• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CANFORGEN 168/21- New 'Inclusion' and the performance appraisal process

coolintheshade

Jr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
210
This recently came out, and requires 2 lines on 'inclusion' in the PER for members. Apparently, after going thru all that PaCE trg, next PER will be using the old system/way, and not the proposed new way.

Anyone able to expand on the 'inclusion' requirement please?
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
430
Fuck I can't wait to retire. I only get 9 lines to cover everything a person did in a year to the point everything is so short as to be essentially meaningless but we need two whole lines on what a person is doing for inclusion. What are you supposed to say "Cpl Bloggins didn't exclude the black guy from his training session"? "Cpl Bloggins did some stupid DLN course to check this box"?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,254
Points
1,090
Fuck I can't wait to retire. I only get 9 lines to cover everything a person did in a year to the point everything is so short as to be essentially meaningless but we need two whole lines on what a person is doing for inclusion. What are you supposed to say "Cpl Bloggins didn't exclude the black guy from his training session"? "Cpl Bloggins did some stupid DLN course to check this box"?
Shows how the whole system needs to be burned and redone
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,129
Points
1,160
Shows how the whole system needs to be burned and redone

Meanwhile, we retired guys be like....

Destroy Burn It Down GIF by Nicole
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
786
Points
960
Fuck I can't wait to retire. I only get 9 lines to cover everything a person did in a year to the point everything is so short as to be essentially meaningless but we need two whole lines on what a person is doing for inclusion. What are you supposed to say "Cpl Bloggins didn't exclude the black guy from his training session"? "Cpl Bloggins did some stupid DLN course to check this box"?
As I read it, the two lines are in addition to the nine.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,904
Points
1,040
So how does that inclusion thing get scored or evaluated? Is there going to be a reporting officer's cheat sheet with suitable phrases and clauses to pick and choose from? Maybe it should be a drop down pick list to choose from? You could do that in one line with the appropriate positive and negative choices and save everyone hours of agonizing about how to word it.

Sigh. I always thought that "creating an effective team" and "welfare of subordinates" (or words to that effect) were already two of the primary performance objectives. Folks who didn't pass muster on those had very limited careers.

:unsure:
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
615
Points
940
The Wokeness is slowly making it's way into evaluations. Excellent.

Serenity now.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,321
Points
1,010
The Wokeness is slowly making it's way into evaluations. Excellent.

Serenity now.
I don't want to start a fire in here but when is the CAF going to rename items that may be - how do I say this - of questionable character?
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
640
Points
1,010
I don't want to start a fire in here but when is the CAF going to rename items that may be - how do I say this - of questionable character?
Things like the Horse C*** are already falling out of use. It wasn't like any one came out and said don't use that name but observed it in passing troops asking for the flexible attachment or similar names in last few years before I retired. Still work in a DND facility and we generally use alternatives names for things that have had historically unkempt undertones to them. I have no doubt that some names will linger on and be said for years but I think the shift has already started.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,513
Points
1,010
There's only so much an HR department can do before everything is in order and people have to start looking for new areas of influence.

Behind everything new is someone industrious in an overstaffed unit without enough core responsibility to keep them occupied.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,978
Points
1,060
Things like the Horse C*** are already falling out of use. It wasn't like any one came out and said don't use that name but observed it in passing troops asking for the flexible attachment or similar names in last few years before I retired. Still work in a DND facility and we generally use alternatives names for things that have had historically unkempt undertones to them. I have no doubt that some names will linger on and be said for years but I think the shift has already started.
It's amazing what a low key non-sensationalized approach to change can accomplish.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
400
Points
910
To put how silly this is into perspective, just think.... if we had this in place for the past 5-10 years, the CAF would have been giving all of those people currently in hot water - such as Vance - top scores in inclusivity.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
430
To put how silly this is into perspective, just think.... if we had this in place for the past 5-10 years, the CAF would have been giving all of those people currently in hot water - such as Vance - top scores in inclusivity.
Ding ding ding! The problem is with how the military lets its superstars get away with things most of us would hang for. We have all seen it. Guys like Vance would still get hard right PERs. They write PERs to get the people they want promoted promoted not to figure out who should be promoted. The PACE system will be the same.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
935
Points
910
Ding ding ding! The problem is with how the military lets its superstars get away with things most of us would hang for. We have all seen it. Guys like Vance would still get hard right PERs. They write PERs to get the people they want promoted promoted not to figure out who should be promoted. The PACE system will be the same.
100% this. We have all seen, and participated in the process if we have written PERs. How many people can say they haven't picked a person to push because they saw potential in them?

Based on my experience, a "rising star" is picked early, and then they are given the opportunities, and PDRs/PERs to advance. This might not necessarily be a bad thing, if we balanced it by removing them from the favoured position if/when they screw up. We usually don't though, because the new "star" is tied to the name of someone higher up the chain(almost like the bosses kid), and nobody wants to be seen as crossing this powerful person.

My favourite thing about this new inclusivity addition to the PER, is the guidance on it is expected by NLT 28 Feb... So people have a month or two at best to understand a criteria they will be assessed on over the last year. What could possibly go wrong with that?
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
189
Points
430
100% this. We have all seen, and participated in the process if we have written PERs. How many people can say they haven't picked a person to push because they saw potential in them?

Based on my experience, a "rising star" is picked early, and then they are given the opportunities, and PDRs/PERs to advance. This might not necessarily be a bad thing, if we balanced it by removing them from the favoured position if/when they screw up. We usually don't though, because the new "star" is tied to the name of someone higher up the chain(almost like the bosses kid), and nobody wants to be seen as crossing this powerful person.

My favourite thing about this new inclusivity addition to the PER, is the guidance on it is expected by NLT 28 Feb... So people have a month or two at best to understand a criteria they will be assessed on over the last year. What could possibly go wrong with that?

It is bad enough that we start writing them 3-4 months before the end of the reporting period. I ended up grieving my PER this year, in part because nothing I did between Jan and Mar was mentioned. In a normal year that would be less of an issue because I had a lot of meat come Christmas, Covid meant everything was pushed left and I did most of things I was supposed to do all year in Feb-Mar.

The plain fact is that our PERs have always been a subjective process masquerading as objective. We will even rank people who aren't even qualified in their rank because our system isn't designed to actually find out who is best suited to be promoted, it's designed to give them a way to promote the people they like.

While I am ranting, I am not sure I even trust our boards to be reliable. The system has no transparency. All I know is that I ranked or didn't. I don't know if they took all the relevant information in, or if some was missing. Our record keeping isn't exactly top notch, according to EMAA I graduated highschool in 1900, and I have had lots of information just disappear into the ether. Because the system isn't transparent, if you want to get someone promoted you have to write them as if Jesus himself joined the CAF or risk them getting passed over for someone whose boss did write them like that.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
It’s more important to be seen as doing something than it is to actually do something.
From a different angle: at what point do PERs stop being written by someone who has a good awareness of what the subject's day-to-day behaviour is like, instead relying on outputs like "the right noises were made with vigour and panache?" Cdr-Cmdre?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,275
Points
1,260
From a different angle: at what point do PERs stop being written by someone who has a good awareness of what the subject's day-to-day behaviour is like, instead relying on outputs like "the right noises were made with vigour and panache?" Cdr-Cmdre?
Not so much rank, but position based. Some staff officers and OUTCAN folks don't see their standard CoC at all.
 
Top