PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Old EO Tech]

I must admit, I haven`t seen any of these changes people are talking about.  My office already has PERs done after having help our local board and then a Canada wide teleconference to marry our local results in with the rest of our Unit PERs across Canada (we`ve got about 200 members in various locations).  If they change the system now we`re going to have to do it all over again.  Then again, why should that surprise anyone.  lol

Out in 1 CMBG none of these changes have been implemented as policy, though I've heard 3 PPCLI is writing their PER's in point form, guess they are betting on the changes coming quickly.  At 1PPCLI we are doing business as per last year.  And with our aggressive timings we will have all the PER drafts done before the CANFORGEN, and then half the PER will be redundant for all the junior Cpls, and everyone opting out...oh well such is life... 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Out in 1 CMBG none of these changes have been implemented as policy, though I've heard 3 PPCLI is writing their PER's in point form, guess they are betting on the changes coming quickly.  At 1PPCLI we are doing business as per last year.  And with our aggressive timings we will have all the PER drafts done before the CANFORGEN, and then half the PER will be redundant for all the junior Cpls, and everyone opting out...oh well such is life...

I am sure that 1 CMBG will adapt, and adapt quickly.  This is good news (if it is ever announced) , and no doubt the Bde will pounce on the opportunity to strike a blow for common sense, even if they end up having to rewrite PERs.

 

[Tibbson]

I am sure that 1 CMBG will adapt, and adapt quickly.  This is good news (if it is ever announced) , and no doubt the Bde will pounce on the opportunity to strike a blow for common sense, even if they end up having to rewrite PERs.

We just received a draft copy of the CANFORGEN today with the number consisting of XXX/14 and an indication it would be released around 15 Feb 14.  We were also told to revisit the PERs we had already written and that our Unit boards would be redone once we had the PERs amended to the new format. 

About the biggest comment we all had was that if they want to change the system, why do it NOW?  Why not wait until after 1 Apr 14 and bring it out in prep for next year or, if they insisted on it being done for this year, they should have given us a heads up long before now. 

The only other observation we had was that now that the narratives were gone, only to be replaced by bullet points for ES and M in Sec 4 and "O" in Section 5 for those with an "Immediate" PER...how are we to have enough room?  We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging. 

Going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[PuckChaser]

The only other observation we had was that now that the narratives were gone, only to be replaced by bullet points for ES and M in Sec 4 and "O" in Section 5 for those with an "Immediate" PER...how are we to have enough room?  We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging. 

Its worse when you have to make actual sentences, unless you're grouping an event under different headings.

 

[MJP]

We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging. 

Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.

 

[Tibbson]

Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.

That might be, and I hope it is, but for now we were told each one must be substantiated. 

 

[Old EO Tech]

I'm sure there will be tweaks to the new CFPAS as feedback is collected, just like happened to CFPAS when it first came out, and the old 10 point system before that.  At least we don't have our scores covered by a layover so we can only read the narrative and guess our score :-/

 

[GnyHwy]

I still can't get past this bullet thing.  My good god, I didn't think it would/should be such as task.  I guess it's an easy way to fill up a block for someone who hasn't done anything. 

I've seen more time spent organizing a BBQ than we are spending writing out a person's yearlong work. 

Editted to add:  Oh wait a minute... I know why now.  You only get 1 point for written communication.  Organizing a BBQ is worth 3.  That makes sense.  :

 

[SupersonicMax]

The PER system is messed up and biased anyways.  Most units will rank people before writing the PER (which will reflect what the ranking is). In the end, it'll just save the poor soul writing the PERs time doing actual work.

The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.

 

[GnyHwy]

The PER system is messed up and biased anyways.  Most units All units will rank people before writing the PER (which will reflect what the ranking is). In the end, it'll just save the poor soul writing the PERs time doing actual work.

The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.

FTFY!

 

[McG]

The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.

But it should do your subordinates justice when communicating their performance to merit boards and the various selection boards that look at such documents.

 

[medicineman]

We just received a draft copy of the CANFORGEN today with the number consisting of XXX/14 and an indication it would be released around 15 Feb 14.  We were also told to revisit the PERs we had already written and that our Unit boards would be redone once we had the PERs amended to the new format. 

About the biggest comment we all had was that if they want to change the system, why do it NOW?  Why not wait until after 1 Apr 14 and bring it out in prep for next year or, if they insisted on it being done for this year, they should have given us a heads up long before now. 

