PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[MdB]

take a stand on behalf of a soldier at the expense of their career

Could a superior recognize the officer/NCM did that for the welfare of those under him and say to him, you did the right thing? Like if you talk the talk, walk the walk. Leading by example? A beginning?

I'm not in, but I'd be really interested in having an example. I don't like to talk principles without frame.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Could a superior recognize the officer/NCM did that for the welfare of those under him and say to him, you did the right thing? Like if you talk the talk, walk the walk. Leading by example? A beginning?

I'm not in, but I'd be really interested in having an example. I don't like to talk principles without frame.

        There were officers I served under who would put it on the line to back you, and they got our best.  There were NCO's who knew how to delegate, and get off our backs while we get the job done (or tear us a new one if we slacked off).  There were also a lot of paper shufflers who cruised up the ranks, knew every comma and asterisk of the regs that could be used to justify their advancing as swift as possible through the ranks by screwing over anyone in their way, and to h*ll with the troops.  These garrison cowboys were very spit and polish, conspicuously absent in the field, first in line for any course, and last in line for any deployment.  A depressing number of them CFR'd, turning the most useless but-licking excuses for NCO's into tin-pot dictator instant officers.  Since our civilian lords and masters have long wished a military leadership more "in-step" with Ottawa, our military leadership has for the past generation been more concerned with "not rocking the boat" and appeasing our civilian leaders and the Canadian press, rather than building a fighting force.  This has had the effect of encouraging the rise of NCO's and commissioned officers that think more like bureaucrats in uniform than defenders of our nation.  In the Zulu wars, at Rourke's drift, the Quarter Masters refused to issue more than one box of ammunition at a time, and only to runners of their own company, causing the British to be over-run.  When I was twelve that seemed far fetched.  When I was twenty, I was amazed that they didn't require written authorization from the company commander, countersigned by the adjutant, have to fill out a loan card, and turn in the spent brass from the preceding box before issue of new rounds. Now it would probably also require an environmental impact study on the terrain, and a signed acknowledgement of the ROE's for dealing with howling mobs of screaming barbarians as drafted by some African theologian in his cushy New York UN office.

 

[CH1]

Some body asked for a case in point of an NCO or Officer being recognized for looking after their ppl.

I was #1 on the hit parade from 87 to 98. Slid to #2 Just before the Regt'l Reunion.  I Am still a pariah in the Officers Mess save for the ppl that can be counted on 2 hands & which base I'm on.  It looks like an all out fire fight to get my pension.

That's what I get for 37 years.  Serves me right!  Would I do it again?  Khaki runs in my veins & I will stand up for my bodies till death.  Out of public scrutiny, they will get a new a**s chewed if they require it.

There you have it.  20 yrs as an Lt!!  & all I ever wanted was to be an RSM.

There's no life like it;  INFANTRY!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

 

[Heathan]

How can we have any accountability in this military when on more than one occasion I have heard, " DONT ADMIT A THING", this when the soldier was taking responsibility for his actions.  Instead of being applauded for his integrity, he was punished harder than those who have been in the exact same spot but denied everything. Another personal motivator for me is the CFL that moans, groans, and does nothing to change the situation yet never gets out. All they do is pollute the minds of the new soldier into believing that the jobs sucks. I have been in-out-back in and the grass always seems greener on the other side, for me and my family the military is wonderful.  I have had lots of bad times and shitty goes, but for those few good ones, it makes it more than worth it. 

 

[CH1]

Heathan:

I think you are close to hitting the nail on the head.  Unfortunately this has always seemed to creep into the system ever since Christ was a lance-jack.  I don't think there is any way to stop it due to the wide span of personal nature.

The system does have some checks & balances.  How ever nothing is perfect.

For myself, the military has been my family as long as I can remember.  It has had it's moments both good & bad, but 80%+ good overall.  It is hard to try & adjust to a civvie life.

