PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[BinRat55]

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.

MJP - I think the fact that the CFPAS needs to be "religiously followed" as you put it, because it's an order. In ALL cases. Yes, there are pros and cons - much like anything the CF puts into an order. Do you agree with everything in the Code of Service Discipline? I don't. But alas, it's an order.

I have not judged one person on this board. Read my posts. I have actually gone out of my way to make it known that I truly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. As am I.

 

[BinRat55]

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.

Max - I get that you misread my post, and that's all well and good, however I still want to weigh in on something else you said. PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people. Keying in on the fact that you did misread "aren't", I have to question your next statement - only official. You had to have misread the whole post, and have gone through your entire career without ever receiving or administering an IC, RW or a charge under the CSD. These are also official development tools, no? After all, an IC is not a punishment, is it? Just because they hold a negative connotation doesn't mean they are not developmental...

 

[TCM621]

Slow night shift, so I was digging through the CFPAS help file to get more SA on this topic. Here are a few quotes from the help file regarding PDRS.

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

The performance rating section provides for quantitative assessment on each of a number of specific factors relevant to the individual's observed work and leadership skills and is derived from the individual's PDR.

It is the responsibility of the parent unit to collect and collate all PDRs and other related documents from all other units, detachments or locations where their personnel are/have been employed and incorporate them into the Annual PER.

[CO is responsible to] ensure all personnel are afforded the developmental opportunities made available by the full implementation of the PDR process;

In assessing performance the supervisor reviews observed work behaviours and information pertaining to the subordinate that is applicable for the current reporting period and contained in the PDR forms and other personnel documents such as letters of appreciation and course reports which are typically stored in the personnel file.

 

[BinRat55]

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

:nod:

Mandatory:

1. Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory.

2. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command.

3. Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.

Not to be sarcastic, but it is what it is...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

All this policy is great; however what is the point if the practice of 'situating the estimate' isn't eliminated? 

 

[BinRat55]

All this policy is great; however what is the point if the practice of 'situating the estimate' isn't eliminated?

Situate the estimate - to design the mission to fit available resources rather than to respond to actual demands.

Well, this is kind of what I am trying to say - firstly, PDRs absolutely NEED to be done. The culmination of this process is the PER. Many, many over-inflated, high priced / undervalued, taxed to S*** PERs. Procedure needs to be followed, honesty needs to be applied and allow the CFPAS to work. It's a start. Does that make sense?

 

[ModlrMike]

Part of the problem with CFPAS is that people don't know how it really works. They use the PDR as a terms of reference without establishing a performance benchmark. My approach has always been:

1. The NCMGS and MOC specifications tell you what a member is supposed to be able to do at a given level of training;
2. From there you construct the Terms of Reference for the member's position. You correlate the requirements to what the member is supposed to be capable of;
3. You write the initial PDR that lays out how well you expect the member to complete those tasks in the TOR; and finally
4. You complete the PER as a reflection of how well the member met the performance requirements of the PDR.

To my mind, CFPAS is a four step system. If you don't do the first two, you can't do the second two.

 

[BinRat55]

Exactly.

Part 1 - 16 bullets found in the performance section of the PDR (otherwise known as job description) using adjectives from the WPB  -

1. SUPERVISING: Member confidently provides guidance and direction to subordinates, concerned for their well being and consistently ensures all tasks given are completed to a high standard... (this is called the "benchmark")

Part 2 - Initial Action Plan would be a measurable task in which I can apply these benchmarks - achievable and confidence building.

Parts 3 and 4 are self explanatory.

Part 5A - reach back to the part 1 bullets. Use 3 or 4 strong examples of where the member would be found at an ES or an M.
Part 5B - reach back to the part 1 bullets. Use 2 or 3 FAIR examples of where the member would be found at an S or a D.
Part 5C - Note the 5B points verbally with member. Devise COAs, solutions and a way ahead to improve those points so they could end up in the 5A.

At the end of the cycle, you have 2, 3 or 4 or even more PDRs with all kinds of good meat on them. All signed by the member acknowledging his / her abilities and needs to improve. Redress that? Impossible.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Situate the estimate - to design the mission to fit available resources rather than to respond to actual demands.

Well, this is kind of what I am trying to say - firstly, PDRs absolutely NEED to be done. The culmination of this process is the PER. Many, many over-inflated, high priced / undervalued, taxed to S*** PERs. Procedure needs to be followed, honesty needs to be applied and allow the CFPAS to work. It's a start. Does that make sense?

Sure it makes sense...it is reality is the real question.

 

[SupersonicMax]

:nod:

Mandatory:

1. Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory.

2. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command.

3. Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.

Not to be sarcastic, but it is what it is...

Many things are mandatory but disredarded.  According to flying orders, I shall use my checklist to carry out any procedure in the aircraft..  Guess what, it doesn't happen. 

If it isn't enforced by the CoC (all the way up) then it loses its Strenght, which is the case with PDRs.

 

[BinRat55]

Eye in the Sky - you're deep. I like it.

SupersonicMax -  :facepalm:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've just witnessed the 'ol "who do we want where?  okay these are the PERs they are getting this year then" game for long enough to know you can modify CFPAS, you can ever REPLACE CFPAS but the real change that needs to be made is to stomp out the days where that practice happens.

Until then, its all for not IMO.  I've said it before, I'll say it again; all the changes of the past few years to CFPAS did nothing other than lighten the workload.  I saw theatre PDRs that were less than 1 full line.  What's the point?

