PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Nfld Sapper]

Doesn't everyone get a PDR review as part of the CFPAS cycle?  On time and accurate?  ;D 

You really have to ask..... ;D

 

[TCM621]

The other advantage of a brag sheet is to catch the things that may not be noticeable at work. Is he taking classes outside of work hours, learning french, is he active in the community, etc.
I know a lot of people think if it doesn't happen during work hours it should have no bearing on promotion but it important.

It is also helpful in getting a sense of how your subordinate sees himself. if he gives you a brag sheet claiming to be a rock star and you see him as below average, one of you is out to lunch. Maybe you need to talk about his performance in comparison to your expectations.  They say you should never be surprised by a per or pdr.  I have been surprised numerous times and in many cases if I had done a better brag sheet my bosses wouldn't have missed (or at least had no excuse) major tasks I had completed. If nothing else, they could have talked to me before hand and we could deal with it then vice having it go back up the chain to get fixed, making everyone's life more difficult.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That is where a "Posting Letter" from your current CO to your new CO comes in.

Really?  I'm five postings down so far with no letters, and only one posting PDR.  To be fair, on one occasion, I was happy to not have one, as my supervisor was useless and was glad to be rid of him, and the last one was within the same division to a different directorate on the same floor, so wasn't necessary.  I've done a lot of them up myself for attach postings as well as posting PDRs, but that seemed to be the exception instead of the norm.

That's the good thing about a brag sheet, and I think doing it up in CFPAS is also a great idea.  Previously had just kept a log in an outlook note then sent it via email when asked for it.

 

[George Wallace]

Really?  I'm five postings down so far with no letters, and only one posting PDR.  To be fair, on one occasion, I was happy to not have one, as my supervisor was useless and was glad to be rid of him, and the last one was within the same division to a different directorate on the same floor, so wasn't necessary.  I've done a lot of them up myself for attach postings as well as posting PDRs, but that seemed to be the exception instead of the norm.

That's the good thing about a brag sheet, and I think doing it up in CFPAS is also a great idea.  Previously had just kept a log in an outlook note then sent it via email when asked for it.

I got one that my boss gave me a copy of.  He was Senior Serving Dragoon.  My new CO basically ignored it.  But the intent was there and I appreciated the copy that recommended me for some Advance Crses and catch up to my peers, none of which happened.  I think that the "Posting Letter" is/was a great staffing tool, but few are done; another staff work fail and lack of administrative attention paid by many superiors towards their subordinates careers.

 

[DAA]

It's not rocket science..........

CFPAS Manual, Chap 1, Art 103, para 2  -  The PDR will be used by a unit to report a person's performance to his or her home unit during operational deployments under 3 months duration or temporary assignments such as attached postings, TD, or secondments of any length. On posting, losing units will use the PDR to pass a individual's performance/potential information to the gaining unit or vice versa when a Dept ID Waiver has been approved (see sect 121). The home or gaining unit will use this information in preparing the person's Annual PER.

And let's not forget about para 3 of the above.......

Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of the fact that it is mandatory for all ranks.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If only we (the collective CAF *we*) were as good at following the policies we write as we are at writing them... 8)

 

[opcougar]

Very valid points NP.  We have all seen troops get screwed come PER season and meriting due to lazy reporting by supervisors throughout the year.

Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.

 

[MJP]

Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.

What?

Jay4th's comment was on the money.  I don't need a brag sheet from my guys to write them up properly because I have a vested interest in them and actually track what they are doing and the outcome.  That doesn't mean I don't get them but I certainly don't hinge development of my subordinates based on a piece of paper from them.  It may help fill in one or two missing gaps but actually knowing your soldiers and their strength's and weaknesses is better than slavishly following the CFPAS process.

 

[Infanteer]

Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.

Don't be a dick.

The Staff.

 

[McG]

New guidance is out for PER writting this year.

CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14
CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2014/2015 REPORTING YEAR
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANFORGEN 011/14 CMP 010/14 062211Z FEB 14 (CHANGES TO THE CAF PER FOR THE 2013/2014 REPORTING YEAR
B. CFPAS HELP FILE

1. REF A IS HEREBY CANCELLED

2. IN KEEPING WITH DEFENCE RENEWAL INITIATIVES TO MODERNIZE THE CAF CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT FOR CFPAS, A NUMBER OF INTERIM CHANGES TO THE PER PROCESS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE UPCOMING PER SEASON. THESE CHANGES WILL GRADUALLY MOVE THE CURRENT CFPAS TOWARDS THE PROCESSES ENVISAGED FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS

3. EVALUATIONS OF PERSONNEL FOR THE SELECTION BOARDS AND THE PROVISION OF FEEDBACK TO MEMBERS IN MEANINGFUL AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WAYS, WHILE REDUCING THE WORK LOAD ON SUPERVISORS AND ON THE BOARD MEMBERSHIP UNDERLIES THE INTENT OF THE CHANGES DESCRIBED BELOW. THIS CANFORGEN REPLACES REF A, AND IS WRITTEN IN TWO PARTS. PART 1 DESCRIBES NEW OR AMENDED FEATURES FOR CFPAS 14/15 AND PART 2 DESCRIBES THOSE PORTIONS OF THE CFPAS 13/14 MODERNIZATION AMENDMENT THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT

PART 1: NEW OR AMENDED FEATURES

4. ON ALL FORM TYPES, AND FOR ALL RANKS, PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL NARRATIVES SHALL BE WRITTEN IN BULLET FORM AS FOLLOWS:

• A. NO REPEAT NO PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT FACTOR (AF) OR POTENTIAL FACTOR (PF) IDENTIFIERS ARE TO BE USED
• B. DO NOT COMMENT ON: I. SKILLED, DEVELOPING, OR NOT OBSERVED AFS II. NORMAL PF III. COMPETENT, FUNDAMENTAL, OR NOT OBSERVED SCORES IN CF SENIOR OFFICER AND CWO/CPO1 PER S
• C. USE THE FORMAT: ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND RESULT
• D. THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS IS ALREADY IMPLIED BY THE DOT SCORE. LIMIT THE USE OF ADJECTIVES/ ADVERBS WHERE POSSIBLE. IN PARTICULAR RESERVE THEM FOR PER S IN THE TOP 20 PERCENT TO DISTINGUISH TRULY TOP BEHAVIOUR
• E. AS A RESULT OF THE SUCCESSFUL TRIAL BY THE RCN, FILL NO MORE THAN HALF THE NARRATIVE SPACE (9 LINES). THIS LENGTH RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THEATRE PER S

5. READY PER S DO NOT HAVE A POTENTIAL NARRATIVE. A SHORT COMMENT ON PROGRESSION IN CURRENT RANK AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT EMPLOYMENT CAN BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE MAXIMUM 9 LINES IN THE PERFORMANCE SECTION

6. ADDITIONAL REVIEW, WHICH INCLUDES SECTION 6 OF STANDARD PER, SECTION 7 OF CHAPLAIN PER, AND SECTION 5 OF CAF SENIOR OFFICER AND CWO/CPO1 PER, IS TO BE WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS:

• A. STATEMENT ON RANKING OF PERSONNEL OF SAME RANK, ACROSS MOSID, WITHIN UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP. NO MORE THAN 10 PERSONS OR 50 PCT, WHICHEVER IS LESS, ARE TO BE RANKED. AN EXCEPTION IS MADE FOR THOSE LARGE ORGANIZATIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF PERSONNEL WITHIN A RANK (MORE THAN 100 IN A SINGLE RANK), WHICH MAY AT THE COMMANDER S DISCRETION, PROVIDE A NUMERICAL RANKING OF THE TOP 20 PCT (EX. 34 OF 168 MAJORS)
  
• B. NARRATIVE, IN PROSE, IS TO PROVIDE AS A MINIMUM THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE ORDER GIVEN: RANKING, RATE OF ADVANCEMENT TO NEXT RANK, RECOMMENDATION FOR OCCUPATION/RANK APPROPRIATE COMMAND/LEADERSHIP TOUR IF APPROPRIATE, AND SUITABILITY AND TIMING OF FUTURE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONAL COMMENT MAY BE MADE AFTER THIS STANDARDIZED INFORMATION IS GIVEN

PART 2 : CARRYOVER FEATURES

7. LT/SLT PER S. LT/SLT PER S ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. A PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO EVERY LT/SLT NOT ON A FORMAL TRAINING COURSE (WHO WOULD OTHERWISE RECEIVE A COURSE REPORT)

8. SELECTION BOARDS FROM CPL/LS TO MCPL/MS. THE CA SUCESSFULLY CONDUCTED A RANGE OF CPL SELECTION BOARDS FOR APPOINTMENT TO MCPL FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE

9. OPTING OUT OF A PER. ONE OF THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE CURRENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IS THE ABSENCE OF A MECHANISM BY WHICH MEMBERS MAY SIGNAL THEIR DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THEIR NATION AT THEIR CURRENT RANK FOR THE REMAINDER OF THEIR CAREER. ACCORDINGLY, PERSONNEL NOW HAVE THE OPTION TO QUOTE OPT OUT UNQUOTE OF RECEIVING A FORMAL ANNUAL PER

…

10. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OPT OUT OPTION IS OUTLINED BELOW:

…

11. CONSEQUENCES. THE CONSEQUENCES OF OPTING OUT OF FORMAL EVALUATION ARE SIGNIFICANT AND INCLUDE:

…

12. REF B WILL BE UPDATED IN DUE COURSE. ALL QUESTIONS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO DMCSS 2 STAFF AS FOLLOWS: LCDR CUTHBERT … OR LT(N) LALIBERTE … 

Having seen a selection board under the "new" PER writting style, there are elements of this CANFORGEN that I like and others that I do not. 

Numerically ranking the top 20% where there are more than 100 pers at a given rank level is probably a good thing.  It may take some adjustment for those formations that have grown comfortable in past years writting PERs to declair all the top 30% to be in the top 20%.

I do not like that ready PERs do not recieve Potential narratives.  There are a lot of selection board points (for most if not all occupations) that are dependant upon comments in the potential narrative.  Unfortunately, in our inflated system, the average guy is Above Average (and therefore Ready).  Because of this, completed potential narratives would allow discerning between the inflated Developing and the actually Ready PER.

 

[George Wallace]

New guidance is out for PER writting this year.

Am I ever glad I no longer have to write PERs, if annually new instructions are sent out as to how to write them. 

Out of curiosity, how would anyone be able to monitor/track their progress over the years if the formats are not conducent to doing so?  Will next years "Superior" be last years "Above Average" and so on?  Will one only be merited on eight points/factors, rather than ten, or twelve, or whatever?

 

[PuckChaser]

I do not like that ready PERs do not recieve Potential narratives.  There are a lot of selection board points (for most if not all occupations) that are dependant upon comments in the potential narrative. 

Its also kind of a morale killer when your Potential Section has "N/A" listed as its only comment.  >

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yup.  IMO they didn't 'fix' the PAS, they just lessened the amount of work people have to do every year.

 

[sidemount]

Yup.  IMO they didn't 'fix' the PAS, they just lessened the amount of work people have to do every year.

True words right there



Big fixing needed, but all that has been done is less writing. I have 5 PERs that I am writing and it takes no time at all to do. I don't even get the space I would need to write what is appropriate for the member.....its junk.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

True words right there



Big fixing needed, but all that has been done is less writing. I have 5 PERs that I am writing and it takes no time at all to do. I don't even get the space I would need to write what is appropriate for the member.....its junk.

Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done. 

 

[sidemount]

Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.

I hear you on the cookie cutterism. I used to see a lot of that on the older PERs where there was actually a paragraph.... just poor writing skills. Now, with the point form I see much less of it....but the PER narrative really doesn' t say anything about the member anymore.....it almost seems pointless to write.

I guess its better for those who have no writing skills, but those that write well are rendered almost useless.

Just my thoughts anyway.

A whole paragraph for each factor sounds like fun and a ton of work for nothing.....and here I thought the performa's im writing that mimic the PER were poitnless haha

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.

And yet, there is guidance on the "how to" right in the CFPAS help file.  If only people would stop trying to make the wheel roll differently...

 

[PuckChaser]

Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.

You must have been at my unit. We merited everyone in our Sqn, regardless of their PER score. Speaking notes sheets needed to be completed for 1st year Cpls who were getting Skilled/Low-Ready PERs.

 

[MJP]

And yet, there is guidance on the "how to" right in the CFPAS help file.  If only people would stop trying to make the wheel roll differently...

Well even with the CFPAS help file some people just can't WRITE.... 

I guess its better for those who have no writing skills, but those that write well are rendered almost useless.

Which was one of the inequities of the previous system.  People that belonged to supervisors that could write skillfully sounded much better than folks just as good that were written by supervisor's less skilled.

I am not totally sold on the all of the new system but with the amount institutional effort that went into writing the old PERs something had to change.  I have no heartache with SND folks getting a numerical score and that's it.  Not wasting a tremendous amount of time on the folks that won't be seen by a promotion board is a good change IMHO.  CFPAS PDRs is the mechanism throughout the year should be what are guiding them to become those ESAAR/MOIs. 

Come board time the dot score full stop is what gets you into the merit board.  By reducing the amount of fluff written into a PER and focusing on a mbr's real strength's there are better opportunities for the board to review the most relevant data.  Especially additional review which every board mbr I have ever talked to is what they really pay attention to because it contains some very key information like next job, ranking and career crse recommendations.  Like I said, I am not totally sold on doing away with the writing with our top performers.  I don't mind spending time on their PERs because it matters for them at this point but I will concede that as laid out above some of the changes seem in theory pretty decent and allow us too not spend 4-5 months screwing around writing PERs

* edit
I can't sentence....

 

[Gunner98]

That is quite a balancing act - reduce workload while maintaining the provision of straightforward, meaningful feedback.  Somewhat reminds me of the old PER system from the 1980-90's where there was a flap under which the real scores and evaluation gems were written and not passed on to the individual. 

So the 80-20 rule has popped up again - you will spend 80% of your time writing for 20% of the unit and the other 80% of the unit don't matter much. 

Opting out of the PER process - interesting concept.  Can you opt out of the Code of Service Discipline, too?

I wonder what the end state will look like, perhaps  :nod:  or  :facepalm: