


Jeepers, its just a PER, don't get the cops involved. ;D


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Jeepers, its just a PER, don't get the cops involved. ;D



LOL, nice catch on the typo, thanks Bruce. Policy.


----------



## kev994 (13 Apr 2020)

The dots need to match the help file. If a dot needs to be moved, it’s got to be because it wasn’t written IAW the matrix in the help file, not because we like Cpl Bloggins better.


----------



## Throwaway987 (13 Apr 2020)

I wish their explanation/justification focused more on ensuring fairness by blinding the assessors to gender instead of the fluffy cultural shift angle.  The outcome and benefit would have been the same but with less risk of the perception of superficial virtue signalling.

i.e. Are we making this change to promote fairness by eliminating the role of bias? Or are we doing this to get the GBA+ brownie point and score some political points? If it was mainly the former...shouldn%u2019t that be a good enough reason on its own?

Edit: Rephrasing the justification towards fairness could also signal to the rest of the CAF that senior leadership values eliminating systemic factors that contribute to gender bias. Opening with that rationale could motivate other leaders to explore similar changes within their own organization/processes.  Seems like a bit of a missed opportunity.


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> The dots need to match the help file. If a dot needs to be moved, it’s got to be because it wasn’t written IAW the matrix in the help file, not because we like Cpl Bloggins better.



That's great til you're told to rewrite the narrative so that the dots can be shifted to match a unit ranking board. Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per policy, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.
> 
> Easy for a guy in my position to say 'No, here's my honest assessment of my soldier'. A lot harder for a Sgt in battalion to buck the CSMs/RSM on that.



If more than one person has the same potential dot score, the board is the tie breaker.


----------



## MJP (13 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That's great til you're told to rewrite the narrative so that the dots can be shifted to match a unit ranking board. Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.



There is no need to re-do a narrative to fit dots as the dots, that is an old old way of looking at PERs back when we wrote flowerly prose and everyone was awesome. Now you just write activity  - result.  The dot score indicates how well they did that activity (generally because of the 9 line limit it covers more than one Performance Factor).

That said I haven't seen this magical supposedly widespread practice of adjusting dot scores to match rankings yet in many many many years of doing PERs. Personal opinion it is like many things it in the CAF actually uncommon in practice but the myth of its use has made it common thought.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.





			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If more than one person has the same potential dot score, the board is the tie breaker.



The problem with both statements is the assumption that PER scores alone is the driving factor in boards. While the general practice is to use proposed scores to at least have a starting point in a ranking board the scores really don't matter. Besides niether are real rules as listed in the CFPAS help menu.

*CFPAS Help*

Potential Ranking. Theatre PERs are not ranked. The Annual PER potential ranking is based on assessed potential as reflected in the scoring of the potential factors only and not on overall PER scoring. As it is a potential ranking an individual with high potential but average performance would be ranked higher than a subordinate with high performance but only average potential. Potential ranking applies to personnel of the same rank and MOS, within the same Dept ID and on Annual PERs only:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Unit COs must rank the top 10 individuals or the top 50% of personnel of the same rank and MOS within their unit, whichever is less. 
[*]*Ranking ties are not permitted. However, this does not preclude units from submitting PERs with identical AFs and PFs.*
[*]Where an odd number of personnel exist, the ratings will be extended or rounded upwards (i.e., 5 individuals - therefore rate the top 3). 
[*]If the subordinate is the only one of that rank and MOS in the unit "1 of 1" must be filled in. Formations shall not combine Dept IDs to rate personnel together in Section 5;
[*]when a person is assigned or posted prior to 01 Jan to any of the establishments indicated in chap 1 sect 110(1), or is attached posted away from his/her home unit prior to 01 Jan for operational deployments of three months duration or more, and will not be returning prior to the end of the reporting period, no Section 5 potential ranking is to be completed. The Potential Ranking box shall indicate 0 of 0
[*]where a rear party or a detachment is geographically separated from the main unit, such as a deployed battalion, every effort shall be made to fairly rank all personnel within the same Dept ID.
[/list]


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> There is no need to re-do a narrative to fit dots as the dots, that is an old old way of looking at PERs back when we wrote flowerly prose and everyone was awesome. Now you just write activity  - result.  The dot score indicates how well they did that activity (generally because of the 9 line limit it covers more than one Performance Factor).
> 
> That said I haven't seen this magical supposedly widespread practice of adjusting dot scores to match rankings yet in many many many years of doing PERs. Personal opinion it is like many things it in the CAF actually uncommon in practice but the myth of its use has made it common thought.
> 
> ...



For ranking personnel within the same MOC yes, Potential dot scores are the only discriminator with inputs for ties.  The Potential score won’t change but we would rank, for two people with the 6 potential factors fire-walled to the right, make one 1 of X and the other persons 2 of X.  Other factors than dot scores would come into play.   For ranking in the whole unit (all trades), the board looks at other factors as well.


----------



## MJP (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For ranking personnel within the same MOC yes, *PF dot scores are the only discriminator with inputs for ties*.  The PF score won’t change but we would rank, for two people with the 6 PFs fire-walled to the right, make one 1 of X and the other persons 2 of X. Other factors than dot scores would come into play.



Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can conduct unit boards.  *You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.*  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.



And, yet, it is still happening (personally witnessed this more than once).  I asked direct "why is this being allowed to happen" question to my immediate CofC and got zero answer.

So it's great to publicly say 'this is not happening' but it still is, just as it was the year the direction was released and every year after it was released...


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.



Unit ranking within MOS (x of x) is in section 5 (potential) and the ranking is labeled “potential ranking”.  Does it need to be clearer?  IIRC, it is also in the CFPAS help file.

Section 6 ranking (written in prose) is theoretically disconnected from the Section 5 ranking as it should also include performance dot scores and other factors (SLT, education, etc).  In theory, your #1 person for potential ranking within a MOC in a unit could rank, on the unit board (for section 6), below the #2 for potential ranking in the same MOC in section 6.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.



My bad, I will edit my post.  I meant potential factors for PF.  You can’t only use Performance factors to tie break potential ranking.


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.



Where are you getting these rules?

Not sure exactly how you get rankings without some kind of group huddle.  Usually timing wise this is being done as the drafts have maybe gone through an initial supervisor review for the scores, but is pretty early in the process (and likely only dot scores with a rough draft PER and supporting notes).  This is exactly when scores should be getting a reality check. It's a bit easier on ships, as MOCs are typically only part of a specific department, but there are also lots of things happening interdepartmentally (like on duty watches). Those kind of things tend to differentiate the top performers, and may justify a score change.

Not unusual to find someone being oversold/undersold at some point, and I've seen others from outside the normal immediate CoC argue for others scores to be raised/dropped based on specific interactions.  It's a good check and balance against people getting hammered by a supervisor that doesn't like them, or alternately a soup sandwhich that has their boss fooled, and if done properly, keeps people honest.  Maybe easier on a ship, as you tend to work with a lot of different people at one point or another between normal days and when on duty watches. Aside from a ranking, it's a useful exercise to make sure people in the unit are scoring their people consistently.  

That also can happen during the PERMON process, if someone is unable to justify a score, or the rankings and scores are really inconsistent amongst a group.  Without that outside review with a bit of authority to make sure scores are fair/justified, the whole thing is a bit of a waste of time, so not sure why there should be any restrictions for scores changing at the ranking board.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

CANFORGEN 010/17.

 SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS. 

Through the formal review process, absolutely.  To meet a ranking established by a board?  No.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 010/17.
> 
> SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS.
> 
> Through the formal review process, absolutely.  To meet a ranking established by a board?  No.



Or, to change the scores/narratives on mbr's after the 'group huddles' have happened and people didn't shake out the way 'senior unit personnel' thought they would/should...


----------



## Navy_Pete (13 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 010/17.
> 
> SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS.
> 
> Through the formal review process, absolutely.  To meet a ranking established by a board?  No.



Thanks for the ref.

What I've seen is the supervisors adjusting the score in the ranking board when it was justified by their performance after some discussion, and the overall unit ranking falling out from that.  That makes sense to me.  Are they trying to prevent rankings coming down from on high, and scores being adjusted to suit?  Makes sense, but I've never seen anything other then a bottom up system (with PERMON oversight for transparency). That's when things shake out like Bloggins being hard right for PD for a few four hour, throw away online courses, when compared against someone doing some real, actual PD (for example.


Maybe things were happening differently at army/air force unit?  :dunno:

Ships are maybe a bit easier, as the MOCs normally are all contained with one department, so normally when you get to the unit rankings, the MOC ranking has been already done by the department with the supervisors arguing it out directly.  At the unit ranking, the departments will send a rep (at the supervisor level) with draft PERs and notes from everyone else, with a PERMON there to make sure the process is fair.  So for example, for PO2s, the dept chief & PO1s would figure out their comparative ranking, with the divisional officer doing the oversight. Then the PERMON would organize a time for each department to send a rep to get the overall ship rankings for PO2s, which would mean a rep from each department (ie PO1 or the Chief), using the dept list as a reference. PERMON would be there, and usually Coxn was also there to direct traffic and act as a tie breaker between depts.  But everyone would start with their list, and compare the top ranked ones that were left, until you had figured out however many were needed for that rank (based on the cutoff for mention in part 5).

Anyway, I've seen at that point someone get underscored by the supervisor and overlooked, so others would bring forward things they were aware of that should have been considered for the PER rankings.  Was more typical in the LS ranking, where there was a huge pool, but that was were interdepartmental things (like duty watch performance) got raised, and was almost universally for the benefit of the member.  Was stuff like someone forgetting to pass on something good that happened on duty, or something that had happened ages ago and forgotten about, so was more of an honest mistake (vice incompetence or whatever). Did see in one case where it was a blatant screw job, which got fixed at that point, and also ended up resulting in the supervisor/divO dropping down in their assessment.

Personal experience may vary I guess, but at the unit level I think it makes sense to adjust the scores if needed to make sure the sections/departments are consistent, but that's why PERMON is involved.

Group/formation is totally different though; those should have gone through the full PERMON and CO review.  The scores and narrative should be basically locked, with the only thing changing at that point is the section 6 narrative (based on the ranking). The rule makes sense at that point, but seems like an unnecessary over-reach, rather then taking action to sort out individual units that are foxed.


----------



## MJP (13 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Thanks for the ref.
> 
> What I've seen is the supervisors adjusting the score in the ranking board when it was justified by their performance after some discussion, and the overall unit ranking falling out from that.  That makes sense to me.  Are they trying to prevent rankings coming down from on high, and scores being adjusted to suit?  Makes sense, but I've never seen anything other then a bottom up system (with PERMON oversight for transparency). That's when things shake out like Bloggins being hard right for PD for a few four hour, throw away online courses, when compared against someone doing some real, actual PD (for example.
> 
> ...



This also is my general experience across a number of army units, slight nuances but nothing spectacular at the unit level. The bottom up drive with command oversight to ensure scores are not over or under-inflated seems to work well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Apr 2020)

My unit is pretty good at respecting individual supervisor’s score dots. CoC, upon review, may ask either a justification or a score change during the review process but scores don’t really change at the board.  I asked all my supervisors to talk amongst themselves before a board to get feedback on their subs.  This avoids the board influencing the dot scores.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me. Still plenty of dinosaurs around, including on merit boards. If a PER reading 'MCpl Bloggins' instead of 'she' results in MCpl Bloggins getting more of a fair shake at courses and promitions because you don't get someone consciously or unconsciously pushing down females' PERs, I'm good with it.



I'm going to challenge you on this one, and offer that if you've sat on a promotion board, you'd know this isn't true.

I'll use a combat arms board from Sgt to CWO as an example.  The board has 1x Col, 1x CWO, and 3x Maj.  One of the Maj is non-affiliated with the occupation being boarded.  No matter if one person is a "dinosaur" and says "I'm not giving this person points/I'm giving this person bonus points because its a he/she", in the end, all five members have to be within a variance of 5 of 100 points.  Every file is discussed, and an abnormally high or low score needs to be justified.  Having sat on two boards, my experience is that most files end up within 5 points right off the bat, which implies that unless all five members have some sort of bias, then the boarding process is pretty fair.

Also, to add, this is a small military, and the fact that selection boards are done within the occupation, by the occupation, means that most members will know many of the members being boarded, so the claim to creating anonymity by eliminating a pronoun is specious at best.

I'll restate my argument that anyone who thinks this policy will eliminate gender bias on promotion boards either (a) has never actually sat on a board or (b) is being dishonest for the sake of the cause du jour.


----------



## brihard (13 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm going to challenge you on this one, and offer that if you've sat on a promotion board, you'd know this isn't true.
> 
> I'll use a combat arms board from Sgt to CWO as an example.  The board has 1x Col, 1x CWO, and 3x Maj.  One of the Maj is non-affiliated with the occupation being boarded.  No matter if one person is a "dinosaur" and says "I'm not giving this person points/I'm giving this person bonus points because its a he/she", in the end, all five members have to be within a variance of 5 of 100 points.  Every file is discussed, and an abnormally high or low score needs to be justified.  Having sat on two boards, my experience is that most files end up within 5 points right off the bat, which implies that unless all five members have some sort of bias, then the boarding process is pretty fair.
> 
> ...



I'm repeating something I had read elsewhere- your reply is considerably more detailed and credible, so I'll defer to that, with a general apology for any aspersions that I may have inadvertantly cast. Thanks for correcting my bearing on this one.


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2020)

When I read the CANFORGEN, I didn't get the impression that this was at all aimed at eliminating gender bias in the PER process... I read it as an attempt to ensure no one was accidentally (or I suppose, purposefully) "mis-gendered" the institution by referring to them as a his or her. Would not be surprised to see this applied more widely to other forms of communication.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> When I read the CANFORGEN, I didn't get the impression that this was at all aimed at eliminating gender bias in the PER process... I read it as an attempt to ensure no one was accidentally (or I suppose, purposefully) "mis-gendered" the institution by referring to them as a his or her. Would not be surprised to see this applied more widely to other forms of communication.



Considering the PER is written by a direct supervisor, who knows a persons preference, I'm not sure I believe that was the intent.  The statement of "prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act" led me to believe bias was a rationale for the policy.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Also, to add, this is a small military, and the fact that selection boards are done within the occupation, by the occupation, means that most members will know many of the members being boarded, so the claim to creating anonymity by eliminating a pronoun is specious at best.



