PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[George Wallace]

There is also a theory similar to the Peter Principle called the Dilbert Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle. This basically says you promote them because they are incompetent, so they cause less damage to the immediate workflow. Normally this is meant for more technical tasks (you promote the worst surgeon to management in order to get him out of surgeries). However, in general, the idea of this is that the more someone screws up the more you want them managing more general aspects of people and the less you want them doing hands on work that has larger ramifications when it goes wrong. So to go off your last point Brasidas

the idea is that the best course of action would actually be to promote them further in order to get them more removed from any process that they can hurt. It is an interesting idea but is also an explanation sometimes for when you have cases of


because almost certainly someone else who has decision making power has noticed the same thing. (I've also read of this principle being used with where you get posted as well, I remember reading a post a while back where a colonel was causing problems so he got promoted and put somewhere where he couldn't cause as much damage).

Seems to be the way that our Political System has gone.  Have we had any really "Statesmen" since Peason and Diefenbaker?  Have we had any "Nation Builders" since the St Laurent years?  This trend is bring us into "Decay".  We have to go back a half century or so, and have the gonads to "FIRE" the incompetent.  Our drifting towards "molly coddling" our population is our destruction.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

In my regiment and squadron we are trying to stop this "anyone with a heart beat" getting on courses too early and promoted to fast train....if we have to no fill seats on PLQ courses we will no fill them ....

 

[MJP]

I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance.

It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.

I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most.  Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile).  The narrative was where this stuff was caught.  I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.

I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.

The institution spent an inordinate amount of time writing flowery PERs on all members above Cpl regardless of their potential for promotion every year.  It was the better part of a four-six month process in some units.  At the end of the day the PER is an institutional tool to manage promotions.  Dot score is what gets you to the board period.  Why waste time writing a PER for someone that won’t be seen by the board?  Put in a dot score so the institution can track their progress over the next few years and be done with the process.  For those that make it to the board because the dot scores are all relatively sits at the right side of god (right linedish) it is, the jobs you have done in the past (tactical, instructional, staff, joint etc), your language profile and whatever other criteria your particular board considers important  (AOC, JSPC, not wearing sunglasses all the time) is what gets scored by the board  IAW their scoring scrit.  The benefit in this process is the institution isn't wasting time.


I have seen your specific complaint quite often though. The unintended consequence of the old system of writing PERs is it made everyone (ok most people) who got PERs happy because it was always sunshine and lollipops. Except for an adverse PER it was rare to see bad stuff on a PER.  When this new system came out lots of folks were like this doesn’t tell my subordinates how they are doing.  Problem is the PER wasn't grounded in reality anyway.  The other problem is writing all that great flowery language takes time and on a tool intended for the institutional it is a waste of the institutional leaders time.  I tell my folks that PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.  If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs.

Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.

There is nothing wrong with normalizing scores across a vast organization.  Sgt A might have a rock star Cpl who should be MOI but is only ESAAR because Sgt A is a hard ***.  Meanwhile Sgt B a pushover has a decent Cpl but writes them up as MOI.  In meriting this kind of thing should be caught.  Sgt A’s soldier should come up to be ranked with peers that are also MOI and Sgt B’s soldier come down to the SND/ESAAR area. 
How exactly they gather the scores and then normalize them is different across the board.  I have a seen a variety of methods.  Most common is at the Coy level they hold a big merit session where everyone comes with their subordinate’s dot scores.  They then put them up and argue the merits of their soldiers.  IMHO it works well because no one works in isolation and you can catch the cases were a soldier that one person is talking up is actually a bag of crap and counter arguments can flow.  Conversely a soldier that is under ranked can be brought up considerably.
If nothing like that happened ie you gave no initial dot scores and there was no merit board then I would question how the scores were determined. 

* edited because words are hard

 

[Just-wondering]

Does anyone know if there are references for writing a PER for members that remustered through VOT mid way through the reporting year? Do you include previous trade and information? What do you do in the case of relinquishment of rank? Is the old rank also included. If the person was in a leadership position in old trade and just ql3 qualified in new trade how do you fairly write when leadership etc has not been observed in new trade?

