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

PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

sgtdixon

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Im dropping this board a line as I have to do about 40 pers Evals. at my Sqn for next week :eek: to be in time for promotion selection boards. If anyone knows where to acquire these Personnel Evaluation Reports, that would be of great Help

Cdt/Sgt.(Maybe soon a F/Sgt come thrus.) Dixon
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
367
Points
910
It‘s now known as the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). You can dowload the program here. It‘s 19megs, you better have high speed.

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpas/engraph/home_e.asp
 
M

mseoptrucker

Guest
:cdn:  The  P.E.R. systeam as it stands leaves too much open to personal opinion and as a result good leaders are being by passed and people who couldn't find their asses with a handfull of fish hooks are leading in many cases. the opportunity for advancement is based too much on the buddy buddy oldboy network mwo likes that guy fashion.I Believe that a promotion should be given for a person who has demonstrated a want, (THROUGH WORK ETHIC) For a promotion . And also that with a clean record,that after enough experience enough qualification and a set number of years that a person should be able to expect a promotion .I am on my 17th year of svc in the army have always been known as a hard worker have never been charged and P.E.RS  have always been above average never masted even though I'm being led often at times by people who have mastered far less then myself .and it didn't stop their promotions .The systeam is unfair it lends it self to abuse and created resentment among those of who have always worked hard but get no where . i have 4 years to go in the army and not to complain but I cant wait till its over ill get my 20 and its bye bye army and I'm taking my experience and my qualifications with me.and they can replace me with someone who has half the work ethic a quarter of the respect for the job he does and an eighth of the motivation . Bu if he is a funny guy that makes the boss laugh he likely will make Sgt in 20.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
1,160
Why don't you make a specific proposal for change of the PER system (its been done before on these forums) that actually identifies and argues the problem and makes rational solution rather then just throwing out a hard-to-read rant that really solves nothing.
 
M

mseoptrucker

Guest
Its not a rant its a statement and the statement suggests a course of action if you took the time to read it. Abolish the P.E.R systeam and make promotions more goal achievement based .is that hidden in my so called rant as you call it.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
1,160
I can hardly read it due to a lack of paragraphs.  But I did read it, and all I can see is that you state:

1) That advancement in the military is through nepotism (the "buddy, buddy system").

2) Personel should be able to expect a promotion after a set period of time, regardless of suitability.

Above that, all I seem to detect is bitterness (in the form of a rant) about not being promoted.

PS: I'm agreeable to a change in the PER system to one based upon some form of "360 degree" evaluation (ie: your subordinates respect you) and objective-task criteria (ie: you're capable of leading a section in battle).

 
M

mseoptrucker

Guest
    well I have to say i am a bit bitter,But this is by no means the reason for the post I truly believe that the systeam of promotion be not just repaired but totaly reworked. It is not a power thing So much as it is a family wellness issue . As you know there are 4 incentives as a Cpl and after that you have no pay increase without a promotion. If your family grows and your pay stays the same you may find yourself in ka ka . This is my situation, im not writting this in hopes it will change my situation as I have said before I have but 4 years left . I am saying that if someone gets his qualifications has a spotless career gets enough expearience and shows through some form of testing the ability to go to the next rank that after a set number of years he should have the opertunity to at least show weather he is able to perform at the next rank through some performance test. 
  Iwill  even ask you a question, Why do dental hygenists and band personnel have automatic Sgt rank when their courses are compleat? it is not un heard of what I am saying  . and i am not saying that a person be prommoted regardless of ability as you say. i am saying that it should depend on more then your bosses oppnion.
        And as for your my writting I am not a good writter and never have been for that matter. I will excuse myself I have also been away from english for 8 years and have a bit of a hard time with it all.  spell check is not working for me tonight :O)
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
1,160
mseoptrucker said:
And as for your my writting I am not a good writter and never have been for that matter. I will excuse myself I have also been away from english for 8 years and have a bit of a hard time with it all.   spell check is not working for me tonight :O)

You raise some good issues.

As well, I apologize for the slight on the langue.
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There are some problems with our PERs, but IMHO it is not with the system. The CFPAS system, if applied properly and completely   with properly run sub-unit and unit rating boards, is a very good one. The rating boards, as well the practice of having several levels of review, should ensure accuracy and fairness. As a system, it is much, much fairer than anything we had before, and IMHO than anything that I have ever heard of on civvy street where promotion seems to be either quite arbitrary or based on seniority. The real problem IMHO is with the people who lack the courage to rate people where they really should be. I have seen several PER systems over the years, and each one eventually suffers from the same problem: the desire to get our people promoted, coupled with our inability to tell mediocre or marginal performers that that is what they really are.

Let's face it: the majority of people are average: no more. Average to me means you perform the duties expected of you in a competent manner, meet the standards set, do not screw up such as to harm the mission or the team, and are good to have around. Therefore, most people should be rated right around the middle. As well, we have a small but significant number of people whose performance is mediocre to marginal. They show little or no initiative, do not peform all of their duties adequately, do not meet the standards, and require more supervision than normal. They are not necessarily good team members. These people should   be rated below average, over towards the left side. Probably, they should be put on the RW/C&P/release track if no improvement is seen.

Unfortunately, in my experience, what happens is that within a year of issuing a new PER system, we have begun to debase it by dragging everybody over to the right side of the scale, regardless of what they have actually done or failed to do. "Average" becomes the baseline rating that we give out, no matter how inadequate a person's performance. People who should be rated as "average" or perhaps slightly above, begin to drift to the right. Once that rightward drift starts, it is hard to stop or reverse because that is seen as "harming" the individual, regardless of whether or not the person actually deserves the scores. Aggravating this is a belief (strongest, I am sorry to say, amongst some older WOs...) that a younger person in a rank level "should not" get rated above those with more seniority in rank. This IMHO is unionism plain and simple, and just as in the civvy unionized work world is the weapon of the lazy and complacent against the hardworking and dedicated.

The Army, especially the Cbt Arms, is frequently criticized as being "too harsh" in PER ratings. (IMHO that is rubbish-we are often just as guilty as anybody else...). I have had several complaints against PERs I have written because the recipient felt that the scores were too low. Having defended my rating intent at unit rating boards before putting pen to paper, I believed I was rating them honestly. In the end I had to retract and rewrite on all of them.

I recall a story concerning the German Army. At one point in its history, officer evaluations went from being closed documents (the individual never saw them) to being open, as we know them today. The point of the story was that once the individuals could see what was being written about them (and thus complain or create a confontation....) the quality and accuracy of rating deteriorated. Now, while I immediately recognize the ethical implications of "secret PERs", this story brings me to the other problem we face (and I have faced it too, believe me...). IMHO we are notoriously bad at telling weak and incompetent people that they are weak and incompetent, and what to do to fix it, or what will happen if they don't. Typically we do nothing, or "damn with faint praise" (see above). As a parallel, if you were coaching a sports team and told one of your players that they needed to improve their passing or catching, they would probably accept it. Far too often I find that we in the military seem to get quite upset when we are told we have a weakness-people seem to take it as a threat or veiled insult, rather than guidance to improve. When people do not improve, too often we do nothing but bitch behind the individual' back instead of taking corrective action.

This score inflation is insidious and actually pointless: if everybody is "superior", nobody is "superior".

Cheers.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
1,240
Points
1,160
Bang-on PBI - Great Post.

From what I've gathered, the "score inflation" - in an effort to be nice (we're programed by society to do so) - leads to a zero-defects mentality.   Because anything less then perfect is a career killer (since everyone else is getting scored on the far right of the bell curve) nobody wants to rock the boat and risk getting a "Good" or "Average".

Do you think a "closed document" evaluation system would be more advantageous (or perhaps one sealed, only viewable by the next C-of-C, for a specific duration of time).   Perhaps something like this, if combined with a "360 degree" system to protect against vindictive superiors (hmm...rated poorly, but his troops adore him, his NCO's say they'd follow him, and his fellow Officers feel confident with him on their left flank.....), would "shore-up the ratings system against structural flaws?
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You raise a very interesting idea. I could see peer input (we already do peer ratings on courses, or at least we did..) and I think that there might be a way to integrate subordinate input (other than the NCO/SgtMaj net that exists now...I have often sought "subordinate" input on my officers by asking my SgtMj to come in and close the door, although one needs to be careful...). I must say though that I am somewhat uncomfortable with formalized subordinate input, lest we turn it into a popularity contest which would probably aid the lazy "good 'ol boys" and harm those who demand standards....maybe I am just old fashiond.

On the issue of closed evaluations in a formal sense, while I can see the value IMHO it is a total non-starter in our system today, and anyway somebody would just do an Access to Information request and get it all anyway. The real solution is honesty and courage in dealing with our subordinates... much harder said than done-I know very well that I have my failures in this area too.

Cheers.
 

Phillman

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Even though a secret or closed P.E.R. may be more accurate, I prefer seeing mine not so that I can complain and whine about it, but so that I know where I can improve.
 

Ty

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Phillman said:
Even though a secret or closed P.E.R. may be more accurate, I prefer seeing mine not so that I can complain and whine about it, but so that I know where I can improve.

I truly believe that a closed evaluation (speaking from a non-military standpoint) is not the best way to do things. I understand the problems with the open-evaluation system, but everyone should be entitled to their supervisor's professional opinion- if only to develop themselves even better- as you stated above. 

To stem the behaviour of rating everyone as above-average, my department uses review boards after all evaluations are completed.  As a management team, a moderator, and a chair, we review each staff member evaluated by our colleagues and make changes when we feel it's warranted- do people on this form believe that to be an adequate measure to ensure evaluations are more honest and, in the end, valuable to the evaluatee?

