PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[bigabe]

This is definitely a post I have to be careful of what I say.    I'm not exactly concealing my identity to those who know me. 

Questions / Food for thought.  Although the PER system isn't perfect, its actually pretty good.  As people have said, you're not going to make everyone happy in an organization as large as the CF by any stretch.  I also don't believe any promotion-into-position system could really work unless the whole remar and manning pool numbers were a lot more adhered to.  Seriously, does anyone (especially in tech trades) actually work in the position their job code describes?  Few people I know do.  So, on paper, people could fight for my position, then get into my shop and learn their 'Real position'.

Secondly, I read that a LOT of people gripe about honesty, or even universal honesty as far as the scoring process goes - but I believe there are a lot more 'big machine' issues that come out long before honesty.  For starters, its abstract, so each individual PER is unique by universal law (butterfly effect) -- those who wrote mine were taught how to by different people than those who write yours.  In passing conversations about PLQs, there is a HUGE variance on emphasis and even skills taught about PER writing.  That, and emphatically, damn near nobody reads anymore.  Consequently, writing skills are becoming atrocious as a whole.  Before someone gets defensive, look in your house and tell me if your TV is bigger than your bookshelf.  (52" doesn't hold many books anyways)  Then there's also the things mentioned under the guise of honesty in this forum, which are just human nature.  Like being scored based on non-confrontational supervisors, or mea culpa, etc.

Bringing me (windedly) to my example scenarios. 

Cpl Flange Bulatron is an LCIS tech in a combat arms unit (No, not necessarily personal experience ).  He frequently disappears into the coffee area / smoke pit with combat arms members who came into the shop for various bits of work.  It is rarely the same person coming each time, often a different person every time.  His peers however, very rarely have something negative to say about him personally or professionally.

Supervisor A - an "At arms length" Sgt who doesn't socialize with the troops very often (for whatever reason), likes to keep discipline and expects his junior NCOs to take charge of their own careers by simply grinding out the boring tasks until it is your time to be promoted.  Thats how he did it, and his Sgt, and his Sgt and it works.   
Attitude: Work at work.  Play at home. 
Peer review: Fantastic Sergeant.

Supervisor B - "One of the boys" Sgt who is always just as keen to do 'PT at your own place', go for a beer, or try to keep his troops 'tasked' during ridiculous parades.
Attitude: We're all just dudes at work.  Ptes and BGens alike.
Peer review: Fantastic Sergeant.

Super A is going to write Bulatron up as a slacker.  He's always in the smoke pit, rarely grinding out the 522's on the 'Broken' shelf.  Doesn't go above and beyond.  When he's not there, he's slacking away in some corner hiding, while someone else does the work.  His brag sheet isn't even that spectacular. 

Super B is going to write him as a star.  He's going to take the time to notice that Cpl Bulatron is actually helping the members learn the equipment they're using, how not to break it again, and how to avoid the fecal floods from their own CoC with the maintenance of the eqpt.  Also, he'd notice that our good Cpl here is generally out helping the boys on weekends fix cars, pick people up from the airport etc - none of which is brag sheet material, but still good stuff.  When work is slow, he's trying to make it through the ungodly boring demon that is OPME reading materials.

Now, is it a lack of honesty on anyones part?  Not at all.  Is it something wrong with the PER system?  Hardly.  Some people will relate to Sgt A, some to Sgt B, or to any other of the infinite combinations of personalities. 

Are there flaws?  Absolutely.  Is there any black & white changes that can be made?  Not in my opinion.  I think the closest to dealing with these differences is the potential column.  Those are a long way away from a "standard", though.  A psychology student would say your marks in the potential column are a projection of the markers ability to see himself, or the traits he admires in you.  (Not necessarily traits that motivate or "lead" everyone.)

Like I said, merely food for thought.  I'm clicking Post before I think of something else to write.

Lastly, I'm well aware of the majority of literary rules I'm breaking (Edited after reading post, got about 3 lines in and started noticing a lot of sentences beginning with conjuctions).  Feel free to point them out anyways.