:nod:

For many occupations, you’d likely have to remove the last name or people would be ‘able to figure out the gender’...

Although no longer serving, I have the same sense as Infanteer, that this is more about an organization establishing an action stamp to historically claim/justify/defend that it was taking all action possible to remove any element of gender bias.  It is likely that the system had (and will likely continue to have) more personalized bias through other factors, principally I believe, such as confirmation (good ole boys) bias and halo (or horns) bias, than gender bias.  In my experience (I sat on approximately 40-50 boards in my career, about half and half NCM and officer), I believe that there was more confirmation and halo bias than gender bias over the years, but that’s not to say that an organization shouldn’t aim to reduce/eliminate ALL types of assessment bias in its personnel assessment system. I just think this more recent focus of de-genderization places a disproportionate emphasis on a factor that is less prevalent than others.  To some degree the prior policy to prohibit unit-level merit boards should, on the surface, reduce the ability of higher levels of unit organization influence/change supervisor assessments of subordinates, but that is not necessarily the panacea that some (many?) might think as it is based significantly on the assumption that supervisors in a unit are essentially homogeneously consistent and standardized in their assessments of their respective subordinates.  I personally see value in unit and section level merit review and discussion of policies and expectations of bias minimization, but best prior to supervisors’ submissions of finalized PERs.  Adjustments of dots and particularly re-writing of narratives to match according to fit what 2-3 levels up in a unit ‘want to see’ (signs of existential confirmation/halo biases) is what shouldn’t be happening. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Adjustments of dots and particularly re-writing is narratives to match according to fit what 2-3 levels up in a unit ‘want to see’ (signs of existential confirmation/halo biases) is what shouldn’t be happening.



This would be the wrong place to post a list of names, right?


----------



## garb811 (14 Apr 2020)

A big part of the stupidity would just go away if people stopped trying to use the PER boards as "succession planning" boards at the same time and therefore game the system to guarantee a promotion for the succession planned pers.

VCDS was the absolute worst back in the day prior to the CANFORGEN directing that higher level boards were to no longer direct scores. They used to publish a letter that dictated how many Mastered and Outstanding dots the top people in the Group could have; essentially making it impossible for a unit that didn't have someone in the top 3 to have a pure "MOI". They also used to include a cute line that stated that notwithstanding the rankings of the current year, nobody that was ranked would get a lower PER than the year prior...


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The statement of "prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act" led me to believe bias was a rationale for the policy.



The recent (past 4-5 years) and hottest/most current controversial topic regarding what is or is not discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act is the use of gender-specific pronouns / use of gender-neutral pronouns, whether someone ought to have the right to be called by whatever pronouns they choose, whether someone should be forced to use those pronouns, etc.

It also states at the beginning that this is about "A RECENT CAF CULTURAL AND NORMATIVE SHIFT *TO PROMOTE GENDER DIVERSITY AND ASSOCIATED INCLUSIVENESS*" etc.

This policy actually strikes a balance between forcing someone to use language that they don't agree with (30+ gender pronouns) which likely would have led to some issues for the CAF/government of Canada and not misgendering someone by using pronouns they don't identify with.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering the PER is written by a direct supervisor, who knows a persons preference, I'm not sure I believe that was the intent.



Not to spur up another argument about the CAF's level of institutional competence but "this isn't going to make a lick of difference" applies to a lot of policy, and is just as applicable to the idea that this might prevent bias in the meriting system. I don't think the goal here is to actually make a difference, just an easy tick in the box for "promoting gender diversity and associated inclusiveness" and



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> being dishonest for the sake of the cause du jour.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't think the goal here is to actually make a difference, just an easy tick in the box for "promoting gender diversity and associated inclusiveness"



Yep.  In the end, it takes 30 second off my life, and I'm sure the pendulum will swing the other way in a few years, so I'm over it now....


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Apr 2020)

I don't get this one either; who has space for a pronoun of any kind?  Even he/she takes up precious characters in the boxes, and it's not like you are referring to someone else in the PER.

If I had to use something, my default would be 'they', but only because I didn't have room for the rank/name, and he/she is too informal.  But normally am looking to cut as many characters as possible, so grammar rules go out the window to get the point across, and pronouns are redundant in this case. The only time you have a narrative is when you are recommending someone for promotion, and if you have space left in the tiny box, you probably aren't helping the cause.

It's a change that looks good on paper but makes no material difference, so not going to lose any sleep over it, but in the grand scheme of things, still disappointed this is what some of the big giant heads are spending their time on.  Getting that drafted, reviewed and approved ate up staff time that could have been better used towards all kinds of things, but I guess that's my fundamental issue with the gaiters and buttons crowd as well.

