• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
motorhead1 said:
I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?

Voluntary Release. Or have a real good compassionate reason to not go (career implications here).
 
motorhead1 said:
I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?

See also,

discussion on refused postings 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/69503.50
3 pages.

Postponing a Posting 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/106017.0/nowap.html

Posting question : Can a posting be delayed?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/100902.0

Posting Evasion & Promotion Cancellation 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/57698.0



 
Last time one of my guys refused a posting the CO just said "ok, sign here" as he handed over some release forms.  The member signed them and was out in due time. 

Now, if someone wants to try to explain why they would prefer not to take a posting and ask, with valid reasons, for the location to be reconsidered then fine...it may be considered.  But if it's not then be prepared to get out or go on the posting.

Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening.  He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state.  He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision. 
 
Schindler's Lift said:
Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening.  He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state.  He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision.

Jesus!  He legitimately fails the screening but his options are to still be posted or out?  That's wonderful.  Wtf the is point of the screener then?

This is why we have retention problems ffs.
 
CombatMacgyver said:
Jesus!  He legitimately fails the screening but his options are to still be posted or out?  That's wonderful.  Wtf the is point of the screener then?

This is why we have retention problems ffs.

Depends on how senior the member is. If there's only X number of positions across the CAF for them in succession planning, and they've timed out of the spot they're in, I can absolutely see an IR, Commission or Release ultimatum. The CM should have been looking to swap a position, however.

 
For those who have started working on PERs for 15/16, note that the annual ammendments to the system have just been announced:
CANFORGEN 014/16 CMP 011/16 281603Z JAN 16
CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2015/2016 REPORTING YEAR

REF: A. CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14
B. CFPAS HELP FILE
C. CANFORGEN 120/15 CMP 055/15 061540Z JUL 15 (CAF ANNUAL SELECTION BOARDS FILE REMOVAL DUE TO EXPIRED FITNESS)

1.  REF A IS CANCELLED. ALL UPDATES PROVIDED AT REF A HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPRAISAL SYSTEM (CFPAS) HELP FILE AT REF B. THE UPDATES TO REF B AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCESS THAT FOLLOW REMAIN A PART OF DEFENCE RENEWAL TEAM (DRT) INITIATIVE TO MODERNIZE THE CAF CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPLACEMENT FOR CFPAS.

...

PART III - CFPAS UPDATES FOR 2015/16 REPORTING YEAR

5.  NARRATIVE RESTRICTIONS (NINE LINE LIMIT ETC) WERE GENERALLY WELL RECEIVED ACROSS THE CAF AND AT SELECTION BOARDS. SOME COMMENTED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY THE HIGHER SCORED EVALUTATIONS WITHIN LIMITED SPACE, BUT THESE COMMENTS WERE INFREQUENT AND NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF PERS WRITTEN BY SOME WITHIN THE DIRECTED LIMITATIONS. SELECTION BOARDS PROGRESSED WELL WITH THE NEW LIMITATIONS AND THIS WILL BE RETAINED FOR THE UPCOMING EVALUATION YEAR AND WILL FORM THE FOUNDATION FOR NARRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE CFPAS REPLACEMENT

A.  DUE TO FREQUENT SELECTION BOARD COMMENTS RELATING TO MCPL AND CPL READY PERS, THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS ARE TO BE MADE TO PER PROCESS FOR 15/16 EVALUTATION YEAR:

(1) MCPL AND CPL READY PERS SHALL NOW CONTAIN A SECTION 5 (POTENTIAL) NARRATIVE THAT IS LIMITED TO FIVE LINES OF TEXT.

(2) THIS ADDITIONAL TEXT IN MCPL AND CPL READY PERS SHALL INCLUDE COMMENTS JUSTIFYING OUTSTANDING PF S, WITHIN SPACE LIMITATIONS. A COMMENT ON PROGRESSION AND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED IN SECTION 5

B.  PRESCRIBED NARRATIVE LIMITS WILL BE IMPOSED IN THE COMING EVALUATION YEAR. PERS THAT EXCEED NARRATIVE LIMITS WILL BE RETURNED FOR AMENDMENTS. TO ACHIEVE THIS, SHORT BULLETED SENTENCES AND TEXT WRAPPING ARE NECESSARY. EXAMPLES OF PROPER STYLE WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE DMCSS 2 WEBSITE

C.  OPTING OUT, ANOTHER DRT INITIATIVE, HAS PROVEN VERY POPULAR AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN MANAGING PER WORKLOADS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPECTATIONS. IAW REF B ARTICLE 125, OPT OUT REMAINS AN OPTION FOR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT WISH TO HAVE AN ANNUAL PER. PERSONNEL WHO OPT OUT, DO NOT NEED TO RESUBMIT EACH YEAR, BUT UPON POSTING SHOULD INFORM THEIR NEW CO OF THEIR ELECTION TO OPT OUT. TO ENSURE EFFICIENT UNIT PER ADMINISTRATION, A MBR SHOULD SIGNAL THEIR INTENTION TO OPT NLT END OF JANUARY 2016. MEMBERS AND COMMAND TEAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW ARTICLE 125 OF REF B FOR OPT OUT PROCESS IMPLICATIONS AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

6.  THE NEXT UPDATE OF REF B WILL BE AVAILABLE IN FEBRUARY 2016 AND WILL REFLECT THE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THIS CANFORGEN.  ... 
 
Pass that on to my TC on Tuesday but we still have to wait for Regiment and Squadron to issue the new instructions....
 
Hopefully this will assist board members to pick the best candidates for promotion in trades where as few as one or two ready's put you in the window.
 
I often see friends do PER on their subordinates who are close friends outside of work. Often those PERs are inflated to the point that they get promoted with very little experience under their belts! Is this really helping anyone?? Except for the person's pocket? Does this show the consequence later down the road??
  I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?
 
You asked, "Does this show the consequence later down the road??"

There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

MC
 
MedCorps said:
You asked, "Does this show the consequence later down the road??"

There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

MC

:goodpost:

That pretty much sums up our "never to be perfect" assessment/promotion system. 
 
People rise to the level of their incompetence.  After that, their godfather gives them a push.
 
I've known a guy who was a good corporal, an ok master corporal, and was drowning at last sighting as a sergeant major.

Another that I'm in more regular touch with is a sergeant who is effectively afraid of people- can not even effectively get a work detail of two privates to do a series of simple, repetitive tasks. Believes in doing everything as well as possible, does everything (that they perceive to be) possible to accomplish the mission, and completely incapable of seeing the forest. Over twenty years in grade, never understood the concept of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or that getting outside the comfort zone long enough to fake and become an effective leader is necessary to accomplish a task efficiently. The sergeant is underappreciated, given their dedication, but is ineffective- period.

On the other hand, I know one corporal where the world is orderly enough such that the entire chain of command knows that it would be a horrible mistake to give him any leadership opportunities *and* he is self-aware enough to have not the slightest bitterness over never being promoted. He's cheerful, hardworking, and everybody loves him (though they sometimes mutter over the new depths of stupid he manages to find). If he were a sergeant, he'd be miserable and self-loathing.

I really wish that there was a mechanism to separate leadership and technical ability. You've been a Cpl for twenty years? No pay raise. You've got outstanding skills and no leadership ability? Best thing for you is to promote you to the point that you're ineffective at your job description. I've known excellent, colourful corporals (and plenty of mediocre ones) who bring something to a unit, but neither the unit nor the individual gains anything by "helping them" with a bad promotion. If they fail spectacularly enough (perhaps by failing PLQ, perhaps by making it blatantly obvious that they'll never grow into the role), maybe they get sent back to where they belong. It doesn't happen often enough, though.

After one blatant failure, which I don't think the sergeant I described even fully understood, a decision was made to hand out tasks to undermine them to the point that they would quit. Safety and environmental briefings to audiences of dozens (stuttering all the way until discovering the trick of pointing at someone and telling them to read the powerpoint). crap taskings. They took it and just kept their mouth shut. Still kicking, seven years later, and the entire rest of the CoC that damned them has left the unit.

Ideally, someone recognizes a subordinate's strengths and weaknesses and is able to help them improve. That's great. Sometimes its not possible. Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them. Its easier for someone who's already demonstrated good technical strengths to train in something else than it is for someone who's already manifestly demonstrated their inability to overcome their leadership weakness to do more than bang their head against the wall.
 
Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.

Or stop linking performance with potential. I should be able to rate someone as outstanding for the potential bubbles but with skilled performance, and vice versa. The whole problem with the PERs the way they are is the promotion recommendation is linked solely to potential, not performance. It should be a total score on the PER that generates the recommendation. I think we'd see a lot less Immediates out there if we did that.
 
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.
 
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

Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them.

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

I've known a guy who was a good corporal, an ok master corporal, and was drowning at last sighting as a sergeant major.

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).
 
Mediman14 said:
I often see friends do PER on their subordinates who are close friends outside of work. Often those PERs are inflated to the point that they get promoted with very little experience under their belts! Is this really helping anyone?? Except for the person's pocket? Does this show the consequence later down the road??
  I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?

Is this ^ in regards to this discussion?

Redress PER 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/118372/post-1357259.html#msg1357259
Mediman14 said:
My particular unit has a lot of corruption that is never dealt with. atleast it seems that way!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top