 

[dangerboy]

Just to point out even though every one like you said has a different writing style here is one point to consider.  When you turn in a PER it goes through several reviews to make sure that the writing style is consistent with a unit.  I will use myself and the PERs I wrote as an example.  Before we even wrote them the Adj had a professional development afternoon in which he discussed writing PERs and all Sgts and above unless teaching were there.  Once I wrote my PERs I turned them into my Coy 2IC who reviewed the whole companies and made sure the writing was proper and the narratives matched the bubbles.  Once the 2IC was satisfied with them they were sent to the OC to see if he liked them and some were sent back for corrections. After my Coy was happy with them they went to the Adj who checked the whole units PERs and he sent some back for corrections then finally they went to the chief clerk for his checking for any administrative errors.

So as you can see even if your supervisors have different writing styles they will all balance out and your narrative is reflective of how you stood in the merit boards.     

 

[MP 811]

On two separate 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 "that's 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.

I quoted SHELLDRAKE!!'s post from many moons ago to comment on this whole issue.  My opinion is that the PER system should work just fine, provided that the people writing them are fair, and unbiased.  Case in point.  Immediate supervisors here used to sit in the O Group with the senior ranks and everyone would bash on about who and why they felt their guy or gal should be ranked.  Very fair in my opinion as everyone gets a say.  This year, however, all immediate supervisors were left out and the decision was left to a couple senior ranks.  One guy who gets ranked, has one of the said senior supervisor's over to his house on an almost daily basis for beer, hot tubbing and bbqs and is generally quite chummy.  The other guy is the golden boy of another senior member and can do no wrong.

So unfortunately, you have loads of guys and gals bitching about how unfair this was, nepotism, boot licking and other comments.  Getting a ready on your second PER since joining the Forces is sending the wrong message IMHO.  Sure, you may be a superstar in everything you do, but whatever happened to doing SOME time in rank?  Cant help feel bad for others who have their boots in the sand day in and day out busting their asses, only to hear of this scenario.  Im a pretty laid back guy and dont let alot of crap bug me, but even I cant help but feel like we all got the shaft.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I despise the PER system.  One is either over rated or under rated never accurately rated.  How many times does one have to see the bell curve used to pick the pecking order.  Guys who should have had some KUDOS kicked in the teeth because they can't give that many outstanding write ups.  Or slugs who rose up because they are the commsumate bag lickers of the unit.  I see each year amongst my peers the "what did you get?  who is where on the merit list?" and seeing the infighting and morale dumping that follows.  I am sick of it.

Yes, I know I am bitching and honestly cannot offer a total better solution to this yearly disaster.

 

[elecgitarguy]

I have to write my first pdrs also...does anyone have a template or example of one that i might use?

I'm on a tasking away from my home unit so i dont have access to my own to kinda get a feel for one.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have to write my first pdrs also...does anyone have a template or example of one that i might use?

I'm on a tasking away from my home unit so i dont have access to my own to kinda get a feel for one.

EGG, there should be some examples of representative text within the CFPAS PDR/PER software help function.  There is also the wordbook for PER rating various rank brackets, and you can use similar wording in the PDR.  Also, you'll want a copy of the TORs for the specific (or generic) position that the member is in.

The overall flavour of the PDR should be setting expectations of conduct/performance, as well as addressing activities that will also help the member improve their competencies within their specific career stream.  Subsequent PDRs prior to the PER can refine and help shape the progress of your subordinate.  There should be nothing substantively shocking show up on a PER that wasn't at least mentioned as needing additional effort in a preceding PDR.

Regards
G2G

 

[anonymousjrofficer]

I've been appointed to fill the position of Coy 2IC at my small reserve unit. Can anyone slide me a link to something describing my duties and responsibilities, as I was never issued a PDR part one for this position and do not expect one anytime soon.

thanks

 

[PuckChaser]

This pub may help: armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-331-002-FP-001.pdf

 

[2 Cdo]

Maybe try asking your OC first rather than some random posters on an internet site.

 

[dangerboy]

I think it has to do more with the fact that some people don't want to ask their chain of command for advice or information.  While this site is very useful for getting information it should not replace your chain of command.  This is just my belief but if you are unsure about something about how to do you job or what is expect of you ask your supervisor.  That is their job to mentor you. 

 

[392]

....This is just my belief but if you are unsure about something about how to do you job or what is expect of you ask your supervisor.  That is their job to mentor you.

It's not just your belief. It's quite amazing how often I hear people saying that their subordinates are all f**ked up, but yet make no attempt to mentor them and teach them their job. It's as if they forgot the whole idea quite clearly explained to them in whatever leadership course they took, that part of a leader's job is to train their subordinates to replace them - you know, the whole "know what the job of the one up is" theory.