This will have zero impact on any kind of gender bias, and was probably based on absolutely zero evidence that there is a gender bias in promotion boards. If it exists, it's way down the line from the board, and my experience is the same as Infanteers.  I was the non-trade related token member on a board, and it was pretty straight forward, based on whatever was written and on the file.  If I cared, it would have been easy enough to figure out the gender on each file (even if it's not on the MPRR, the full name is usually a pretty good indicator), but the only disagreement over a score was due to a poorly written PER, and had about enough time on each file to quickly read the PERs and come up with a score, not dig through a file and figure out someone's life story. If someone with no skin in the game that doesn't know anyone comes to the same result as people in the trade, I think that's a good indication that the actual promotion board process works as intended, and is largely based on the file in front of them.

Choice postings, high profile job management, and all the other things that go into creating a strong promotion file are where any bias/politics/other BS would take place, not at the promotion boards. I think fundamentally figuring out how to get the right people into the right place makes sense, as does managing your talent, but as long as it happens in a weird, backroom deals kind of way it will continue to be open to questions about it's perceived fairness.


----------



## Throwaway987 (14 Apr 2020)

Those were some great points Pete/Infanteer/ballz.

I guess I was just frustrated at the lack of meaning and purpose with my work. Sometimes it feels like we do not have enough time and resources to accomplish our front line jobs yet we gorge ourselves on feel good but accomplish little projects like this. 

If it were up to me, I would explore moving away from absolute fairness and move towards managers/leaders having the freedom to select the right person for the right position (and having the unencumbered power to demote if the selection turns out to be a mistake). It seems like a lot of the problems regarding unit boards are a consequence of being unable to exercise this aspect of management/leadership.

Edit: What if we viewed filling positions as trying to solve a specific problem that requires specific traits or experiences? Our current process does not allow us to benefit from the unique qualities of specific individuals since the merit list only provides a generic ranking. e.g. trying to align an analytical individual to an analytical career as a staff officer

If the counterpoint is that these differences do not matter for low ranks where jobs are mainly interchangeable, then what value are we getting out of our elaborate PER/merit board process for the majority of our members? We spend dozens if not hundred of hours in each unit writing PERs in a specific way to produce exceedingly little actual results (since we bypass this process through back channels to pick who gets the best opportunities, etc.).


----------



## Lumber (15 Apr 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give.



Ugh. No they don't, and no they don't! This was my biggest gripe for 3 years as PERMON and I finally created a culture within the unit that followed the spirit and direction of CFPAS.

The section 5 rankings and the section 6 rankings are completely separate, and the they do not need to align, nor do they need to align with any sort of calculated 'overall per score" that the unit may have come up with. 
Thr section 5 rankings should not be determined at a ranking board; rather, they should be determined within the section/subsection itself based on the scores on the PER (which are in turn the subjective assessment of the supervisor). 
The section 6 unit rankings are not objective (although please, use objective thought and empirical evidence as much as possible when coming up with your rankings); rather, the section 6 unit rankings represent the subjective opinion of the CO on who is the best. 
The actual and final decision on unit rankings rests with the CO, no one else. Not the Coxn, RSM, lower deck lawfirm, or pepperoni club. 
The ranking boards do not actually come up with the final, official determination of unit rankings. Rather all the ranking board really does is come up with a recommended ranking list that is the  provided to the CO who then yays, nays, or amends it.


----------



## TCM621 (15 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I don't get this one either; who has space for a pronoun of any kind?  Even he/she takes up precious characters in the boxes, and it's not like you are referring to someone else in the PER.
> 
> If I had to use something, my default would be 'they', but only because I didn't have room for the rank/name, and he/she is too informal.  But normally am looking to cut as many characters as possible, so grammar rules go out the window to get the point across, and pronouns are redundant in this case. The only time you have a narrative is when you are recommending someone for promotion, and if you have space left in the tiny box, you probably aren't helping the cause.
> 
> ...




This was my complaint as well. Here I am shortening words that have no business being shortened to get one more point in but I need to seek out their name and rank in full rather than use their pronoun? I don't have room for that. People who have done national boards feel free to chime in here but I would be surprised if they spend more than a minute on each file. They don't have time to be biased. Any bias is going to come at the unit level and they will already know who that person is anyway.

As for the trans issue, I have written PER/PDRs for a trans person and I just used her preferred pronoun. It was simple but she used regular pronouns none of this xe bullshit. Again, most of the issues a trans person will have will come at the unit level and will have its effect long before a PER hits the board. In the very minute chance that such a person ran into a whole bigoted board that decided to ignore the PER due to gender identity, we have a system in place to deal with that already.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Apr 2020)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ugh. No they don't, and no they don't! This was my biggest gripe for 3 years as PERMON and I finally created a culture within the unit that followed the spirit and direction of CFPAS.
> 
> The section 5 rankings and the section 6 rankings are completely separate, and the they do not need to align, nor do they need to align with any sort of calculated 'overall per score" that the unit may have come up with.
> Thr section 5 rankings should not be determined at a ranking board; rather, they should be determined within the section/subsection itself based on the scores on the PER (which are in turn the subjective assessment of the supervisor).
> ...