I also do NOT like the change to the requirements for theatre PERs on 3+month CJOC gigs.  That was a bullshit change IMO.  I threw in the 'I give a shit towel' when I saw that change late last winter.

Over the course of many years (been around 26 and change now), I've seen the CAF in general take the CFPAS system which would likely have worked well if it had been implemented and monitored better (IMO), watch it be bastardized and manipulated into the creature it is today.  I don't believe the system was the problem, I believe it was the users in this case. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

SupersonicMax -  :facepalm:

In all honestly, I can't say I disagree with SSM.  There are MANY orders and regulations that are paid lip service, or ignored, or enforced in a non-standard manner across the CAF.  I have witnessed the general discipline (or various kinds) slip and degrade over the years, and with no self-discipline there is usually less imposed discipline.

Anyone who thinks that this is just a Jnr NCO/Jnr Officer failing needs only to go look at the decisions on the MEGRC website to see it is not, it is at the senior ranks too. 

In my  :2c:, there is a lowered amount of discipline and GSK in the Forces from years ago, and people are making bad decisions more often.  CFPAS is a symptom of that overall problem.

 

[George Wallace]

In all honestly, I can't say I disagree with SSM.  There are MANY orders and regulations that are paid lip service, or ignored, or enforced in a non-standard manner across the CAF.  I have witnessed the general discipline (or various kinds) slip and degrade over the years, and with no self-discipline there is usually less imposed discipline.

Anyone who thinks that this is just a Jnr NCO/Jnr Officer failing needs only to go look at the decisions on the MEGRC website to see it is not, it is at the senior ranks too. 

In my  :2c:, there is a lowered amount of discipline and GSK in the Forces from years ago, and people are making bad decisions more often.  CFPAS is a symptom of that overall problem.

So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.

"
I believe so, yup.  There are more important issues to the snr CAF leadership.  People will still get promoted, there is supposed to be a new system coming in, improvements are being made to reduce the CFPAS workload...etc etc etc and ok, move on to the next point" are likely the comments if this comes up in a briefing. 

Are promotions, postings, PD etc being severly or even moderately handicapped by any real or perceived CFPAS issues?  No, not IMO.  It's not really that squeaky of a wheel to get a lot of grease.  I have a big 'to-do' list every day/week at the Sqn, I have to prioritize.  I certainly don't have or won't invest my time to staff a "EITS thoughts on CFPAS" document to the Sqn Exec.  I guess I just assume everyone is in the same state with "more important nails to hammer".

 

[BinRat55]

I can't trivialize it that easily. Are promotions, postings, PD etc being severly or even moderately handicapped by any real or perceived CFPAS issues? Maybe not severely, but yes I beleive so. How many techs are being promoted way too early these days? It's a conversation I have (sadly) had numerous times. I have a really good MCpl. He's going places, this guy. Still has things to learn, but man he's a great MCpl. I write PDRs / PERs as such. Now, the supervisor next door, she has a good MCpl too. In my opinion (and others) not quite as good as my MCpl. She writes HER MCpl higher that I do mine. HER CoC backs it. How do I fight that? By inflating my MCpl's PER so that his is better once again. We end up with leaders newly promoted in a bad position because they have little to no experience and knowledge!

All ficticious, of course but inflating the PERs of those who rightfully deserve to be on top in order to GET them on top is genuinely FLAWED. We get it right much of the time, but eventually there will be no room left. I have seen (time and time again - way too much now) first year Cpls actually redressing a PER because they never went out READY!!! First PER. Why? Because of the CoC that never properly managed expectations through CFPAS (PDRs) allowing that Cpl to think their s*** don't stink because anothe young Cpl's CoC was really gone on them.

Flawed a little is still flawed.

 

[Lumber]

I say let them grieve it. If their representations don't fit the word pictures, they won't win the grievance.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.

Absolutely.  Perhaps it is the system (development/evaluation) system that is broken and needs fixing.  If the organization, as a whole, generally disregard a process then we need to question why this process exists and what is its intended goal.  If there are other processes that can achieve the same effect while still achieving the goal and is more "user friendly" (read people will use it), then you need to change it.

If you are not willing to change the process for whatever reason, you need to hold people accountable for not using it.

BinRat:  I agree with the PER system being messed up...  Overranking has always bothered me as, amongst other thing, weaknesses are rarely discussed in the assessment.

 

[BinRat55]

I say let them grieve it. If their representations don't fit the word pictures, they won't win the grievance.

Well... that would be a wrap... checkmate maybe?

How would their representations fit the word picture book if in some worlds we don't USE the PDR system? Hard to refute anything then... WE won't win the greivance.

 

[Lumber]

Well... that would be a wrap... checkmate maybe?

How would their representations fit the word picture book if in some worlds we don't USE the PDR system? Hard to refute anything then... WE won't win the greivance.

I'm not I get what you mean by those who don't use the PDR system? Doesn't everybody use the PDR/PER system? Even if they didn't use PDR, they still submit PERs at the end of the year. If you gave a member an ES on say, Working with Others, and he grieves it saying he derserved a Mastered, he has to have verifiable examples of him Working with Others that fit the word picture for Mastered. Even if he provides examples, his supervisors can present their own representations as to why the example better fits the word picture for ES and not M.

Maybe I just don't understand your point?  If so, sorry :facepalm: