Author Topic: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current  (Read 938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,774
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2018, 15:53:27 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,198
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2018, 15:54:55 »
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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #52 on: July 22, 2018, 15:55:30 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2018, 15:56:59 »
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. 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 166,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,482
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #54 on: July 22, 2018, 16:17:52 »
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.

Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #55 on: July 22, 2018, 16:30:30 »
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.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 16:38:09 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 166,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,482
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #56 on: July 22, 2018, 16:51:24 »
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. 

On my previous ship I had an Army MCpl who had been in rank 4 years.  And this 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 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.

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.     
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 17:59:05 by MJP »
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #57 on: July 22, 2018, 17:01:20 »
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. 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,198
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #58 on: July 22, 2018, 17:24:16 »
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.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,774
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2018, 17:29:00 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #60 on: July 23, 2018, 18:38:13 »
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!

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,611
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #61 on: July 23, 2018, 20:19:56 »
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!
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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2018, 08:44:28 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,899
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2018, 09:20:09 »
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:
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2018, 09:28:09 »
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 ?

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,899
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2018, 09:32:33 »
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).
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 09:39:59 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2018, 10:51:30 »
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).

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.

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #67 on: July 24, 2018, 16:45:44 »
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 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!

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 761
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2018, 17:50:37 »
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!

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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2018, 19:37:10 »
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.

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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,611
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2018, 21:19:10 »
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. 

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 761
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2018, 00:14:46 »
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).

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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2018, 06:41:49 »
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.

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. 

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. 

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 28,782
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 424
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2018, 08:28:28 »
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?

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,774
Re: PERs : All issues questions...2018-current
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2018, 10:39:05 »
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?

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html