# CFPAS - Canadian Forces Personnel Eveluation System



## Radop (27 Feb 2005)

I have been through 3 distinct evaluation reporting systems in my time with the CF.   IMHO, I think that this system is the best that we can use to get the right combination between substantive and subjective reporting.   The "bubbles" are marked as a substantive score while the narrative give a subjective substantiation to the bubbles.

The problem that I can see is the quality of the writer can make a big difference in whether the person gets promoted or not.

Please put in your comments about the system and especially the 2005 varriant.


----------



## buzgo (27 Feb 2005)

I honestly think that the writer has nothing to do with it. 

For instance, a guy who has worked in a job for a few years is probably going to have mastered that job. At the very least they will be ES. A new guy is going to be developing or skilled or whatever. Thats fine. Now my problem is this: The guy who has been in the job for a few years might be great at that specific job, but maybe he's not going anywhere. The new guy could be really switched on, maybe he really picked up his new job, has volunteered for everything, and has shown a lot of potential. Because of the way the system works, the new guy will suffer!

I've encoutered this situation this year. I'm in Ottawa, there are lots of people here who IMHO have been HIDING for years. They have no initiative, have no supervisory or leadership skills, they are not going anywhere. BUT, because they ranked at a certain spot in the unit merit last year, they can't be bumped by a switched on new guy.  Its totally not fair. I have a guy who, in a field unit (or a busier unit) would be outstanding, but because of where we work, he's going to get burned...

Hopefully this makes sense! I have a tendency to get a bit worked up at this time of the year . 

I think that in our trade (Sigop) the system is SO corrupt that something must be done about it. Not everyone is going to be awesome, some people are destined to be good corporals for their entire career. The leadership needs to be honest and tell people when they are just adequate, they also need to back us up when thats what we want to say.


----------



## buzgo (27 Feb 2005)

Oh, I think that CFPAS is good...


----------



## Radop (27 Feb 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Oh, I think that CFPAS is good...



Thanks for getting to the point, lol.  

I encountered just the opposite as you this year.  I rated some guys lower than they did last year and had it justified by their PDRs so no one argued about getting one guy pushed higher.  I thought I was going to get screwed this year going to a new unit like you did.  Everything that came up I did.  None of the other MCpls would volunteer to do anything so I did it.  I got recognized for it at Christmas and have already been told that I would be very happy with my PER.  Just wish I could have gotten out the door on an SRC mission but it just didn't happen.  I got recognized for my potential and quality of work (thanks Pet for expecting it of me).

Signalsguy, 

Do you miss the work at Pet?


----------



## buzgo (28 Feb 2005)

I'm not concerned about my PER, its not too hard to excel here, I actually have subordinates here (unlike Pet where as you know, I worked with like 90 other MCpls). I came in quietly and then slowly started trying to sort some people out. Unfortunately, many are beyond hope.

I'm mainly concerned about one of my guys, but hopefully he's going to come out alright. I do miss parts of Pet, I had a lot of responsibility in my old job, way beyond what a MCpl normally has, more in line with a Captain sometimes.. heh.

I find that the assesment cycle here is pretty much the same as everywhere else I've seen it. I wrote solid PDRs, based my PERs on them, got told that I can't write about someone needing improvement in their PER.  If someone has NOT improved after being counselled repeatedly, then by rights, it should go in the PER, correct?


----------



## Radop (28 Feb 2005)

We just had our PER writing session with the Adj last week and your example is exactly what we discussed.   He said that if a person has not responded to the action plan and areas of developement then that should be mentioned in the PER.   He said that some superiors don't want negatives in the PERs and if that is the case.   Only half fill the block with the good points and when asked why, tell them that is the only good point and if they want it filled, then the points that they have failed to improve upon must be mentioned.

As you said about responsibility, I had to create work for myself to keep busy.  I feel like one of my Cpls in Pet.  I gave them more responsibility than what I get here.


----------

