PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Nfld Sapper]

And you can't access MM from home so I doubt CFPAS will disappear....

 

[Armymedic]

And you can't access MM from home so I doubt CFPAS will disappear....

And, you can't access MM if working on a standalone not hooked to DWAN....

 

[Shamrock]

Save yourself a lot of work, start using the PDR form within Monitor MASS, it automatically populates the form with Unit and Personal activities which are flagged show in the PDR and we will also add all your CFTPO tastings, MITE and HRMS 8.9 courses, eThar, currencies, Competencies , FMS drivers Quals, etc for the reporting period. Give it a try

Have you tried using these PDR?  They are inadequate.

The critical tasks, formerly the domain of an entire page, are now reduced to 5 lines, and I must squeeze in the expected results into an equally teeny box.  While this portion has been abused in the past, I need at least 5 lines to tell my driver the expected results for his operating and maintaining our vehicle (to include completion of relevant paperwork, inspections, user maintenance, etc.)

Section 5, feedback, is apporopriate if and only if I am debriefing my subordinate on how he did leading in to coffee break.  6.5 lines per section is not nearly enough if I am going to give accurate and detailed feedback with substantiation.  Assuming I give feedback on 3 of his strengths, I've got 2 lines per factor.  A sentence; two at the most provided one is done did good.  I'm also not in the habit of giving sects 1-4 for each PDR; this means half of the two-page document I'm now forced to print is dead space cluttering up a UER.

I recommend this draft be removed from circulation until it meets the abilities of the existing system. 

 

[MJP]

Reviving an old topic.  Saw an interesting email before I left work on Friday.  Seems like there are some significant changes coming to the PER process.  I don't remember them all but in short.

1)  Not everyone will need a PER.  LTs will now not receive one.  Cpls won't receive one for the first two years in rank.  I vaguely remember that holding true for other ranks but can't be certain.

2) Performance section will now be written in point form and only adverse or mastered will receive anything in potential.

There was more but alas my memory is short.  The focus seemed to be writing PERS on the people that have the potential to be promoted/seen by the merit board.  Other folks will receive PERs but are not the focus.  I think it is a good move.  Rather than bog down the CAF in a process that seems to never end, we focus our resources (time, effort) and get it over with.

Thoughts?

 

[PuckChaser]

Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.

I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.

 

[MJP]

Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.

I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.

Ahh yes that was the other major point and it makes sense.  Controlling promotions at the highest level for hard element trades made little sense.  As long as they don't go over their establishment and promote in a manner consistent with the rest of the CAF it makes sense to delve it down to the folks that have a better handle on their particular slice of the world.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.

I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.

I assume you mean hard element trades to be non CS/CSS types ?  E.g. Bos'n, Inf and AVS ? 

Does this mean if you leave the unit/div that appointed you a MCpl/MS you could in theory be reverted back to Cpl/LS if the gaining org has its allotment of MCpl/MS already filled ?  Say for instance outside "hard element" postings.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I didn't attend the WCWO brief but a friend who did said there was also something in it about "you can request to not have a PER" for any given year, and there will be only 1 PDR review per cycle.  So, receive initial PDR, 1 review and PER.

We've shot ourselves in the foot with our own system, IMO.  CFPAS has all the requirements, yet I've been a part of units that have to 'add their own spin' to it.  If people followed what was written already, it wouldn't be such a clusterfuck.

I partially agree with the "first 2 years as a Cpl = no PER"; it makes sense when considered with CFAO 49-4, Annex A, Table 1 (timelines for promotion NCM) as a newly promoted Cpl needs 2 years to EPZ and be promoted MCpl.  It would *seem* to make sense to do the same for MCpl (2 years seniority to EPZ Sgt), etc.  But, I don't like the idea of people just not having any kind of assessment at all. 

It is great for say, 90% of newly promoted Cpls, but as we all know there are the keener who advance faster and show potential quickly.  These folks won't benefit from the "no PER for 2 years" change.

 

[PuckChaser]

I assume you mean hard element trades to be non CS/CSS types ?  E.g. Bos'n, Inf and AVS ? 

Does this mean if you leave the unit/div that appointed you a MCpl/MS you could in theory be reverted back to Cpl/LS if the gaining org has its allotment of MCpl/MS already filled ?  Say for instance outside "hard element" postings.

The email didn't specify Cmbt Arms or CS/CSS. I hope that's in the CANFORGEN as clarification.

I would hope that's not the case for reversion, as the CM shouldn't be posting someone appointed MCpl/MS into a Cpl/LS position.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The email didn't specify Cmbt Arms or CS/CSS. I hope that's in the CANFORGEN as clarification.

I would hope that's not the case for reversion, as the CM shouldn't be posting someone appointed MCpl/MS into a Cpl/LS position.

The reason I ask is if your in geo posting you like and your a MS/MCpl why not say you dont want anymore PERs ?  It certainly would cut down on your ability to be posted where needed.  Where as if the CM could revert you back to Cpl/LS then that opens it back up again and provides incentive not to linger at MS/MCpl.

Just a thought, I could just be high off of the fumes of my new Mossberg 500 3 barrel combo I just bought too lol

 

[dapaterson]

Environmental trades would be managed by the environments; purple trades would remain purple.  How the RCN, CA and RCAF mange their trades  may vary somewhat.  But no one once promoted would be reverted.  (Barring disciplinary or administrative action).

 

[Old EO Tech]

I'll have to wait and see what the final CANFORGEN to make an informed assessment, but  I agree that we put far too much time and effort into the PER process.  We do need to reward our subordinates for their performance honestly, but it should not take the huge amounts of time and effort that it does now.

I did hear about the point form part out in edmonton but not the rest.  For us CSS(Log/RCEME etc) I can't see national merit board going way, unless they put MCpl and below in the hands of the Div LCol/CWO.  But even then that could play havoc with the CM national posting plot.  We are not like the Combat Arms were we are limited to one Regt/Area for promotions/moves.

Will be interesting to see the final wording on the CANFORGEN

 

[MJP]

It is great for say, 90% of newly promoted Cpls, but as we all know there are the keener who advance faster and show potential quickly.  These folks won't benefit from the "no PER for 2 years" change.

That was my first thought as I have seen a few Cpls promoted to MCpl on their first PER.  Mind you this was in a hard element trade as outlined in the email so that  part of no PER in the first two years could be ignored.

.

I did hear about the point form part out in edmonton but not the rest.  For us CSS(Log/RCEME etc) I can't see national merit board going way, unless they put MCpl and below in the hands of the Div LCol/CWO.  But even then that could play havoc with the CM national posting plot.  We are not like the Combat Arms were we are limited to one Regt/Area for promotions/moves.

The email stated that purple trades would been governed much how they are now, except with the changes in writing PERs.

 

[PuckChaser]

The reason I ask is if your in geo posting you like and your a MS/MCpl why not say you dont want anymore PERs ?  It certainly would cut down on your ability to be posted where needed.  Where as if the CM could revert you back to Cpl/LS then that opens it back up again and provides incentive not to linger at MS/MCpl.

The email specifically stated that not wanting anymore PERs doesn't remove the ability to be posted. Its just a simpler process than the current promotion refusal system, you can refuse all you want but you'll still get cost moved. My somewhat educated guess is that at the MCpl/MS rank in hard-element trades, there is either an abundance of positions all over the country, or you weren't moving very far anyway (PPCLI, RCR, R22eR as examples).

I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The email specifically stated that not wanting anymore PERs doesn't remove the ability to be posted. Its just a simpler process than the current promotion refusal system, you can refuse all you want but you'll still get cost moved. My somewhat educated guess is that at the MCpl/MS rank in hard-element trades, there is either an abundance of positions all over the country, or you weren't moving very far anyway (PPCLI, RCR, R22eR as examples).

I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.

Awesome thanks PC!  I look forward to observing how this pans out

 

[dangerboy]

Reviving an old topic.  Saw an interesting email before I left work on Friday.  Seems like there are some significant changes coming to the PER process.  I don't remember them all but in short.

1)  Not everyone will need a PER.  LTs will now not receive one.  Cpls won't receive one for the first two years in rank.  I vaguely remember that holding true for other ranks but can't be certain.

2) Performance section will now be written in point form and only adverse or mastered will receive anything in potential.

There was more but alas my memory is short.  The focus seemed to be writing PERS on the people that have the potential to be promoted/seen by the merit board.  Other folks will receive PERs but are not the focus.  I think it is a good move.  Rather than bog down the CAF in a process that seems to never end, we focus our resources (time, effort) and get it over with.

Thoughts?

I am scared that the units will still make it so everyone will receive points for potential and still insist on long narratives.  It will be interesting to see what happens when the CANFORGEN comes out and if we actually follow its intent or if the unit's misapply it.

 

[MJP]

I am scared that the units will still make it so everyone will receive points for potential and still insist on long narratives.  It will be interesting to see what happens when the CANFORGEN comes out and if we actually follow its intent or if the unit's misapply it.

The email states that units that do not comply with the directives will have their PERs sent back.  I guess nothing stops a unit CoC from adding in their own stupid interpretation.  I imagine most people will be glad to not have to spend an inordinate amount of time writing prose for folks that are clearly not going to be promoted soon.

My first thought on the unintended consequences of this was if there will be a sharp rise in the number of MOIs.

 

[Ostrozac]

I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.

Small tangent. I'm tracking the promotion refusal process, which is pretty straightforward. And actual refusal of promotion is a last resort, most people I know who don't want promotion are already gaming the PER system enough so their scores are mediocre enough that their files won't make it to boards. So I guess not writing their PERs in the first place isn't much of a stretch.

But how are people refusing cost moves? I've gotten my share of posting messages that I didn't want, each time I told my career manager I wasn't happy, and I went anyway, because I was ordered to. My only other option was release.

Or I you just implying that people are playing the "if you post me I'll release" card? And that that move actually still works? That's not entirely on the member -- that's the decision of the career manager. And you can't AR someone for refusing a posting message that wasn't cut.

 

[Transporter]

Haven't seen the email on the changes but the fact that they are proposing changes to the process this late in the reporting period is disconcerting.  I've already participated in unit ranking board discussions and drafted draft PERs already. May or Jun would have been a better time... unless these changes won't go into effect until the FY 14/15 PER season. Anyone know the answer to that?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was told the changes will be happening very soon.  Well before the end of this FY.