Part of the PERMON job is to makes sure the ranking list and scores that go up to the CO is consistent and logical.  I agree section 5 and 6 rankings are independent (ie No 1 guy in an MOC in that unit can still be in the middle third and not ranked at the unit level), but if the scores of No 5 guy at the unit level are higher then the 1-4 PERs, that should be looked at pretty hard to make sure the process worked properly and the PER scores and unit ranking was done correctly. Similarly, no 2 file at the MOC/rank should be lower down the unit ranking then the no 1 file. It should be objective enough that a higher dot score should be a higher unit ranking; it's when you have the same overall scores when it becomes subjective (but generally when things like a higher leadership score comes into play).

If the CO catches those things after PERMON, then things will probably go badly for them.

I can't really see any normal situation where you would have someone with a higher overall score ranked lower at a unit level and not have some questions. If so, that's something that should be specifically looked at and approved by the CO, but would need a pretty good reason to inflate the score on that file.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Apr 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This was my complaint as well. Here I am shortening words that have no business being shortened to get one more point in but I need to seek out their name and rank in full rather than use their pronoun? I don't have room for that. People who have done national boards feel free to chime in here but I would be surprised if they spend more than a minute on each file. They don't have time to be biased. Any bias is going to come at the unit level and they will already know who that person is anyway.



^ this. :nod:

Tcm, you hit the nail on the head...45 seconds to a minute. It doesn’t seem like much time, but when you and the other board members get in the groove, it almost seems like a long time.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Part of the PERMON job is to makes sure the ranking list and scores that go up to the CO is consistent and logical.  I agree section 5 and 6 rankings are independent (ie No 1 guy in an MOC in that unit can still be in the middle third and not ranked at the unit level), but if the scores of No 5 guy at the unit level are higher then the 1-4 PERs, that should be looked at pretty hard to make sure the process worked properly and the PER scores and unit ranking was done correctly. Similarly, no 2 file at the MOC/rank should be lower down the unit ranking then the no 1 file. It should be objective enough that a higher dot score should be a higher unit ranking; it's when you have the same overall scores when it becomes subjective (but generally when things like a higher leadership score comes into play).
> 
> If the CO catches those things after PERMON, then things will probably go badly for them.
> 
> I can't really see any normal situation where you would have someone with a higher overall score ranked lower at a unit level and not have some questions. If so, that's something that should be specifically looked at and approved by the CO, but would need a pretty good reason to inflate the score on that file.



You can have a new guy in a position with a lot of potential but that hasn’t been performing to its potential yet rank above someone that is extremely effective in its current rank in section 5 but below in section 6.  It should be rare but I have seen this happen once.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can have a new guy in a position with a lot of potential but that hasn’t been performing to its potential yet rank above someone that is extremely effective in its current rank in section 5 but below in section 6.  It should be rare but I have seen this happen once.



Do you mean in separate MOCs?

Lots of possible scenarios for exceptions, but generally speaking, I think if someone ranks above someone else at the unit ranking but with lower scores, that needs to be a serious discussion and signed off by the CO.  Also, things like age, time left in career, etc aren't supposed to be considered when you are doing PERs, so a young up and comer that may do great things in the future shouldn't be ranked above an older, more experienced individual just because they may have more potential (unless they score the same on actual job performance). That's were recommendations for high profile positions or career coursing matter, but you shouldn't be trying to do succession management in the PERs. Normally PERs going past unit level for formation/group ranking are nearly hard right, so dot ranking matter less then narrative and draft recommendation, but can't really imagine where direction would come down to adjust a score from a formation ranking.

For the promotion board I was sitting in on, don't think the unit/formation ranking really made a difference as it was competitive enough that everyone was in the same ballpark for PER scores, so things like language profile, breadth of experience etc made a big difference. Probably varies from board to board, and how many are being promoted vice the pool size, as well as trade specific scoring criteria for the next rank, but was mostly mechanical based on the points, with some discussion around the cutoff for the files that were close in score. Heard from wingers doing other boards that others were so close that they had to come through most of the files in detail and take a lot of time to discuss it, with others having an obvious threshold so it was pretty easy.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2020)

No, same MOC.  The distinction is that while one had more potential than the other, the other had an overall better file (including performance, second language profile, etc)


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Apr 2020)

Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.

IMHO, that kind of thing is demotivating for the high performer, especially if they are covering off for the other person while they are off doing SLT and other things for ticks in the boxes for promotion. Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.  If someone is still learning the current job, doesn't do them favours to rush them to the next one, and lots of times potential is unrealized when you don't have the solid foundation to build upon.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.



So is potential, leadership, professional development....  Section 6 should definitely encompass the individual as a whole.  I disagree that performance at the current rank is a good indicator of performance in the next rank. Plenty of excellent people in their current rank that would be horrible in the next rank because of other factors.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.
> 
> IMHO, that kind of thing is demotivating for the high performer, especially if they are covering off for the other person while they are off doing SLT and other things for ticks in the boxes for promotion. Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.  If someone is still learning the current job, doesn't do them favours to rush them to the next one, and lots of times potential is unrealized when you don't have the solid foundation to build upon.



I think having an SL profile is important because we are a bilingual country and the CAF has to serve that country. That said, I think the way we do SL scoring is junk. For one, we always require the Verbal score to be the highest when reading and writing are as important if not more so. If someone manages to improve one of the 3 areas they should be rewarded for it. The other issue is that you get more points as you get promoted for doing nothing but maintaining. I can't remember the officer scale but for NCMs BBB will get you 3 points at MCpl but it will give you 5 at WO.



> Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.



I could disagree with this more. I don't know how many "leaders" I know who couldn't lead a line of ducks to a pond but got promoted because they were good technicians or operators. Leadership, communication, etc are all skills that are separate from the skills needed to be successful at job tasks. Temperament matters as well. I have known a lot people who I would trust with a job but the idea of them being responsible for troops is asking for trouble. The (old) Army was particularly bad for this as it seemed quite often the ones promoted were good at PT, had drinking problems and never met a piece of tail they wouldn't try and sleep with effects on morale or discipline be damned. 

IMO the problem isn't that we separate those aspects, it's that we have no way to reward someone who is good at their job but isn't suited, or inclined, to be further up the leadership ladder. Whether it's a different rank akin to master tradesman status, medals or financial incentives, we need to give leadership some tools to separate the leaders from the workers while rewarding someone who just does their job well. In fact, the biggest complaint I hear is that X shows up everyday and works hard yet they see nothing come PER time while Y is off on some other secondary duty or task and Y gets promoted.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Apr 2020)

It's called the Peter Principle.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Apr 2020)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's called the Peter Principle.



People forget it is a real management theory based on real research.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Apr 2020)

To clarify, by demonstrated performance outweighing potential, I meant more that if you are still developing at the current rank, potential for future jobs doesn't really matter as much as mastering the skills needed for what you do now.

The way our PERs work, the 'performance' rated skills directly relate to the potential ones.  For example, if you score highly on potential for communicating at the next rank, you should score highly on oral/written communication at the current rank. A high leadership potential for the next rank should correlate to high performance scores at supervision, organization, etc.  So logically anyone scoring high across the board on potential at the next rank should also be high across the board in performance at the current rank.  The reverse isn't true though; someone can be a good at the current rank but not be suitable for the next rank. In any case, that's why I think someone with a higher perceived potential ranking someone with higher scores might be a problem and needs to be looked at, to make sure the scoring makes sense.

So to me, if I read a PER with hard right potential without corresponding performance scores at the current rank, it doesn't work logically. You are either over-estimating their potential, or pushing them up faster then they need to gain the experience at the current rank. If people rush through the ranks too fast, the Peter principle becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as you just aren't giving someone enough time to develop the baseline competencies required for success at higher levels. It's also about perspective as well; it takes time to shift your mind from thinking about the day to day to the bigger/longer term. Some people might be able to do it really easily, some might need a long time (or never get there).


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Apr 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> People forget it is a real management theory based on real research.



While Dr. Peter may have "researched" his principle by observation, his book was meant to be satire, not a treatise on management theory.  It probably says something about how managers viewed themselves that his book (and a good part of his later career) became so successful.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/15/obituaries/laurence-j-peter-is-dead-at-70-his-principle-satirized-business.html


> Dr. Peter maintained that his principle was ''the key to an understanding of the whole structure of civilization.'' He also said he was only kidding. Publisher's Weekly, which was not kidding, said the book was ''precisely geared for the Age of Conglomerates.'' Some conglomerates - which were not kidding either - offered to hire Dr. Peter as their management guru. He turned them down, saying he did not want to rise above his own level of competence.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> To clarify, by demonstrated performance outweighing potential, I meant more that if you are still developing at the current rank, potential for future jobs doesn't really matter as much as mastering the skills needed for what you do now.
> 
> The way our PERs work, the 'performance' rated skills directly relate to the potential ones.  For example, if you score highly on potential for communicating at the next rank, you should score highly on oral/written communication at the current rank. A high leadership potential for the next rank should correlate to high performance scores at supervision, organization, etc.  So logically anyone scoring high across the board on potential at the next rank should also be high across the board in performance at the current rank.  The reverse isn't true though; someone can be a good at the current rank but not be suitable for the next rank. In any case, that's why I think someone with a higher perceived potential ranking someone with higher scores might be a problem and needs to be looked at, to make sure the scoring makes sense.
> 
> So to me, if I read a PER with hard right potential without corresponding performance scores at the current rank, it doesn't work logically. You are either over-estimating their potential, or pushing them up faster then they need to gain the experience at the current rank. If people rush through the ranks too fast, the Peter principle becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as you just aren't giving someone enough time to develop the baseline competencies required for success at higher levels. It's also about perspective as well; it takes time to shift your mind from thinking about the day to day to the bigger/longer term. Some people might be able to do it really easily, some might need a long time (or never get there).



That works in a world where everyone starts fresh and gets promoted just as they are ready to take the next step. The reality is much messier. Let's take remusters for example, if a Sgt remusters and becomes a Cpl does he lose all his leadership abilities? Of course he doesn't, he may have to adapt those skills to a new environment but his potential for the next rank will be very high because he has proven success at that level.  Another example is an MOI Captain who gets posted before promotion. There is no way she will realistically master her new job in the 6 months between posting and the PER deadline, should that mean she is no longer ready for an immediate promotion? Of course not so what we often get is someone who gets high section 5 rankings that don't reflect reality in order to justify the high section 6. The opposite is worse when they artificially lower second 6 to match section 5.

The reality is there is no perfect answer within our system. We have no way to reward the hard worker but move into a leadership position. We have no way to reward seniority except promoting to a leadership position and it often leads to bad leaders who are otherwise good at their areas of expertise. I would prefer the opposite because the further away you get up the ladder the less important technical knowledge is and the more important knowing how to use the knowledge under you is.


----------



## CountDC (24 Apr 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.



haven't seen that anywhere, where is it from as CFPAS indicates that is for the reviewing officer not a merit board? Be good to have for the next time we do the boards or they tell me to fill them in. Never saw a board fill in those dots but as the supervisor drafting the PER have been required to fill them in along with comments if needed. From my participation in boards the drafted PER from the supervisor is one factor in the merit of the member so a member could have the same or slightly lower PER but score higher on the merit due to the other factors that are laid out in the merit board directions.  

I was "requested" to change my PER on a member working for me as another member had scored higher on the board but their PER was lower.  I said no as the PER was valid and I was not going to penalize my staff. Perhaps they should go back to the sgt writing the other PER, explain to him about the CFPAS footprints and how a PER should be, and get him to redo his PER if needed.  To be honest due to my position I had received the PER and it was low for someone scoring high on a merit, it was mediocre at best mostly D with a few S.  The catch was he was working in trade and was in a year longer while my member was working out of trade.  My member had S along with a couple ES and Part 5 having one higher bubble but both were rated ready.  My PER stayed and as far as I recall they opted to leave both as they were.


----------



## KuroKuma (14 Mar 2022)

I was wondering if anyone could tell me whether or not working out of trade can affect your scoring during the selection board process. I'm a S1 Steward that's been working as a MS/PO2 Nav Comm for the past 5 years and my last three PER's were stellar with immediate recommendations. But for the last several years I've gone down on the ranking board and this year I didn't even rank. So I'm just wondering if it's because I haven't been working in trade. I'm open to any opinions on the matter and greatly appreciate your time.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Mar 2022)

Your PER score just gets you onto the merit board. After that, each trade has a SCRIT point system (please don't ask what that acronym means). For example, as a Sig Op I get extra points for Breadth of Experience, Mobility, PD, Education, 2nd Language, deployment in rank, and a few other ones that escape me right now. The boards are also limited to 3x the number of promotions plus ties, so if your trade is only promoting 5 folks to MS, then they'll take 15 files plus any ties. This makes every PER point count.

This is where your disconnect could be, you've got 120 MOIs but against your peers you're missing points that only the merit board gives. One of your POs or Chiefs could get ahold of your Steward SCRITs and see where you're missing out.


----------



## MJP (14 Mar 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Your PER score just gets you onto the merit board. After that, each trade has a SCRIT point system (please don't ask what that acronym means). For example, as a Sig Op I get extra points for Breadth of Experience, Mobility, PD, Education, 2nd Language, deployment in rank, and a few other ones that escape me right now. The boards are also limited to 3x the number of promotions plus ties, so if your trade is only promoting 5 folks to MS, then they'll take 15 files plus any ties. This makes every PER point count.
> 
> This is where your disconnect could be, you've got 120 MOIs but against your peers you're missing points that only the merit board gives. One of your POs or Chiefs could get ahold of your Steward SCRITs and see where you're missing out.


SCRIT= Scoring CRITeria


DGMC Occupation page hasn't been updated since 2014 but below was what they looked at 7-8 years ago to fill out the other 40 points (100 total 60 for PERs, remainder from SCRIT)






To answer the question of why you are not getting promoted would be hard to answer as there are often other issues at play that only your trade, CoC and you are aware of. Every trade has their nuances to promotion and some take longer than others. and the same applies to individuals.


----------

