mseoptrucker said:
As you know there are 4 incentives as a Cpl and after that you have no pay increase without a promotion.
Well, there is the annual cost of living increase that comes from the government but that doesn't necessarily cover real cost of living increases. I wonder if this isn't the primary cause of your bitterness.
In any case, I think it is generally accepted that there are many outstanding performers in the rank of Cpl that may not be suited (or may not want) to work as a leaders. Why not introduce more incentives? We have them for captains.
mseoptrucker said:
Why do dental hygenists and band personnel have automatic Sgt rank when their courses are compleat?
Good question. Maybe it is time to review this practice.
mseoptrucker said:
Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases.
If the problem was identified on a PDR, then the member should have had chances to improve where they are lacking. I prefer to be harder on PDRs because they have enough space for me to do so and because they give the member honest feed back on where to improve. It also means that there should be no surprises for anyone at PDR time. If something has been described as â Å“weakâ ? in several of the PDRs, then a relatively poor score can be expected on that assessment factor come PER time. Likewise, if something has consistently been described as excellent, then that score can be expected. If a soldier strongly disagrees with assessments, they can be disputed locally and before a PER is written. However, if the assessment if fair, then the supervisor will have at least 3 PDR assessments on the soldier supporting the final assessment put on to the PER, and those three assessments will bear the approval of the assessor's supervisor. Meaning that harassment labels would have to be thrown at least two levels in the CoC (more when one considers the section 6 review required in a poor PER).
E31 said:
The PER system works on both performance and potential. A soldier can be an outstanding performer but have very little potential for the next rank, which I assume is the category you fall in.
I think this is an important factor that is often overlooked in the writing process. I've seen units conduct merit boards where members were ranked within their rank and then scores were assigned according to a bell curve (a process we are not supposed to do anymore, but which I suspect lives on anyway). This process rarely allowed the writer to reflect an excellent performance but weak potential to advance. Some soldiers deserve outstanding performance assessments without deserving the outstanding potential assessments. Our PER system is designed to allow for this; it is up to the PER writers to ensure it is used this way. (Note: Potential also carries a greater weight toward the score because it is the most relevant to promotion suitability).
pbi said:
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.
Agreed.
pbi said:
The real problem IMHO is with the people who lack the courage to rate people where they really should be.
I would argue that the real problem is an artificial expectation of improvement. I've dealt with PER redresses that were solely based on â Å“but I did better on my last PER and some of the areas that I lost points were not mentioned in my PDRs.â ? I have not seen this type of redress win but it reflects the mentality. I've also seen this mentality reinforced through the ranking process where efforts have been made to ensure scores do not drop from previous years (another process we are no longer supposed to do, and one that I think we are a little better at than ranking).
pbi said:
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.
I like that our PER system has specifically stayed away from a performance score of â Å“average,â ? which is relative and can vary based on the average training, experience, and personalities of the assessed rank group within a unit. However, the threshold of unsatisfactory, capable, etc is more static.
I think it is fair to generalize that a soldier new in a rank will be learning the new responsibilities and likely receive a rating of â Å“Developing,â ? but I agree that this should not be the expected score. I agree with your assessment that soldiers earning the unaccepted scores should be on the track to RW/C&P/release (or possibly on a track to reversion). As long as we only promote those personnel that are ready and deserving, I think it is also fair to expect the number of soldiers consistently earning unacceptable scores to be far fewer than those earning above standard scores. Basically, I think it is fair to assume â Å“developingâ ? should be the baseline score (however, this is still reasonably to the left).
I've been advised by various individuals that PERs should be justified (decide the score you want to give the soldier and align all the dots as far right as possible with that score). The logic is that is presents a consistent performer to the selection boards & CM. I find that to be a little bit of BS. I've produced a few shotgun pattern PERs, but that is because the soldier's performance was all over the place. Am I doing the guy a disservice? Not as long as other PER authors are honest with the ones they write.
HONEST <-- and there is the one word correct answer to fair PERs and a fair PER system.