 

AmmoTech90

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
74
Points
530
Talking to my wife about this she brought up a good point about the closed system.  With the Access to Information act you cannot hold information back from a person relating to them, so having an closed system under Canadian legislation would probably not be possible.  Maybe someone with more experience with ATI could say if this is correct or not.
 

MdB

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Infanteer said:
Bang-on PBI - Great Post.
Do you think a "closed document" evaluation system would be more advantageous (or perhaps one sealed, only viewable by the next C-of-C, for a specific duration of time).   Perhaps something like this, if combined with a "360 degree" system to protect against vindictive superiors (hmm...rated poorly, but his troops adore him, his NCO's say they'd follow him, and his fellow Officers feel confident with him on their left flank.....), would "shore-up the ratings system against structural flaws?

I think it's not necessary, since mediocre or average performer wouldn't lose their job. So, this is unionist any ways you look at it.

pbi said:
On the issue of closed evaluations in a formal sense, while I can see the value IMHO it is a total non-starter in our system today, and anyway somebody would just do an Access to Information request and get it all anyway. The real solution is honesty and courage in dealing with our subordinates... much harder said than done-I know very well that I have my failures in this area too.

An open evaluation is necessary, because it's constructive, but also otherwise it would create a climate even more competitive and of malaise in that you don't know how your peers, superiors, and subordinates rate you or comment you. Would drive anyone crazy. In another way, it could drive people to perform the max they can, BECAUSE they don't know what the comments are and try to obtain good comments as much as he can.

Still, it's a matter of culture too. There are a great tradition of unionism and it influences how we look at it. Honesty and courage is definitely the way to go, but still, what structure would instill the culture necessary to grow a good way to evalutate? PBI, what would you say to someone who wants to get up in the system now? And what would you say him if it were in a good system? It's to compare the evaluation culture as it is now and as it would have to be.

The other thing not mentioned here is that members of the same rank are in competition at some level, how does it affect the evaluation system or would if in a 360 degree evaluation system?

I find the pay scale well organized in that you get higher pay with years, even though you stay the same rank. It's a good way for those who want to stay where they are and for those feeling they are wrongly evaluated and don't get up the rank, which is the only way to improve substantially the pay. Still, it's not just a matter of pay or don't have to be. Am I getting it wrong concerning pay scales and the role it plays?

Last thing, I really believe in objective-driven performance and evaluation. More, I really believe that part (how much, that to be decided) of that have to be a team-results evaluation, since it has to be an incentive to work as a team.
 

LCISTech227

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MdB,
Just for clarity, in the NCM ranks there are only 4 pay level incentives.  So, after being in rank for 4 years you've had it, no incentives after that.  So, what incentive does an 8 year Corporal have, to do better?  Not Much.  I know there are a lot of ppl who contradict that last statement, but with human nature ppl will only do what they need to, to get by.  Basically, I mean they will only do as much as they need to, so they don't get in crap.

Also, in human nature, most ppl avoid a confrontation.  By this I mean, most ppl want to be liked, and not be the guy/girl that everyone hates.  This leads to complacency in their job performance.  They write someone who is obviously weak as being average to avoid the confrontation.  This basically equates to laziness to me anyway.  Plenty of times ppl overlook faults because they are too lazy to take the corrective action necessary to fix the problem.

Cheers,
 
M

mseoptrucker

Guest
Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases. Eventhough you may be cleared of these charges through the proper investigation of the accusation, you will never be in the eyes of all,be totally Innocent. Its a cover your ass ideal that was established during the witch hunt for Somalia culprits, and even the upper ranks were passing the buck .
        Fast forward to 2005 no one wants to take the chance.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not sure how to improve the PER, but I'd just like to point out I've never really seen a person that was all bad.  Sure, a soldier may have sucked at drill, but may have been a great machine gunner - or he's lousy at organizing his kit, but he's a great instructor - or whatever.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  I like the PER because it does give you a chance to say that he's a great x but a crappy y.  It tells the guy what he has to work on.

I do think there is some bias in the selection process.  We've all seen some guys get fastracked through the ranks.  I don't think that's a forces specific problem.  It happens in the civvie side as well.  If you're the bosses son, you're going to be the next manager.  If you're in the clique, you're going up and other guys are getting stalled - no matter what industry you're in. 
 

2 Cdo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mseoptrucker said:
Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases. Eventhough you may be cleared of these charges through the proper investigation of the accusation, you will never be in the eyes of all,be totally Innocent. Its a cover your *** ideal that was established during the witch hunt for Somalia culprits, and even the upper ranks were passing the buck .
Fast forward to 2005 no one wants to take the chance.
Correcting personels faults is the job of the NCO, anybody who pulls the harrassment card or racist card for having their faults identified and offered ways to correct them are not worthy of wearing the uniform!

Troops need to grow up and quit playing the "woe is me, everyone is picking on me" crap. You are supposed to be adults, maybe it's time to act like it and quit whining!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top