Cheers

 

[DELTADOG13]

I apologize for not responding earlier. I do admit these days that we need to move on in our training subjects. I was not discounting the "three block war or the contemporary operating envirement". What I was stating is we need to get back to basic's of the combat arms mentality. Or what I like to call the three tenets of an Infantryman. FITNESS, MARKSMANSHIP AND BATTLECRAFT. Everyday I try teach my young and old soldiers( I have a Pte who is 37) to be fit and have pride in being fit, I try to do fun non injuring fitness training that will prepare them for the field. When we go to the range which we try to do at every availiable moment( first training sacrificed by the C of C) we do relevent applications of shooting. We also try to teach CQB skills. The problem is finding the qualified range staff to carry out the range. Ammo and range bookings for once not being the problem. Battlecraft the bread and butter of the combat arms......everyone a rifleman first mentality. I think I've ranted enough. Eventhough I lack certain qual's to carry out some of the trg I try to carry it out through dry and walk throughs. Keeping in mind the principles of leadership. i strive to ensure when I deploy to have the best trained troops ready to do the job. Constantly while deployed we did continuation training as well as learning new skills. Not once have I neglected my duty to my troops. i emplore my troops to always be looking for new training and ways to keep current with the ever changing tempo. I know I'm rehasing an old theme it just might not be getting through. I still believe in doing bags and bags of the high speed low drag stuff. My intent was to highlight the fact that we sacrifice the basics before going on to the high speed stuff. Plus comd's need to realise that troops need to be challenged physically and mentally with bags of stress. Commanders acceptance of risk on such things as fast rope training, adv mountain trg and such. Well I've ranted enough now.

Cheers Out

 

[GO!!!]

Delta

I agree with most of your post, but the "getting back to basics" part is the kicker. IMHO the "basics" should BE dynamic entries, unarmed cbt, instinctive shooting and fibua drills. The current basics should become the stuff we do once a year.

I for one have learned far more on 3 week "high speed" exercises in which there was a concentration on fibua and shooting, than on the long slow grinders in Wx where you spend endless hours waiting for the leaders recce to return, or doing the leaders recce.

In addition to this, the point has been raised about how 1) Troops these days question orders and have attitudes 2) We need thinking soldiers, not drones. Well, what happens when those thinking soldiers think that some of their leaders are gluebags? While I am not advocating insubordination, or a big chip on one's shoulder, is'nt this a bit of a catch 22?

 

[DELTADOG13]

GO, I agree with you whole heartedly. We should still do the "basics" at least to qualify in the Battle Task Standards. I agree we should be doing dynamic entries and instinctive shooting more often. I believe that every couple of weeks we should go to the range and shoot. Concentrating on non standard applications vice the normal grudge. That was the intent of my post. Not to say we shouldn't develop with the times. To do so is die in combat with a ever changing slithering snake. Cheers.

 

[ZipperHead]

In addition to this, the point has been raised about how 1) Troops these days question orders and have attitudes 2) We need thinking soldiers, not drones. Well, what happens when those thinking soldiers think that some of their leaders are gluebags? While I am not advocating insubordination, or a big chip on one's shoulder, is'nt this a bit of a catch 22?

I think that this brings up a few good points: when I joined, the only experience I had with the military was 5 years in Army Cadets (and a lot of viewings of Platoon, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket  :warstory, and to be sure I didn't know a lot about true leadership and the army in general. But even then I recognized that there were a lot of shit-pumps in the military. My first "true" crew commander was a Sgt who was about 3 ranks higher than he should have been (let's just say that "Affirmative Action" types of initiatives got him to where he was..... they also say that you rise to your level of incompetency). We knew enough to keep our mouth shut and do what we were told, no matter how stunned-ass and baked we thought it (the idea, the action, etc)was. Of course there comes a point when you feel the need to question the legitimacy (and legality) of what you are told to do, but this can only be done when you have the experience, and the ability to come up with an alternate solution, and also be able to accept the responsibility that comes with questioning something. Any leader who think that their CFL's (corporal/captain-for-life) don't have good ideas, based on experience and intelligence, isn't a  good leader at all. No one person knows everything, nor can think of the 100% off the top of their head for any given problem; they have to be able to rely on others to assist, but ultimately, if they choose a subordinates idea, and it tubes, the leader tubes. And if it works, recognize the subordinate.

The last thing that we need are mindless drones (everybody would like to have a unit of super-soldiers, with one shit-magnet to do all the duties for the others....), but we also don't need a unit full of Corporal-Colonels, where the disenfranchised whinge and whine about how horrible their leaders ideas are, infect the young soldiers with their malaise, and then crumble like a house of cards when they are put into a position of leadership or authority. Believe me, I see this all the time..... To be a good leader, one must be a good follower, and if you can't follow direction, there isn't much good for you in the military. I internally question some of the stunned-ass things that come down the pipe (based on 17 years of experience in the army), and thenthink up options, and present these to people who can affect change. Usually these ideas are cast on the scrap-heap (don't question the plan: rule #1), but sometimes, those that "think outside of the box" or "lead change" actually listen, and things can change (slowly but surely, things are changing for the better.... too late for a lot of us, but hopefully soon enough for those that just joined).

Anyway, good discussion and hopefully somebody learns something here.

Al

 

[reccecrewman]

I don't really see anything wrong with it............... If there's a leadership position that needs filling, and the leadership doesn't think they have a Corporal fit to do the job but they have a bright & shining star who is only a Private, by all means - promote that man.  Why promote an incompetent over someone who would actually do a better job because one is a Cpl. & one is a Pte.?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Because the Pte may be lacking the necessary experience that he would find in 4 years vice 2.

 

[ZipperHead]

I don't really see anything wrong with it............... If there's a leadership position that needs filling, and the leadership doesn't think they have a Corporal fit to do the job but they have a bright & shining star who is only a Private, by all means - promote that man.  Why promote an incompetent over someone who would actually do a better job because one is a Cpl. & one is a Pte.?

I don't see anything inherently wrong with this way of thing, but I doubt, RecceCrewman, that you will be so magnamious when a "bright and shining star" leaps over you on the race to MasterJack. It's easy to be young and keen when you are young and keen, but try to slug it out, year after year, waiting for training opportunities that never come (budget cuts, being deployed, being further down in the pecking order, being injured, etc). I have seen it, but never lived it (I had just over 4 years in when I got my CLC), but I have watched a lot of good soldiers get bypassed by the Johnny Cleanboots types who can turn it on for the Tp Ldr or Tp WO, but aren't worth a shit in the long run because they didn't serve their time as an "incompetent" Cpl (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that you didn't mean that all Cpl's are incompetent, but rather that some are, and shouldn't get leadership trg just because they've plodded along....... After all, one has to start out as an incompetent Tpr before they can rise to the ranks of incompetent Cpl).

The way that the CF is growing, we are going to see guys go from one banana to MasterJack, so we can only hope that the right people are selected for leadership trg based only on performance from a few exercises, maybe a deployment and garrison life. Odds are there will be young bucks launched up to MCpl (and beyond....) who would, in hindsight, been better served to stay as Cpl's (or released.....) than to race up the ranks. Time will tell, and hopefully these "streamers" have the intelligence to realize that they are in the army in a different era than some of the CFL's, and to not think they are anything shit-hot, only lucky for the opportunity, and if they are smart, will seek the advice of the older guys. I won't hold my breath, but hopefully it'll happen.

Al

 

[NCRCrow]

I cannot remember the last time I was allowed to write an adverse comment on a PER?

Is the way of the future?

Are we too accommodating/kinder/gentler military?

Is this setting a bad precedent for the next generation of leaders!

Any comments (especially from Senior NCM's)

 

[George Wallace]

So you are instructed to leave the Box listing any 'shortcomings'/'requires improvement' empty? 

 

[NCRCrow]

In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!

Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.

 

[George Wallace]

Well if they are really bad, there should be comments in the CO's box, which will entail the Bde/Formation/Base Comd to fill in the bottom box.   That screws up a person's career for a minimum of four to five years.   Perhaps, we are a kinder, gentler CF, and our top echelons don't have what it takes to fill in those two boxes, after all, they need to justify what they write.  

From experience, I had a WO and CO screw me over that way.   Follow their statements, with statements from the Bde Comd, who didn't know me from a hole in the ground and.........Although I had a great PER the year before and the same the year after, that one year from them demolished my last four years of service promotion wise.   Both of them, however, had proven how tough they were and got promotions.   One went on to work in the reformation of the Army.   Both lost all credibility.   The things I know.........

 

[aesop081]

In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!

Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.

It was that way when i used to write them too.  I think it is now systemic in the CF.  A combination of supervisors not wanting to have adverse effects on a members career and the fear of harassement proceedings have tainted the value of the PER system.  I know we are all told that if what we write can be substatiated and behave ethicaly there will be no problems but i find that in the world of harassement you are "guilty before proven otherwise", supervisors at all levels have chosen the easy way out to avoid unwanted complictations.  That is of course my own opinion only.  This all, IMHO , has ead to a cultur of unwilligness to write negatives in a member's PER.

 

[NCRCrow]

I do not think as a military we give an honest assessments of our people and the bad habits continue as they get promoted.

My point of view, the CF is so scared of hurting anybody's feelings.

The H word is definitely a tactic used by the weak when they have no legitmate cause or moral courage to do what is expected of them.

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

On two seperate occasions I have written PER's for people that work directly for me and are not seen in any way by the higher ranks in their daily duties. I wrote the PER's with plenty of substantiated evidence and when the PER's were completed, I was told "thats very nice but we had an ogroup and decided this would be the scores for those people."

So in effect you have an ogroup consisting of senior NCO's and officers that never spend more than 5 minutes a day (during a smoke break) with these soldiers and they determine what the soldiers performance for the year has been. Makes me sick.

 

[ZipperHead]

I think that PDR's/PER's are a huge waste of time, as they have become so generic as to become useless. That and the fact that there are so many misconceptions about what you are "allowed" to write in them. An example of this is that some people think that if you write something positive about somebody under "Initiative" that you can't write something in the Areas for Development under "initiative", because it is impossible to have an AoD for something that you had a strength in. Those people should get a "did not meet the required standard" for Intellect and Reasoning.......

The impression that you are not able to comment on someone's physical fitness just because they passed that super-challenging fitness test that is the AFS is beyond agonizing. So just because I attended harassment/diversity/sensitivity training on Apr 1st, I am good to go, and able to be an arsehole/non-diverse/insensitive for the rest of the year??!?! Same thing for the fitness test standing. If a person is a sack of goo, that should be fair game for commenting on, regardless of passing the AFS (which I'm fairly sure my 74 year old mother could do, and I'm certain my mother-in-law, who is 73 and more active than a good chunk of the people I encounter day-to-day (rides her bike, canoes, plays badminton)).

I am actually disappointed when I get an overly flowery assessment, that mentions nothing about my obvious shortcomings. To me, it is a sign that people are either too lazy to write an effective (and honest) assessment, or afraid of the dreaded redress of grievance, and take the safe way out.  I have received a few good ones in the last few years, but generally I know what they are going to say before I sign them (which either indicates I am so in tune with what is right/wrong with me, or that I am cynical and jaded...... perhaps a bit of both).

Another pet-peeve of mine is one minor thing that is done in the period around the reporting period, and lo and behold, it appears on the assesment. I'm sure I could cure cancer at the beginning of the reporting period, but forget to spell-check one of the assessment's that I write, and the whole curing cancer thing is forgotten, but under Communication it would read "Sgt Luomala must ensure that he thoroughly proof-reads all his written communications to his superiors before submitting them." And yes, I try to avoid doing the same thing to my subordinates, but I have to admit it probably has happened (hypocrisy is the greatest luxury).

Personally, I think everyone should have to do a "self-assessment" that is reviewed by their superiors, just to see if the person is right out of 'er. Anything that is put on the assessment wouldn't neccesarily be used against the person, but it's a good indicator of what a person would need to work on (or be recognized for.... though each person has (should have) the opportunity to pass on to the superior any accomplishments, trg, etc), and the good old "action plan" could actually take on some meaning. Maybe this is too radical of an idea, where people would have to actually use critical thinking skills and realize their limitations and pursue self-improvement......

Anyway, in lieu of real battles, the paper battles must be fought......

Al