 

[The_Falcon]

Mel Gibson as Lt-Col Hal Moore: You learn the job of the man above you, and you teach your job to the man below you in rank. That goes for every man in this outfit. Understood?

 

[Captsapper@gmail.com]

As 2IC, you must be prepared to assume the duties of the OC at any time.  In the field the 2IC will usually operate the unit's main CP and/or supervise overall logistical support.  In garrison the role of the 2IC is one of training and administration, you are responsible for booking courses, training areas, resources, ranges etc. Also ensuring all pay and admin issues are taken care of in a timely manner, basically the OC should be able to ask you for the current administrative state of the company at any time.

Don't be afraid to ask your OC what their expectations are.  If he/she is worth their salt they will give you definite arcs of fire and help you get on your feet in your new position.  Sometimes when subordinates are quiet it is assumed that they understand what is expected.  Once you have a good feel for the job you can begin to mentor the platoon commanders.  You can act as a sounding board before they approach the OC with their idea's/plans, sometimes having the opportunity to bounce an idea off the 2IC before going to the OC can save a young platoon commander some grief.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am pretty discouraged that a J.O. out from Basic not so long ago needs to ask.

I have been out for a while (and now happily retired) but last time I checked, it was right there, in Q.R.&O.'s vol. 1 - Administration, in the first general section (I believe para 1.03 if not mistaken) "Duties and responsibilities of an Officer".

If memory serves, other than keeping your charge in good order and discipline and obeying lawful orders of superiors, Lt-col Moore's quote covers the rest.

 

[jewalsh]

Memorandum


5225-2 (XXX XXX XXX)


4 May 10


Dist List


A RECOMMENDATION, REVIEW

AND CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT

CFPAS SYSTEM IN THE NAVAL RESERVES


Ref: A. Canadian Forces College Paper by Commander Scott Hausberg - The 360 Degree Performance Evaluation Report: A Means Towards The Development and Selection of Transformational Leaders

B. Canadian Forces College Paper by LCdr Derek Cann – Applying 360 Degree Feedback to the CF Personnel Appraisal and Development Systems

C. Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) 2009.0.6 last updated: 10 Jun 2009

D. Department of National Defence. Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine. (Ottawa: DND Canada, 2005),

E. Naval Reserves Selection Boards Guidance Manual

F. Source: 2002 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada


INTRODUCTION


1. PDR and PER honesty and evaluations are completely non-standard across the CF. The lack of a well-known and transparent strategic leader evaluation system can promote careerism, arbitrary selection, disappointment and dissatisfaction. Although the CFPAS system is a very good assessment tool, it has been incorrectly used over the years. This has resulted in wild inflation of most PERs and makes supervisors afraid of telling our future leaders what their areas for development are for fear of harassment complaints.


2. The CF’s promotion policy, like that found in most western militaries, is proudly based on merit instead of seniority. The CFPAS system when implemented properly by all parties (e.g. NRDs, MCDVs etc.) is a fair and well thought out system. However it depends upon fair and accurate individual reporting. Unfortunately this is not the case as PERs suffer from score inflation which tends to increase with higher ranks. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to identify the strongest candidates based upon reported performance and potential. Truly average members can thank PER inflation for scores that are roughly equal to those of their outstanding colleagues and peers for their promotions. Therefore, the promotion board ranking is skewed towards which supervisors have the best writing skills and not actually on merit.


3. Those that simply cruise their way safely through their careers can rise to the highest ranks. Effectively, they “make up in tact and conformity what they lack in

enterprise and initiative.” While PER inflation tends to lump the good in with the better and the best, it provides no protection for mistakes. In such a competitive environment even an isolated incident or minor failure can result in a career killing average (or worse) PER. This leads to a zero-defects mentality, which in turn discourages initiative and trains people to not become transformational leaders. Quality of life Feedback Surveys have identified that improvements are needed in the PER and promotion systems.


AUTHORS OBSERVATIONS OF CFPAS IN NAVRES


4. Since I do not have access to any statistics but my own, I will be referencing my PERs in the examples provided. I have provided my last three merit board standings and PER scores for the previous 5 years. These stats helped me reached assumed conclusions of the Naval Reserve CFPAS system.


