PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[George Wallace]

PDRs are not used to write PERs.  Where the CoC wants the member to rank will write the PER.  You will use events in the member's bragsheet and add some crafty words (less so now) to substantiate the dots...

PDRs are a tool for the supervisors to draw on when writting PERs.  The supervisor should be sitting, with their troops files and justifying them at the Merit Boards where the CoC while sort out the rankings of the troops.  Prior to the creation of PDRs, I witnessed strong supervisors defend the higher ranking of their troops over better troops whose supervisors were weak in their defence, or even silent, at Merit Boards.  At least with PDRs, there is the possibility that those flaws can be corrected.  Without them, then the strongest argument by the strongest/most vocal supervisor will get that supervisors troops higher scoring and the higher PERs; possibly over-ranking lesser troops above better personnel. 

I have always hated PERs, but have to admit that it is the fairest system humanly possible to rank our personnel.  If we want to leave PERs to be sorted out by the strongest supervisors, condemning all the troops under the weak supervisors to limbo, then don't bother documenting at all; leave it all to arguments presented orally over a round table. 

[sarcasm on]I am sure moral will never take a hit. [sarcasm off]

 

[SupersonicMax]

That's what it is right now: the supervisor that has the best ability to defend his guys and to some extent, make some deals will win.  We decide who ranks where before PERs are written.  What is in the narrative is of very little importance as it could be anything and there would be a way to justify Capt X to master something....

 

[George Wallace]

Actually the strongest and most vocal supervisor will rank their pers higher than they should by just being a stronger willed, more vocal, Type A type than a weaker, less vocal supervisor at Merit Boards.  Those pers who have the luck to be under that weak supervisor suffer when all the unit is being ranked on verbalization's over a table in the OC's/CO's office in order to set the PER rankings.  Is that really fair?  That is BS, and why we have systems in place to document personnel work habits, achievements, etc.  You want to troops to sit back and bitch about how they are getting screwed over; then carry on with the best "debater" promoting their troops above all others.  If it seems to be unfair, troops will bitch.  If it shown to be fair (as humanly possible) they will accept the facts as presented.

 

[MJP]

Actually the strongest and most vocal supervisor will rank their pers higher than they should by just being a stronger willed, more vocal, Type A type than a weaker, less vocal supervisor at Merit Boards.  Those pers who have the luck to be under that weak supervisor suffer when all the unit is being ranked on verbalization's over a table in the OC's/CO's office in order to set the PER rankings.  Is that really fair?  That is BS, and why we have systems in place to document personnel work habits, achievements, etc.  You want to troops to sit back and ***** about how they are getting screwed over; then carry on with the best "debater" promoting their troops above all others.  If it seems to be unfair, troops will *****.  If it shown to be fair (as humanly possible) they will accept the facts as presented.

That can happen regardless of how many PDRs there are because often at a merit board one only has 1-2 mins to compare one soldier to another.  There is no digging out of PDRS to substantiate a soldier.  Good prep by CoC make it easier to state one's case for or against another soldier.  Good control of a board allowing all to present their top 10% or so makes it less of an issue, but it is a something that can happen. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

George,

I am talking about formations, not units.  This is how it is done and how it was done in all formations I have been part of.

I'd argue you have more time at the unit level to debate who we are going to push comes the formation board than at the board itself.  If a supervisor is well prepared, regardless of PDRs, their pers will do well.

 

[TCM621]

Unless you shine (good or bad  ^-^) now, your PER and even theatre PDR is pretty much blank paper.  Whats the point?

That is another discussion all together. The new PER system only makes it easier for the people writing them. I haven't seen one argument that makes sense on how it actually helps members.

We all know that the PER/PDR system is broken. A lot of it comes down to improper use of the tools given to us.  You can't blame anyone, really. We aren't formally taught how to use it properly,  no one truly enforces it's proper use and senior leadership is complacent (at best) in the constant misuse of the system.

Just look at this thread, we have a number of people who actively defend not giving PDRs.  I understand their point of view, it doesn't work so let's ignore it in favour of a home grown solution that works. And their examples do work,  and are as important as a formal evaluation and reporting tool.

But how can we truly say it doesn't work when a. We aren't taught how to properly use it and b.  Even the things we know we are supposed to do get ignored on a regular basis? I would say I have a fairly good understanding of the system based on reading the help file and such but I know that I could learn a lot more and I am probably not using it to its full capabilities. Unless we teach a standard and enforce it,  the system won't be able to be effective.

 

[MJP]

That is another discussion all together. The new PER system only makes it easier for the people writing them. I haven't seen one argument that makes sense on how it actually helps members.

PERs at the end of the day are not really for helping the mbr but rather the institution in deciding who should be considered for promotion full stop.  PDRs, mentoring and other informal feedback are what help mbrs.

It also helps the institution because we focus our efforts on the mbrs that matter right now for the CAF.  This doesn't mean that an SND soldier doesn't matter, but rather leaders focus their finite time into writing up the soldiers who by virtue of time, experience and excellence are in the zone and are promotable.  We use to spend inordinate amounts of time writing up PERs that didn't really matter.  The process was so broken we started almost 6 months before they were due because that is how long it took.  The last two years have been relatively painless IMHO.  Magically for the most part soldiers that should have been promoted were and we didn't spend 4-6 months rewriting a bunch of garbage verbage.

 

[BinRat55]

Both Max and MJP are of the strong opinion that PDRs are either irrelevant or a considerable waste of time. As I stated earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What seems fair and right to some, doesn't necessarily reflect the sum of the audience.

It's been said that PDRs have nothing to do with PERs. I disagree and here's why - when I teach my subordinates about PDRs I ask them to take Cpl Bloggins for example. If they were to write a PER right now on Cpl Bloggins, where would the dots be? Now, the dots at an AA or M, write a statement on that in the 5A. The dots at a S or even a D, write a statement on that in the 5B. During the interview, we explain to the Cpl that we saw good behaviour / quality here, however to get it (the dot) to an AA or an M we must improvise a solution (the 5C). If this is followed (by BOTH supervisor & subordinate) we can expect a good result. When I write my PDR part 1s, they mirror the 16 PER bullets. That way, when the PDR is written, it loops back to the Part 1, reaching back to the PER. Loop achieved. Member is directly responsible for the movement of his/her PER score and I have the meat / justification on paper to prove it.

Again, I started out by saying the system is not perfect, but it's still in place for us to use. It's a disservice to any soldier to not have something tangible for them to "prove" their worth if it becomes necessary (a redress for example). If I show up to a court of law with evidence "from memory" it's called hearsay and promptly dismissed. Circumstantial at best. The PDR has three signature blocks for a reason.

CFPAS is directed at the National level, and it states that every member will receive at minimum 2 feed back sessions documented by a PDR and capped by the PER. This should not be up for debate. Because it is only shows me that one of the reasons the system is flawed in the first place is because supervisors, CoCs and apparently even formations do what ever they want. How can I keep up with that?

 

[BinRat55]

... often at a merit board one only has 1-2 mins to compare one soldier to another.  There is no digging out of PDRS to substantiate a soldier.  Good prep by CoC make it easier to state one's case for or against another soldier.  Good control of a board allowing all to present their top 10% or so makes it less of an issue, but it is a something that can happen.

I definitely agree with the good prep part of your statement, but the 1-2 mins? No digging for PDRs? I have had many heated discussion with another - often times we end up dragging in other supervisors not originally involved. This is NOT a poorly run board, it facilitates great points. If everyone was given a minute to tell the table (at times consisting of 10 - 15 other strong Sr NCOs) why their soldier was better than theirs without evidence, we would not end up with a very good product.

 

[BinRat55]

So, we do PDRs so people can get out of the office and brag? 

There is a difference between bragging and pride. I would hope that among the many reasons I do PDRs, one is to instil a little pride and professionalism in my troops. Yes, I do this an other ways too, but in writing means a lot to them. Always has, always will.

 

[BinRat55]

Or you can award the Person of the month award for whatever level you lead.  Or you can do this verbally with the individual on a regular basis.  PDRs are a lazy way to recognize your people.

How about awarding a "Person of the Month" and then mentioning it in the PDR? Adds a bit of weight when you write the PDR, huh? What about when you have H&A? How do you justify these? If I have 12 Cpl / Ptes with no write-ups what-so-ever, someone is gonna shiv me in the hall (tongue in cheek of course but you see my point?)

 

[SupersonicMax]

I successfully wrote people up for H&As before and never did I reference PDRs in the write-up.

I have never seen anybody gleaming with pride because of a PDR... 

 

[MJP]

Both Max and MJP are of the strong opinion that PDRs are either irrelevant or a considerable waste of time. As I stated earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What seems fair and right to some, doesn't necessarily reflect the sum of the audience.

PDRs aren't irrelevant nor if done correctly a waste of time, they just aren't the right tool for improving people.  Surprisingly for some in this thread I do write PDRs on my folks, however I am very clear when people work with me that I don't consider it their primary piece of feedback and that face to face talks are my preferred COA to conduct any sort of counselling (good or bad). 

I definitely agree with the good prep part of your statement, but the 1-2 mins? No digging for PDRs? I have had many heated discussion with another - often times we end up dragging in other supervisors not originally involved. This is NOT a poorly run board, it facilitates great points. If everyone was given a minute to tell the table (at times consisting of 10 - 15 other strong Sr NCOs) why their soldier was better than theirs without evidence, we would not end up with a very good product.

You are misinterpreting a bit.  People prepped for the boards by doing whatever local plan they have.  I have seen elaborate PER merit boards files done and I have seen very simple ones.  Both can be effective.  Most effective ones I have seen have sub unit prerank their people with their proposed PER scores.  It gets inputted into a master spreadsheet, sorted and everyone in the room sees where their soldiers rank compared to others.  At that point you just start at number 1 and decide who should be there.  That is where the 1-2 minutes comes from.  At the unit level there aren't a ton of people in the room.  Sub unit commanders, their CSM/WOs (or whatever) and a few other odds and sods.  Really you are only there for the top 30% and again that is where you focus the majority of your time.  No one gets a minute to compare one SND soldier to another because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. 

 

[MJP]

What about when you have H&A? How do you justify these?

H&A is generally for a stand alone event/performance, or excellence over a period of time.  While the event might be mentioned in a PDR, I wouldn't use a PDR to justify H&A. 

 

[BinRat55]

I successfully wrote people up for H&As before and never did I reference PDRs in the write-up.

I have never seen anybody gleaming with pride because of a PDR...

Why is it so hard for you to believe that a soldier can feel good about something that was written about them in a positive manner? I never said "GLEAMING with pride". I also never said bragging...

 

[BinRat55]

PDRs aren't irrelevant nor if done correctly a waste of time, they just aren't the right tool for improving people.  Surprisingly for some in this thread I do write PDRs on my folks, however I am very clear when people work with me that I don't consider it their primary piece of feedback and that face to face talks are my preferred COA to conduct any sort of counselling (good or bad). 

You are misinterpreting a bit.  People prepped for the boards by doing whatever local plan they have.  I have seen elaborate PER merit boards files done and I have seen very simple ones.  Both can be effective.  Most effective ones I have seen have sub unit prerank their people with their proposed PER scores.  It gets inputted into a master spreadsheet, sorted and everyone in the room sees where their soldiers rank compared to others.  At that point you just start at number 1 and decide who should be there.  That is where the 1-2 minutes comes from.  At the unit level there aren't a ton of people in the room.  Sub unit commanders, their CSM/WOs (or whatever) and a few other odds and sods.  Really you are only there for the top 30% and again that is where you focus the majority of your time.  No one gets a minute to compare one SND soldier to another because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

PDRs aren't the ONLY tool for developing people. Just like one could argue that an IC, RW and C&P isn't the right tool for development, an RDP is the way to go. Or vice-versa. It's all a matter of how you USE that tool, because in the end it is a tool. Still, my point is that we can't just dismiss the PDR as some have stated here because it is directed.

And yes, I do agree that while PDRs are not necessary at a merit board, they are quite helpful when you need to keep certain ducks in a row. I have never seen a board where SNDs were on a list. By the time it gets to the Branch or Formation level all that other work is done and it becomes like picking fly **** out of pepper.

 

[SupersonicMax]

PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people.  If you truly think it is the only tool, I would question you supervisory and leadership skills.

 

[George Wallace]

Psssst!  Max.

He said: "aren't"

 

[MJP]

PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people.  If you truly think it is the only tool, I would question you supervisory and leadership skills.

And this is where the line is.  It is clear that Binrat is a dedicated NCO and wants to do the best for his soldiers.  I don't question his supervisory and leadership skills, and I applaud that he takes the time to acquaint his subordinates to the CFPAS system early in their career.  I disagree withhim that it needs to be religiously followed in all cases much like you do.  But, you like a few others on this board have a habit of making asinine leaps of judgement of other posters and post ridiculous crap like the above.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I did say if he truly thinks (which I do not think he does).  It is a moot point since I misread his post anyways.

George:  Thanks, I'll out my glasses on next time.