It's to make sure the person who came up with this idea gets credit for it THIS PER season and not NEXT.

MM

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Drat!  Foiled by that damn Leading Change bubble again!

 

[Tibbson]

Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.

We were specifically directed to do the following:

- the AFs and PFs (where needed) were to be bulleted separately.  For example if you could normally comment on both Initiative and Leadership together, now you needed to have them listed as individual AF bullets.  Without adjectives of course.

- Because there are only 17 lines of text allowed in both sections, and there are essentially 17 AFs in Section 4....if someone was all AS or M there would be 17 one line comments, one for each AF.  Essentially, if you can't fit it on one line, cut it down.

- Because someone right justified can only have one line of comment per AF, someone with only 3 AFs requiring comment will only have three one line comments with the remainder of the Section 4 block left empty.  Why should someone developing with all "skilled" and 3 "Above Standard" get the whole text box for the three "Above Standard" bubbles while someone right justified gets one line per AF?  If the rock star gets one line per AF comment then everyone else gets on line per AF regardless of how many AFs they have.

- We've got to put all of our other points on a member on a secondary "justification sheet" so really, all we've done is shift the work from the PER document to a secondary "love me list" that supervisors can use to fight with in a board.

As you can see, there is going to be a ridiculous amount of writing, rewriting, changing, opinions and confusion without firm direction and examples being given. 

 

[lcis00110]

At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
AF1
AF2
AF3
...
AF16

I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

While reading the CMP letter I couldn't help but notice the date of the AFC decision and date of letter.  I don't work in NDHQ but I'd like to think there was opportunity for this info re: changes to this PER season to be released quicker. 

:2c:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

- We've got to put all of our other points on a member on a secondary "justification sheet" so really, all we've done is shift the work from the PER document to a secondary "love me list" that supervisors can use to fight with in a board.

That is redonkulous.  Someone in your CofC needs to give their head a shake.

At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
AF1
AF2
AF3
...
AF16

:facepalm:

I guess following the direction is too hard for some organisations.

 

[Old EO Tech]

At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
AF1
AF2
AF3
...
AF16

I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!

I just read the message as well, and there is no direction saying that all the AF or PF have to be left justified, so yes all ES/M AF etc need a comment but they can all be one big paragraph.  And without adjectives it should not be that hard to fit in the space.

 

[Tibbson]

I just read the message as well, and there is no direction saying that all the AF or PF have to be left justified, so yes all ES/M AF etc need a comment but they can all be one big paragraph.  And without adjectives it should not be that hard to fit in the space.

No, it shouldn't be hard to fill the space but that is my main objection.  I have one member for which I have to touch on every AF because he's all either ES or M.  I will have no problems filling the 17 lines regardless of which way I write him up, ie: one line per AF or by combining AFs.  On the other hand, I have one member who only has three AF factors to write about because he is all S with three ES areas.  Now, how it is fair that he gets up to 17 lines to touch on his three AF factors whereas the other member has the same amount of space by which I can talk about his 17 AFs? 

Yes, I don't have to fill the block for the developing member but you just know some supervisors will while others will not use the whole space.  In either case though unless the standards are the same for all members, ie: one line of text per AF with each one touched on separately, then I'm sure we will find some supervisors undercutting some people to save work or inflating others in order to make it easier to write. 

I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.

 

[Transporter]

No, it shouldn't be hard to fill the space but that is my main objection.  I have one member for which I have to touch on every AF because he's all either ES or M.  I will have no problems filling the 17 lines regardless of which way I write him up, ie: one line per AF or by combining AFs.  On the other hand, I have one member who only has three AF factors to write about because he is all S with three ES areas.  Now, how it is fair that he gets up to 17 lines to touch on his three AF factors whereas the other member has the same amount of space by which I can talk about his 17 AFs? 

Yes, I don't have to fill the block for the developing member but you just know some supervisors will while others will not use the whole space.  In either case though unless the standards are the same for all members, ie: one line of text per AF with each one touched on separately, then I'm sure we will find some supervisors undercutting some people to save work or inflating others in order to make it easier to write. 

I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.

Same with those who opt out. Sure, you don't have to do a PER (which in all likelihood would only have been section 4 anyway) but now you have to complete an exemption form within CFPAS and do a PDR (which, essentially is a bulletized PER). Not to mention the one-time opt-out request memo through the chain to the CO and then up to the CMs. This will be easier for someone I guess.