 

[MJP]

Does anyone know if there are references for writing a PER for members that remustered through VOT mid way through the reporting year? Do you include previous trade and information? What do you do in the case of relinquishment of rank? Is the old rank also included. If the person was in a leadership position in old trade and just ql3 qualified in new trade how do you fairly write when leadership etc has not been observed in new trade?

I have written PERs on new VOTs and have used their old jobs.  If they had PDRs I used them plus I usually called their old supervisor to get any other points.  I treated it no different than someone posted in or cross posted in an organization.  You don't have to directly observe their leadership as long as someone has.  This is where people writing PERs have to due their due diligence and make those emails and calls to previous supervisors.

 

[mariomike]

For future reference, perhaps this discussion will be merged with,

CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/25156/post-1417767/topicseen.html#new

 

[BinRat55]

I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance.

It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.

I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most.  Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile).  The narrative was where this stuff was caught.  I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.

I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.

I think you nailed my thoughts / opinions in your last sentence. Too often, the better Cpl and MCpl will get their MOI tossed or not given the respect it deserves because supervisors do not know HOW to write a PER. I am not generalizing, however I have been in the game a long time and have seen many doozies. As flawed as I think this new format is (Did x - y happened) it will give the soldier a more fair shake - in the writing of it at least.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

There is nothing wrong with normalizing scores across a vast organization.  Sgt A might have a rock star Cpl who should be MOI but is only ESAAR because Sgt A is a hard ***.  Meanwhile Sgt B a pushover has a decent Cpl but writes them up as MOI.  In meriting this kind of thing should be caught.  Sgt A’s soldier should come up to be ranked with peers that are also MOI and Sgt B’s soldier come down to the SND/ESAAR area. 
How exactly they gather the scores and then normalize them is different across the board.  I have a seen a variety of methods.  Most common is at the Coy level they hold a big merit session where everyone comes with their subordinate’s dot scores.  They then put them up and argue the merits of their soldiers.  IMHO it works well because no one works in isolation and you can catch the cases were a soldier that one person is talking up is actually a bag of crap and counter arguments can flow.  Conversely a soldier that is under ranked can be brought up considerably.
If nothing like that happened ie you gave no initial dot scores and there was no merit board then I would question how the scores were determined. 

* edited because words are hard

I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the fuck is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the fuck does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the nerve to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue.

*also edited because I was cooking and writing at the same time.

 

[MJP]

I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the frig is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the frig does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the never to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue.

Meh then we agree to disagree.  FWIW I use to have the same opinion as you but have gradually come around.  Nothing is perfect and we can't please everyone. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Fair enough but how anyone can be fine with writing a person that doesn't represent the facts is part of the problem of having people in positions that's above their scope.

I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. Fucking dog shit meddling is what it is.

 

[TCM621]

I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the frig is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the frig does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the never to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue.

This can be a problem but it can also be a good thing. If higher says you need to provide better justification for a score that should at least give you the chance to justify it it properly hence,  at least under the old system,  would give them a better chance at being successful at the board.


MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma.

However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Fair enough but how anyone can be fine with writing a person that doesn't represent the facts is part of the problem of having people in positions that's above their scope.

I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. Fucking dog shit meddling is what it is.

In my regiment Cpl's except those on Class B or ranked in the top 10 will not not get a PER....

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

This can be a problem but it can also be a good thing. If higher says you need to provide better justification for a score that should at least give you the chance to justify it it properly hence,  at least under the old system,  would give them a better chance at being successful at the board.


MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma.

However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.

In the Log world here the highers give out the overall score. They don't tell you what bubble is ES or S or NI but they tell you how many of each he or she gets. There is no debate with them.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

In the Log world here the highers give out the overall score. They don't tell you what bubble is ES or S or NI but they tell you how many of each he or she gets. There is no debate with them.

Same in my Regiment...except the say here is the score, make the bubbles fit...

 

[MJP]

MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma.