Figure 1 - PER statistics


Year # of promotions for NCIOP MS-PO2 Merit List Standings PER scores from previous year (Potential in Order PF 1-6)

2006 Not Applicable Promoted to MS 8M 7ES 1 S, O O AA O AA O (LS PER)

2007 Unknown to author Not Ranked 10 ES 6 S, N AA N AA N O

2008 15 (with a quality line) 22/47 2M 11ES 3S AA O AA O AA AA

2009 10 25/46 4M 9ES 3S, AA AA AA AA O O

2010 4 20/44 4M 8ES 4S, AA AA AA O O O (First PER received in a new unit)


5. By looking at these stats, almost half of the people in my trade and rank level are receiving immediate promotion recommendations. My marks indicate that I am well above average in performance and potential yet when it comes down to the merit board I am only average despite me having 3 PERs in a row bordering on immediate promotion recommendation. So if an average Master Seaman has to get top student on their QL3 course and has to be a senior NCIOP C-OJT instructor with 50 subordinates (by the way I got promoted 4 months before to Master Seaman) to become “average,” then imagine what those people above me in the merit board standings are doing. This includes my last PER from a new unit PSS. The ranking received proves that the merit boards are not looking at the box “1st PER by this unit” when determining scores. So in essence, my last PER should have been treated as an immediate especially since both of my assessors only saw and observed me for 3 months.


6. Also by studying the unit strength reports on the NAVRES site over the past few years, I have noticed that the number of PO2s has remained the same despite there being lots of promotions in 2008 and 2009. This shows that the individuals who are getting the highest marks are those who are class A and do not have time to go away for training since they do not have their QL3 completed. Then for the next year, these so called “top performers get another great (and undeserving PER most likely) PER and sit near the top of the merit list robbing another individual an opportunity at promotion who is probably

much more deserving, driven and motivated for promotion and looks out for the well being of the organization.


7. Another thing that I noticed is that my merit board dropped despite improving PERs. This is the result of even more inflation being injected into PERs over the past few years or that when a Master Seaman enters the promotion zone; their last Leading Seaman PER (Mastered and/or Immediate) is not scaled down properly. I went from an immediate and mastered as a LS to a developing and exceeded standard PER which should be expected for all personnel entering a new rank. A recommendation that I would make is that a Master Seaman should not be able to enter the promotion zone until they have 3 PERs in rank. It is frustrating watching people get promoted to PO2 just two years after they make MS because their LS PER plays a significant role into the promotion. As well, their assessors rate their performance at a Leading Seaman level when the individual gets promoted to MS on 1 Jan of the reporting period for their first PER in their new rank.


8. Some interesting discussions came up with my career manager. One of the things brought up was how does one compare a class A reservist from a class C reservist? You can’t according to my career manager. There must be a better answer than this. Class A personnel are getting extra credits at merit boards for their civilian accomplishments (and of course much less Naval accomplishments for which they are not penalized for this) Meanwhile the class C person who has a hectic schedule cannot engage in the same activities in their civilian side due to inconsistent and tiring work hours thus giving them a disadvantage. This definitely proves that our current version of CFPAS is flawed. It shows that the boards are favouring the class A individual since they get to count all of their civilian qualifications as dedication to the CF while the class C member.


9. In ref E, the merit board is supposed to evaluate as many PERs as deemed necessary to get a complete picture of the member’s performance. When I asked the career manager about how getting top student for QL3 in 2004 (1 of 8) affected my PER score, he replied “It does not count. We only look at the last 3 PERs and that’s it”. It is good to know that all of the exceptional effort and potential displayed in 2006 as senior NCIOP C-OJT instructor (with 50 subordinates) does not mean anything come the 2009-2010 reporting period and beyond. Obviously this statement is a contradiction to ref E.


10. Mentorship is lacking in our current PDR system. I have seen many initial and mid term PDRs. Some are good, but most are not so good. I have seen very short initial PDR expectations stating that dress and deportment should be maintained to a high standard and a brief outline of the job. However, the PDR talks very little about objectives to achieve so that the subordinate will have a very good guideline to help develop themselves to prepare for the next rank. I have seen 3-4 lines on a PDR for many hard and effective workers who have been working at their job for a while which only covers a small portion of their actual performance. It frustrates me to see this since I treat PDRs almost the same as a PER. There must be a better and more defined standard for all supervisors to follow.


11. Looking back at my career since Mar. 2006, I have received an initial PDR about 70% of the time. However, my supervisors (except one) were like “just read it and sign!” and did not provide an initial divisional interview. The alarming fact though is not receiving any mid term PDRs during most of the reporting periods contrary to The Guide to the Divisional System. I did receive PDRs from C-OJT but they were plain, bland and covered very little of what I actually did and rarely did it cover my strengths. Due to consistent poor or no divisional note taking from DIS, PSS and C-OJT, I received PERs that did not accurately reflect my performance and potential. As a result, many hours were spent in PER redresses within my units. Out of the 9 supervisors that I have had since 2006, only one supervisor applied (an air force member) the CFPAS correctly and gave honest evaluations and div interviews about my strengths and few weaknesses. I have never missed any deadlines, always gave clear and detailed initial div interviews outlining my expectation while referring to the CFPAS word picture book and always gave detailed midterm PDR and PER briefs.


CLASSES OF RESERVISTS


12. There are three types of Reservists:


a. Class A (very rarely goes away for training / work experience) These types of people can offer a different set of skills to the CF due to civilian jobs and commitments. Some of these types of people offer invaluable advice and perception to the Naval Reserve organization. However, major disgust is experienced when these type of people who hold the higher ranks come to the ships and are clueless about what to do or how to supervise the daily operations of an operational unit. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dead weight C&POs and officers at the Naval Reserve units since they are unmotivated to adapt to the ever changing Naval Reserves.


b. Class A/B – Those who spend several months per year training and spend the rest of their time at the home NRD. They are a mixture of both Class A and Class C and are generally well rounded. However, their excessive movement makes it hard for assessors to get an accurate appreciation of their performance.


c. Full time class B/Class C – Work 365 day a year. Can work anytime during a 24/7 period so it is a bit harder for these type of people to adopt outside activities. These types of individuals adopt a poor attitude thinking that they are the ones who deserve the promotions since they are the ones who are sailing all the time and that they are better than everyone else in the Naval Reserve.


13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? This is a very interesting question. Class A personnel have a wide range of skills and generally adapt easier than their Class C counterparts. However, Class C personnel are far more knowledgeable about the

organization and produce the majority of the results. We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently.


CFPAS


14. In CFPAS ch.5 leadership is quote as “emphasize leadership capabilities demonstrated in working with superiors, peers and subordinates.” So why is it that out of those three groups that only the supervisor gets a say in your evaluation reports? How can leadership and potential be effectively reflected on a PER if only the superior gets a say in how you have done in leadership. Leadership is best observed from subordinates.


15. The negative aspects of using the top-down system (our current CFPAS system) are:


a. Places individual interests (those of the boss and subordinate) over the organization. The “buddy help buddy get promoted system.” Also personal biases come into play here keeping potentially very good candidates from seeing a promotion;


b. Presents an incomplete picture of leadership abilities and potential. There is no feedback from others, only your immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor is too afraid to counsel personnel on areas for improvement as this is deemed as harassment;


c. Discourages counselling, accountability and organizational skills;


d. Compromises integrity by circumventing honest, face-to-face assessments;


e. Deters tough, long-term organizational development or team-building processes. Personnel come to their new jobs for a year or so and try to impress their supervisor to get a great PER. Then they move on to their next posting;


f. Fosters a zero-defect mentality. One minor mistake in a reporting period can be catastrophic to a member and career advancement. This leads to people afraid of taking risks and using their initiative which in turn churns out poor problem solving leaders; and


g. This system strongly discounts knowledge. A knowledge test should be written each year that covers topics of in trade knowledge, administrative procedures applicable to the members rank etc.


LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY


16. CF leadership doctrine (e.g. ref D) defines effective leadership in terms of five major dimensions: “Mission success, internal integration, member well-being and

commitment, external adaptability, and the military ethos.” The CF defines effective leadership as, “directing, motivating, and enabling others to accomplish the mission professionally and ethically, while developing or improving capabilities that contribute to mission success.” Poor leadership and decision making ruins careers and compromises NAVRES effectiveness.


17. The Canadian Forces wants to change our direction of leadership. The CF wants to produce transformational leaders. My current perception of our leadership in NavRes is it is very good but of a reactionary nature. People work hard to maintain the status quo, keeping their old set of rules and maintaining the “Old Boys Club.” For example, onboard the MCDVs in the early 2000’s many issues were raised wrt quality of life and OJPRs (where OJPRs were not getting signed off since the supervisor is suppressing the subordinate from advancing in the trade in fear of losing their own job to them which in turn causes people to quit).


18. Although the concept of C-OJT and D-OJT was good, it was poorly executed and not well thought out since our leadership was not transformational enough and personnel on ships were resistive on executing the program and signing off OJPRs unless they established the same standard as their class C counterparts who have been sailing for years. The duty watch system on the MCDVs was horrendous and poorly thought-out. It was a lot of fun having two minor warships with small crews each standing up their own duty watches at a home port duty watch. Despite NAVRES and MARPAC/MARLANT knowing this, they did not implement any changes for the better for many years. I guess the mass exodus of personnel on the ships proved to be a great motivator and change was finally done in 2008 by only having one nest duty watch and now adopting the 1 man duty watch in late 2009.

**SN removed by Loachman to protect the poster.**

 

[jewalsh]

19. Careerism motivates a subordinate to keep the boss happy which in turn gives the subordinate a great report. PERs should be used more as an assessment tool rather than just a mechanism for rewarding work which is termed well by a superior (sometimes 2 superiors). A 360 degree approach will help careerists out and they will receive honest feedback rather than exaggerated and untrue great PERs which in turn helps to better the organization.


20. Right now, there is very little accountability in our CFPAS system. Many people poorly implement this system. I will define Accountability (from ref D) and how it can be applied to us.


Figure 2 – Principles of Effective Accountability


Clear roles and responsibilities The roles and responsibilities of the parties in the accountability relationship should be well understood and agreed upon.

Clear

performance

expectations The objectives pursued, the accomplishments expected, and the operating constraints to be respected (including means used) should be explicit, understood, and agreed upon.

Balanced expectations and capacities Performance expectations should be clearly linked to and balanced with each party's capacity (authorities, skills, and resources) to deliver.

Credible

reporting Credible and timely information should be reported to demonstrate what has been achieved, whether the means used were appropriate, and what has been learned.

Reasonable

review and

adjustment Fair and informed review and feedback on performance should be carried out by the parties, achievements and difficulties recognized, appropriate corrections made, and appropriate consequences for individuals carried out.


21. This sounds like it could be applied to the CFPAS system. It would make supervisors credible to the organizational needs rather than the needs of their subordinate buddies. Although the current CFPAS system tries to accomplish some of these, it is lacking since the supervisors are not accepting the responsibility of training effective subordinates (in fear of losing their jobs perhaps)


PROPOSAL


22. Everybody gives varying degrees of effort. What the figures down below show are how the effort is distributed between a careerist and a professionalist. The careerist puts all of their efforts to the supervisor. They never take risks and show little effort for their subordinates. Teamwork is not there between peers as all of the effort is pointed toward pleasing the chain of command.


23. The professionalist spreads their efforts out to all of their subordinates. They also spread out their efforts to the other peers which promote teamwork. Notice how there is a very small vector pointed at the chain of command. This means that the professionalist is not all about amusing and pleasing the chain of command. They spread their efforts out to the subordinates. The one thing that is bad about being a professionalist is that if you have a bad supervisor, they do not notice your accomplishments hence the PER is not reflective of their performance and potential (happened to me 06/07 and 07/08).


Figure 3 - The careerist effort plot



Figure 4 - The professionalist effort plot



24. At the start of every year, more detailed PDRs must be given outlining not only the goals of the supervisor, but outlining the organizational goals and how the member can be prepared to assume the next rank. I have provided an example PDR to help get us started.


25. The method that I am proposing is the 360 degree approach to providing feedback. This includes ratings from self, peers, subordinates and supervisors. Research has found that more accurate assessments come from peers and subordinates instead of the supervisor. Many civilian companies use this system and have huge successes and increased productivity. Subordinates have a lot of trust and confidence in this evaluation system and feel more empowered and dedicated to team success. A great PER should result from hard work and looking after your peers and subordinates rather than brown nosing, blading your peers and ignoring the requests of subordinates (tact and conformity). Looking at the figure below, our current system does not allow a complete assessment as different people observe different traits.


















Figure 5- Observations of performance (modified from ref B)


Performance Dimensions Likely to be Observed by Different Rating Sources

Performance

Dimensions Subordinates Peers Supervisors Related PFs and AFs

Administrative √ AF 14, PF 4

Leadership √ AF 1,2,4, PF 1

Communication √ √ AF 10-11, PF3

Interpersonal √ √ AF 3,5

Decision

making √ √ AF 6,7 PF 5

Technical √ √ AF 12

Accountability √ AF 8,9,14,1516 PF 2

Personal

motivation √ √ PF 2,6


26. The whole process of administering the process should follow these steps:


a. The individual should know about the system, why the data is collected,

and what the data is used for. This is an excellent opportunity to educate all subordinates on the PER system. Educated people are less likely to put in grievances over issues such as my “merit boars standing dropped” or “my marks are lower than last years”;


b. Distribution of the questionnaires to the individuals and their superiors, peers, and subordinates at the same time. Information that is collected from peers and subordinates will be anonymous;


c. The completed questionnaires are returned back to a central station (internal or external) to be processed (e.g. processed at MOG 4/5 or NRCC for full time reservists); and


d. Individuals review their report with a coach to analyze the results and determine the best solutions based on what they have learned about themselves.


27. The questionnaires will consist of each member selected as an assessor to grade the assessee on each of the 16 AF factors giving each section a score out of ten and giving reasons for why they scored the criteria the way they did. Training will be provided before hand on Performance Factors and there will be a cheat sheet present during the assessment phase to each assessor to know what is expected for each AF. A brief outline for what is expected for each AF and PF can be found on the calculator from

ref C. After the scores are tallied there will be a check for score variance. I recommend a 5% difference between the lowest score and the highest score but may make more sense to give a tolerance of up to 10% for performance. This will be done as follows:


a. For performance, a variance of 3 will be tolerated from all parties. This will not include to EXPRES test score out of two. Scores out of 58 should be within 5% of each other. If they are not, all assesses need to go back and re-evaluate the individual in question. This will ensure that individuals who are marking people have to be fair, reasonable and non-biased; and


b. For potential, a variance of 2 will be tolerated from the supervisor and reviewing officer. What I would recommend is try to get at least 3 people for scoring potential if possible. This will not include the immediate promotion recommendation score out of three. Scores out of 37 should within 5% of each other. If they are not, All assesses need to go back and re-evaluate the individual in question. This will ensure that individuals who are marking people have to be fair, reasonable and non-biased. Please note that in my calculator, that I have involved a 20% of the potential score derived from the performance section to give your peers and subordinates a small say in your potential score.


28. This method of evaluation can also be very beneficial to the assessee. Self awareness is key to the development of an individual. That is why I allowed the assessee to rate themselves in their proposal. It also gives areas for development in which the supervisor was too afraid to comment on that other peers and subordinates.


29. However, there are some potential drawbacks to implementing a new and different evaluation system. Please read ref A and ref B for more details on this:


a. Resource costs will incur. There will be some initial costs to produce software to calculate scores but this can be easily integrated onto the DIN afterwards for easy dissemination;


b. This will take some time to implement. Yes this is true, but at the same time, you get to train everyone on CFPAS and personal assessments thereby increasing PD awareness;


c. Long term commitment is needed for this. Running this for only a few years will not produce results needed to assess who is most deserving of promotion. We need to have this running for three years. At least we will see realistic scores at the merits boards. Besides we are already committed to CFPAS for the long haul and long term commitment equals long term results;


d. There may be retribution sought by assesses on their assessors. That is why scores are tallied up confidentially and subordinate and peer scores are all lumped in together; and


e. The overall “resistive to change idea” that the CF and NAVRES has developed will be the largest obstacle.


30. Flaws that I have noticed about the merit board procedures are:


a. That points are awarded for immediate promotion recommendations. The merit board should stop giving up to 3 extra points to personnel who receive immediate promotion recommendations. This puts the person who gets high readies at a huge disadvantage at the merit boards. These 3 extra points only serve the purpose of rewarding most individuals who had supervisors that have solid writing skills. Put one extra point into leadership, and two in to PD. For my calculator, I have left in these three points for immediate promotion recommendation to be as compliant as possible with ref E until a change of scoring is changed; and


b. The merit boards and ref E constantly mention that this should not be a dot scoring process. However looking at Annex C, a member can only get a certain amount of points based on their overall performance (Mastered, Exceeded Standard, Skilled and Developing). The performance table should be abolished throughout all Annexes in ref E. The scoring should have the board members look at all 16 AFs, assign a score out of ten for each AF (based on the text of the PERs and on dots since the dots on PERs will be much fairer with a 360 degree approach), average the scores and then it scales down to a score out of 58 for performance.


31. It is recognized that future success depends on the development of tomorrow’s leaders. For this reason it is in the CF’s best interest to invest heavily in future leaders because they will be at the centre of all future successes and failures. A system like this will give subordinates a voice in the development of their leaders and empowers them to perform to a higher standard. Non empowerment of subordinates could result in release. This in turn creates additional costs to NAVRES at it will cost the organization thousands of dollars to recruit, train and replace years of experience (I predict this cost to be $200000 per person).


32. In summary, my recommendations are as follows:


a. Implement a 360-degree feedback process or something similar;


b. Use a calculator tool similar to my own (with slight modifications if needed) at unit merit boards. When the unit merit boards sit down, they will already have an overall picture of the each members performance and potential scores. Scores should not be used as the sole source of

information for determining merit but should be a general guideline to help separate top performers from the average Joe or the slug;


c. Implement better templates for initial PDR interviews making reference to the word picture book in the areas of Leadership, Personal Attributes, Communication skills and Professional Attributes. I have provided an example;


d. For supervisors failing to provide PDRs should automatically be rated as Unacceptable. This alone should motivate supervisors to a better job looking after their people and actually follow CFPAS;


e. Communicate with Canadian Forces College on different feedback processes;


f. Implement a more rigorous CFPAS training program for supervisors and superiors;


g. Ensure merit boards are following procedures as set out in ref E;


h. Set the minimal promotion time for LS and MS to 3 years in rank;


i. A threshold knowledge test should be written every year to ensure that our supervisors are current with policies and in trade skills; and


j. Stop giving up to 3 extra points to personnel who receive immediate promotion recommendations and change the performance tables in ref E for all of the annexes.


CONCLUSION


33. 360-degree feedback provides a more complete assessment of an individual’s performance and potential than the CFPAS currently used by Naval Reserve personnel. An honest and complete evaluation of leadership helps to address any shortfalls and raises their level of self awareness. Leadership weaknesses will be addressed using the feedback from all coworkers. Issues that may not have otherwise been addressed have a way to be resolved. This proposal may take a lot of initial work but long term benefits will definitely come as a result and save retraining costs from personnel who quit as a result of disgust for the current method of promotion.


34. A performance evaluation system is known to be a powerful modifier of behaviour. Many people at this time are somewhat dissatisfied to very disappointed with our current systems implementation. Another change to the system is definitely to help empower our subordinates to perform well and for the right reasons.


35. If the CF does not get the best possible strategic leaders, then it cannot optimize its accomplishments. It is recognized that future success depends on the development of tomorrow’s leaders. For this reason it is in the CF’s best interest to invest heavily in future leaders because they will be at the centre of all future successes and failures. A modified CFPAS system will help us move toward the goals of HR 2020 and simulate better leadership growth.


36. We are obliged as leaders to develop those that follow. In the Naval Reserves, we must work harder to ensure that people are being developed properly and that the best person is getting promoted to meet the needs of the organization rather than of the individual member and supervisor. I want to have supervisors who are geared toward professionalism rather than the self centred careerism. We must be as flexible as possible in the Naval Reserve unit since most of our members have changing and dynamic schedules. We, as an organization need to move on to the 21st century and change our transactional (or as I put it reactional leadership) ways into transformational leadership. We, as an organization of highly educated people, can take a lead in changing the entire appraisal system for the entire CF.


37. My career has already been destroyed thinking too much about this unjust unfairness in CFPAS. Don’t let it happen to others.



XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX







DIST LIST


Action


NAVRESHQ/N11

OFFICE OF THE OMBUSMAN

OFFICE OF THE VETERANS OMBUSMAN


Info


YEL CO

DIS CO


**Name, Rank, Address, and Phone Number removed by Loachman to protect the poster.**

 

[jewalsh]

For my complete document email me at XXX @ XXX . XXX. I can give you the complete document with all diagrams and my Merit board Calulator example.

**E-mail address removed by Loachman to protect the poster. Anyone wishing the info can PM him instead.**

 

[PMedMoe]

???

 

[George Wallace]

Re: CFPAS the creul sexist and unfair system

Re: CFPAS the cruel sexist and unfair system  [Corrected that for you.]

jewalsh


I haven't read and broken down your topic into fine detail, but it would appear to me that you do not understand how CFPAS works or have not been using it correctly.

You are coming across as a disgruntled person who may feel that the world is out to get you. 

 

[Swingline1984]

???

I'm right there with you.  I for one would have liked to see some real statistics vice the "it happened to me, don't let it happen to you".  There is a vetting process, supervisors don't normally write/score these documents in isolation.