However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.

The problem with this line of thinking is only conceptualizing the PDR as the only piece of feedback.

From above

PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.  If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs.

We benefit our members everyday in how we shape and develop them both by example (good or bad) and by informal and formal feedback.  The formal piece, the  PDR just captures the salient highs and lows for the member over a time period.  The PER captures the members performance and potential for the institution. 

The biggest issue we have is we are afraid to tell people they suck either via PDR or face to face.  That has bled into when you actually give decent feedback IE: you are good at X but need to improve at Y & Z some people freak out, thinking they are done because they haven't seen real constructive feedback before.

I have rarely gotten a PDR in the last 5 years since I came back to the field force and not once have I sat around wondering how I am doing and what I need to do to improve.  My bosses and sometimes my peers have given me that direction.  Is it always the case?  No, see above where sometimes various chains of command are hesitant or maybe don't know how to give decent feedback.

I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. ******* dog crap meddling is what it is.

That Cpl has never been given a small party task with other people under them?  Never led PT?  Never asked how they would do a task?  Never developed a plan even low level?

If the answer is no then the issue is with his leadership not giving him opportunities to develop those skills and be observed.  That is a sweeping statement and I mean no disrespect by it, but when I have subordinates come to me asking to write non observed I ask very similar questions.  I can't recall the last time I saw a non observed and haven't been allowed nor have I allowed anyone to use that option.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sorry. That's what I was trying to say. Also I'd like to add, if I'm junk I expect to be written up as such.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Perhaps my (and bosses) view is a different from yours. I suppose observing even if they are a soup sandwich counts.

By virtue of my work and section we all do everything physically and picking up bullets and setting up issues as well as processing salvage doesn't lend itself to a lot of leading from the Cpl's.

 

[TCM621]

The problem with this line of thinking is only conceptualizing the PDR as the only piece of feedback.

From above

PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.  If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs.

We benefit our members everyday in how we shape and develop them both by example (good or bad) and by informal and formal feedback.  The formal piece, the  PDR just captures the salient highs and lows for the member over a time period.  The PER captures the members performance and potential for the institution. 

The biggest issue we have is we are afraid to tell people they suck either via PDR or face to face.  That has bled into when you actually give decent feedback IE: you are good at X but need to improve at Y & Z some people freak out, thinking they are done because they haven't seen real constructive feedback before.

I have rarely gotten a PDR in the last 5 years since I came back to the field force and not once have I sat around wondering how I am doing and what I need to do to improve.  My bosses and sometimes my peers have given me that direction.  Is it always the case?  No, see above where sometimes various chains of command are hesitant or maybe don't know how to give decent feedback.

That Cpl has never been given a small party task with other people under them?  Never led PT?  Never asked how they would do a task?  Never developed a plan even low level?

If the answer is no then the issue is with his leadership not giving him opportunities to develop those skills and be observed.  That is a sweeping statement and I mean no disrespect by it, but when I have subordinates come to me asking to write non observed I ask very similar questions.  I can't recall the last time I saw a non observed and haven't been allowed nor have I allowed anyone to use that option.

The problem with this is that IAW the CFPAS system, there is supposed to be a minimum of 2 feedback sessions. One is a PDR and one is the annual PER interview. For all your other points,  I completely agree. We need to give (and receive) timely feedback face to face. We need to criticize when required and praise.  But you know as well as I do that if anything goes sideways, if it isn't on paper it never happened. This goes for good or bad.

I don't know how many times I have seen people utterly confused as to where they stand in their progress. 1 PDR and a PER with next to nothing on it doesn't give a lot of help especially when you may be getting it from someone who doesn't have any reasons to give you as to why you are where you are.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

BTW you can use the Part 5 of the PDR at anytime to record good or bad points....I use to do that as a Section Commander....

 

[TCM621]

BTW you can use the Part 5 of the PDR at anytime to record good or bad points....I use to do that as a Section Commander....

That would be a great thing if it was used more but it is used infrequently enough that in almost 20 years of service I have seen it done twice and never for anything good.