PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Andyboy]

Allan you said:"Having said that, just because you've past a course, doesn't mean that you've mastered all that there is to know, and leadership courses are no exception."

Agreed wholeheartedly and I think most honest people would agree, why isn't it codified then? I mean in industry it is generally required that you undergo some sort of probationary period when you are taken on or promoted, why not in the army? I mean shouldn't there be an OJT portion to leadership trg? AS an example I would make it mandatory that once you have a given course you would then have to jump through a series of hoops (exercises in command posns, teaching a certain number of periods of instruction, etc) before you can be considered for promotion. I remember guys getting their leaf directly after our ISCC grad parade. Awfully presumptuous I thought, espescially considering the percentage of people that passed, I had been in the army for a year and placed in the top ten making me either a super soldier or the course a joke. I think a probationary period could serve a dual purpose, assess/test the individual, and provide some sort of feedback to the school for the product they produce so they could adapt/improve their methods. In fact I don't see any reaon why units don't do this on their own other than maybe the standards crew getting their panties in a knot about it.

Just a thought.

 

[George Wallace]

Andyboy

Everyday on the job, you are on probation.  It is recognition of your job performance that is written up in your PDR and then the sum of your PDRs are compiled to make your Annual PER.  Hopefully everything that you have mentioned, has been taken into account and used to justify your selection for a course.  Your standing on courses and job performance will be used in recommendations for Leadership Courses.  Again you are being evaluated and under the microscope.  On graduation from a Leadership Course, you should have what is required to be promoted.  However, don't think that there are no checks and balances.  You can be demoted as well as promoted.  It is rare, but does happen.  You are constantly being evaluated in your job.

GW

 

[pbi]

Here is an additional wrinkle to this very interesting and important debate. If we accept that the leadership at battalion level and below in the Canadian Army in WWII was generally good to excellent, then how do we balance that against the fact that most of the tactical leaders were considerably younger than we are today? Was it training that made the difference? Then why couldn't training make the difference today? Don't forget that most of the troops who went into Sicily in 43 or NWE in 44 had only about three-four years in, or less. Was it the the intensity of the training that made the difference?

Or, was it combat experience that made the difference? If we follow that line of argument, we should ask ourselves how much combat experience that majority of Canadian tactical leaders had in Sicily in 1943 or at D-Day in 1944? If I am not mistaken, the majority of Canadian soldiers (less Dieppe vets and CANLOAN officers) had been in training since 1939 (or whenever they enlisted after that...) and not in actual combat.

My question is this: are we in danger of arguing from "what is" (a very experienced Army that is actually aging out considerably beyond its Allies...) to "what should be"; ie: that because we look this way, this is the right way to look? Isn't it actually possible for an Army with younger tactical leaders than we have today, to do well?

Just a question.

Cheers

 

[Andyboy]

Andyboy

Everyday on the job, you are on probation.   It is recognition of your job performance that is written up in your PDR and then the sum of your PDRs are compiled to make your Annual PER.   Hopefully everything that you have mentioned, has been taken into account and used to justify your selection for a course.   Your standing on courses and job performance will be used in recommendations for Leadership Courses.   Again you are being evaluated and under the microscope.   On graduation from a Leadership Course, you should have what is required to be promoted.   However, don't think that there are no checks and balances.   You can be demoted as well as promoted.   It is rare, but does happen.   You are constantly being evaluated in your job.

GW

George,

That may be how it is supposed to work, and I'm sure that in some cases may work that way. However while I can't speak for the regs in my experience in the reserves it just doesn't happen, for a variety of reasons.

I think that in order to be promoted there should be a series of practical "tests" that have to be completed before being eligable for promotion. Last I heard it was required for a member to spend a certain amount of time in the field that training year to be eligable for promotion, however there was no stipulation as to what capacity or the member had to serve in. Other than that I don't know of any checks or balances, could you explain what you mean?


PBI,

I don't neccessarily know that what you say is true, althought I have only read one book that contrdicts you, but assuming it is true I would say it is field time that makes the difference. I don't know of any other way to really test/develop as a soldier tha is as effective in a similar time period. I think you are absolutely correct that training can make the difference however I ask whether we have become so constraiend by budget, safety, operations, etc that training (in my experience at any rate) has become more of a drain than anything.

By the way the book I read that questions the competancy of Canadian leadership at the tactical level was "Because We Are Canadians". Maybe he was just bitter, I don't know. It is worth a read though.

 

[George Wallace]

Andyboy

You are being constantly evaluated, and you are constantly evaluating, in every aspect of your daily life.  You have subordinates that you work with and know how they work; what their work ethics are, what knowledge they have, what kind of task you can assign them and how you expect they will fulfill that task.  In your mind you know who they are.  Your superiors are doing the same.  If a person proves themselves to be worthy of advancement, you select them to attend the proper courses to do so. 

When you first meet a person you evaluate them immediately when you get your "First Impression" of them.  It is the way we are. 

If you or anyone you know throws all the information that is garnered by these personal evaluations out the window and promote those not deserving, well that is your problem, not the system.  It is the managers/supervisors job to identify and promote on merit.  Formal tests are not necessarily needed if you know your people.  As a Supervisor, you should know when your people reach the point that they should be send on courses to advance further in their professions.

GW

 

[ZipperHead]

I tend to agree more with Andyboy than George on this one. While in principle George is right, reality has a sneaky way of creeping into the equation and negating any value of the PDR/PER/assesment system. Personally, I think the whole thing is a joke (remember the PER points cap thing (only so many pers per unit could have Outstanding)..... boy that made sense). There needs to be a way of assessing and monitoring people's performance, but it has come down to being an assesment of the persons performance the week you write the PDR/PER (ie. "Don't piss me off this week troops, I'm writing PER's....."). I went many months without any PDR's (iffy supervisors) to having 3 in a 3 month period (much better supervisors). One thing I would like somebody to learn me is the whole "Ethics and Values" portion of the CFPAS system. If I cheat on my wife is that a bad thing? If I do 55km/h in a 50 zone, am I at risk of demotion? If I'm in favour for gay marriage, and my boss isn't, can he say that my ethics and/or values are wrong?

I think the probationary period would be a good thing, as it would give people a chance to feel out their job, and for the powers that be to determine if promoting Cpl Bloggins (or Lt Snrub) would be such a great idea. IF demotions were actually used for incompetency, rather than judicial transgressions, I would be more inclined to say let them promote a person once they pass their course, but I can honestly say that I have never heard of anybody demoted for poor job performance. Fired from a position, yes, but not demoted. Usually they get promoted soon after, don't they  >

Anyway, in a perfect world, only the cream would rise to the top, but every unit has a fair-haired boy who can do no wrong, and invariably gets promoted over more deserving people, proving that it truly isn't a just world.

Al

 

[Kat Stevens]

All good arguments in here so far, very level headed for a change.  The inherent problem with any evaluation system in the army is an unavoidable one:  My fate rests ultimately in the hands of one man, my immediate supervisor.  If he doesn't like ANYTHING at all about me, from haircuts to opinions, he may not write a fair evaluation.  He also will may put his best effort forth at Tp/Sqn/Regt merit boards.

And, yes, the cream rise.  Quite often, unfortunately, crap floats too...

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[strat0]

As someone who was DAPsed, I understand the fears that some have, however when I was in that position there was 1 year probation before being made substantive. This alleviated the problem of pers who didn't make the grade based on PER. If the superiors are honest and continue to develop these individuals there shouldn't be a problem with promoting from Pte to MCpl. I was 23 when this happened with six years prior experience in the reserves (prior rank MCpl, qualified Sgt) (Yes I went to Cornwallis, did TQ3, Track Driver Recce and CLC). If pers are identified as having leadership skills/traits then I see no problem instituting this system once again. Sounds like sour grapes to me if your being passed over, there was back in 86 as well but they got over it.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm quite confident this will get shouted down, but here goes.  How disastrous would it be if supervisors were actually evaluated by their subordinates once a year?  Not ranking potential, linguistics and all that rot, sort of like a report card based on the princials of leadership.  It stands to reason that if the troop-loops find a MCpl or Sgt to be an effective leader, at the WO or SSM/RSM level, he is more likely to be respected and admired by his troops.  There would obviously need to be some monitoring, as currying favour from the boys may occur to get ranked higher, but hey, guys suck up all the time, what's wrong with a little sucking down, as it were?

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Kat Stevens]

As someone who was DAPsed, I understand the fears that some have, however when I was in that position there was 1 year probation before being made substantive. This alleviated the problem of pers who didn't make the grade based on PER. If the superiors are honest and continue to develop these individuals there shouldn't be a problem with promoting from Pte to MCpl. I was 23 when this happened with six years prior experience in the reserves (prior rank MCpl, qualified Sgt) (Yes I went to Cornwallis, did TQ3, Track Driver Recce and CLC). If pers are identified as having leadership skills/traits then I see no problem instituting this system once again. Sounds like sour grapes to me if your being passed over, there was back in 86 as well but they got over it.

Is it sour grapes to feel that a 3 year MCpl or a 4 year Sgt don't have the experience or maturity to lead older and, in some cases, wiser, troops?  If so, put me down for a bushell of them.  I clearly remember being 32 years old with 3 kids, and my new TC calling me "son".  I believe he was 22.....


CHIMO,  Kat

 

[ZipperHead]

For what it's worth Kat, I kind of like your idea about assessing your superiors. I could see the bedlam that would ensue, but it would be somewhat interesting. When I was on my CLC, the DS had us do a "character assessment" (or character assassination as they referred to it after the fact....) on our peers at the end of the course: who did we feel should be the top dog, rather than who got the best book marks and managed to shine in front of the DS. From talking to my coursemates, it worked out to be pretty close to the "official" course rankings, but of course, there were people at both ends of the spectrum who looked good or bad on paper and in the DS' eyes, but it was the opposite in their peers view.

I don't think that it's a leaders job to be buddies with his subordinates, but neither do you have to be a Nazi to your troops. I think the classic "Fair, firm and friendly" works pretty good.

To give an example of where I think this wouldn't work is where peoples expectations and goals are different from their leaders. At the Armour School, there have been a lot of changes, which in my mind, have been for the better. There are many people who are not on the same "net" as the Commandant and RSM, and don't like them, or their policies. Without wanting to pull a Waylon Smithers here, I think that what is going on at the School is good: better learning environment for students, letting instructors instruct and use their discretion on whether a student has "got it" rather than relying on scores and checklists, and putting PT back on the menu (rather than the requisite cup of gravy as a beverage) for the Corps. The old ways were for checklist commando's who assessed rather than taught, and you didn't need a whole lot of get up and go to get anywhere. So, I think if someone were to grade the present leadership up top at the School from below, it wouldn't look too rosy, because there are too many people still comfortable with the old ways, and are RTC and resent those that want ot shake them out of their complacent ways......

I would like to think that the people that don't like me, or my style of leadership, are the people I don't want working for me, nor would I want to go to battle with them. I rub a lot of people the wrong way, but life isn't a popularity contest (that's the job for politicians......).

Al

 

[Andyboy]

George,

I don't disagree with you on how things should work, unfortunatley the 10% rule is in full effect. You and I might do things that way but the other 90% of us don't. The other 90% don't seem to base the decision on anything other than "showed up, had hat" type of assessemnt system. There is a certain mentality out there that feels pressure (from somewhere) to promote people regardless of their competancy and yet never seem able to explain why they promoted them. "Well he had the course, why wouldnt' I?"

By making it mandatory for new leaders to undergo a bare minimum of a range of exercises, parades, administrative tasks etc (these are the tests), then you at least have a justification for promotion and you force the other 90% to think about the promotion AND you force the new leader to prove himself. What is wrong with that? I see it as assuming the worst is going to happen rather than the best. Plan for rain etc.

Besides, Allan said I was right and you were wrong so there. ;D

 

[Infanteer]

Very good thread, I moved it to the "Army" forum to give it the attention it deserves.

A few points after glossing over the posts:

1)   The mention of requiring soldiers to move up leadership positions or face the door sounds like the US Army "Up or Out" Policy.   From what I've read, this isn't the best policy in terms of morale and many of the discussions of reform seem to target this.   As well, the British system of mandatory retirement in a very rigid career structure was brought up.   Although I am not a fan of a rigid structure, the notion of mandatory retirement periods for different ranks could be worth exploring (ie: X for Pte/Cpl, Y for MCpl Sergeant, Z for WO and E for MWO/CWO).

2)   I see the idea of a "360" evaluation system has come up again.   I think this is a topic that can be discussed more deeply - such a system would have to be carefully designed to avoid being a farcical popularity contest; if designed well, I think there is potential in eliminating leaders who can put on a good show to their superiors but would probably get fragged out in the field.   Here is a paper by Major Darwin Gould that takes a look at proposing such a system:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/gould.doc

(This paper is from the collection of Staff College work found here: http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/index.html)

 

[pbi]

I see we are drifting back towards some of the human weaknesses inherent in our current evaluation system: IIRC we thrashed the PER system to death on another thread, but no worries: it seems to me that the system by which we evaluate and select those who will be leaders is at least as important as the leaders themselves.

I still detect a strong thread of skepticism about young NCOs, and I guess I go back to my wartime example. If a young Cpl/LCpl had the personal experience and maturity to do the job in '39-'45, why couldn't that be the case now? If he joins at 18 (and alot of our people join later than that...), he's 21 at the end of his first BE. An adult in all provinces in Canada, and old enough to walk the streets with a gun and a badge in any civil police force. (Not directly transferable experience, I know, but a counterpoint to the assertion that a 21 year old is automatically an "immature kid".)

By this time the soldier has spent three years learning his trade, watching leaders lead, and if circumstances permit, getting a chance to learn to lead "one up" in an emergency. Now, we send him on a course to prepare him to be the second in command of a group of 8-10 soldiers, and then promote him based on merit. He is not yet a Sgt: he will have to wait the required amount of time and complete other trg such as SAIC, thus gaining more experience, more skills, and more maturity. Let's say that he now has six-seven years in. If you cannot master leading a section (with the sub-skill sets that represents such as instruction, section admin, etc) in that time then IMHO you should be back out on the street.

I am strengthened in my belief that, like the frog slowly boiling to death in the gradually heating skillet, we have come to accept our circumstances as "normal" and are, as I suggested, arguing from "what is" to "what should be". I suggest that our NCOs and WOs could be considerably younger than they are now and still be highly effective.   At the risk of appearing to insult our NCOs and WOs (I don't intend to...) I also suggest that much of the "TI" that an older NCO or WO has accumulated may consist of doing a number of mundane, routine garrison or admin tasks over and over, particularly in our current environment of constrained training budgets. I believe that with more intense and focused training, and a heavier emphasis on developing leaders all the time rather just in the formal schoolhouse setting, we could produce effective NCOs in less time.

Somewhere, there is a reasonable saw-off point that does not embrace either the 40 year old section commander nor the 19 year old MCpl: I just don't know where it is. Any ideas?

Cheers

 

[PPCLI Guy]

While I was a company commander with the Brits, I had 5 CSMs over a two and a half year period - perhaps the RSM was trying to mitigate the polluting influence of a bloody colonial - and their average age was 32.  Most of them were competent and professional, and yet none of them could hold a candle to the CSMs that I had as a Coy Comd in 3 VP.  Was that a function of their age/experience, or of the overall military culture?  I don't know.  I do know that we have a very effective system that produces world class NCOs, and we should carefully consider any wholesale changes.

Having said that, I do not believe that DAPS revisited is in fact a wholesale change.  The vast majority of Sr NCOs would still come up through the "old system", and so we would have the benefit of both youth and experience - which sounds like a good balance to me.  Recall that until recently, we had different types of entry programs, including OCTP, ROTP, DEO, and CFR.  The systems all produced different types of officers in the beginning, but with experience and socialisation, it all balanced out - sadly we got rid of just about all but ROTP and CFR.

As long as we maintain a balance, I believe that there is significant merit in having multiple streams for advancement.

Dave

 

[pbi]

As long as we maintain a balance, I believe that there is significant merit in having multiple streams for advancement.

Dave

Yes: I think this is the key: balance, but with a capacity for adjustment to meet changing needs. Right now we need an injection of fresh young blood to reverse the "aging out" process.  I would suggest, however, that we do not turn DAPS "on and off" (thus creating those notorious "bubbles" in the pipeline a few years down...) but keep it always available to be used to advance those who clearly show the ability and suitabiity.

Dave: I know you commented before on this, but can you tell us what you thought about the results of the "20 and out" for soldiers in the British Army? (Vice our recent decision to let people stay to 60......) I have heard mixed opinions. Also, what is your assessment of the squaddie versus our soldier?

Cheers

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Yes: I think this is the key: balance, but with a capacity for adjustment to meet changing needs. Right now we need an injection of fresh young blood to reverse the "aging out" process.   I would suggest, however, that we do not turn DAPS "on and off" (thus creating those notorious "bubbles" in the pipeline a few years down...) but keep it always available to be used to advance those who clearly show the ability and suitabiity.

Agreed.  Given the lack of alternative employment in the Inf Bns (with the loss of sp pls) perhaps this would be a means of keeping the bright and promising in past the second BE?

Another way to look at this is to do a better job of recognizing the "experiential pillar".  I know that this was discussed in great detail during the trg systems review that Gen Hiller imposed as CLS, but IM not so HO, we didn't go as far as we could have.  If a soldier is doing the job of Sect 2ic in a Bn, on ex and ops, why do we have to send him on a sect 2ic crse?  Why not empower the chain of command to assess the soldiers ability, and grant the qualification?

Dave: I know you commented before on this, but can you tell us what you thought about the results of the "20 and out" for soldiers in the British Army? (Vice our recent decision to let people stay to 60......) I have heard mixed opinions. Also, what is your assessment of the squaddie versus our soldier?

Acknowledging that the Brit system has probably changed since I was there (Dec 95 to Jul 98), I can only offer an opinion of what I saw at the time (bigbadjohn may be able to set me straight...):

Up and Out.  Cpls without their Sgts qual received a letter in year 7 saying "see ya" at 9 yrs.  Sgts without a qual to CSgt received a letter at year 13 saying see ya at 15.  AS OC Cbt Sp, I had to break the news to quite a few solid, dependable Cpls that they needed to look elsewhwere, and I didn't like it one bit.  I ( and the Army) lost some good soldiers to that system.  Having said that, the average age at all ranks was a lot lower than in our Army, so if one sees that as a good thing (and I don't necessarily) then it achieved the desired effect.  One would think that it would really hurt at the Sr NCO level, but out at 40 actually produces a good spin off.  The only way for a soldier to serve longer than 40 is to CFR - and the easiest way (if not the only way) to do that is as an RSM.  Those CFR RSMs (LEs as they were called) then stayed in the Regt.  In my Bn, the Families Officer, Tpt Officer, QM Tech (Sup O), QM Maint (Maint O), and OC HQ (OC Adm) were all ex RSMs.  This ensured that the experience stayed in the Regt, and provided a good balance to the Officer Corps - but must have made it difficult for the RSM to have the last 4 RSMs watching him in action...

So, in terms of our serve to 60 policy, what conclusions have I drawn?  I think that the up or out system has too many drawbacks.  Experience counts, particularly in an Army that doesn't go into harm's way as often as the Brits do.  The kicker is to enforce the Universality of Service clause on all ranks, in all trades, at all ages, to ensure that we don't end up with a seriously geriatric Army.  I also think that we need to do a better job of harnessing the talents and experience of our more senior NCOs.  Perhaps we need to expand the SCP?  Tie some posns to SCP pers?

Squaddie vs our troops:  That one is a little more straightforward.  As much as I loved the troops I had in my Coy (and they were a right bunch of thieves and shite disturbers, who always got the job done), I would chose a Cdn soldier every time.  Why?  Hard to put my finger on it.  Much of it no doubt has to do with culture and familiarity.  Our trg isn't that much different or better (although ours is generally longer and more thorough - we have the luxury of time - see above).  On a whole they are proably marginally fitter (the fitness standard is more straigth forward). But there is an intangible "but" there. 

Canadian soldiers have a tendency to be more adaptable.  The generalist approach that we take to training stands us in good stead.  Our soldiers are substantially better educated, and appear more aware of the greater world.  They are also treated much better than their squaddie counterparts (and rightly so) - the "quality of life" virus had not yet infected the Brits while I was there.

A bit of a rambling answer - and I am not sure that I added anything relevant to the discussion, or even answered your question...

DAve

 

[pbi]

Thanks Dave. That all makes sense to me.

Cheers

 

[LCISTech227]

I never really understood the reasoning behind the DAPS system.  There are some great posts abve that have clarified it for me, though.  But, I'm still left with the question...why?  A person does not need to be a Master Corporal to hold a Mcpl position all they need is their superiors authority to do the job.  For example 3 corporals are assigned to a task, and one is said to be in charge... that corporal has all the authority they require to do the job.  That being said, I see no point in punishing a fast-burner because they lack TI.  I would only ask that the person who is being shoved through the ranks have the credentials and ability to do the job.  I've seen it to many times, where the old boy club "thinks" they have a shining star, and all they got was crap.

Though it kind of sucks, I do believe that the TI requirements are a good thing, it gives the people time to develope in their current level, and then work on the next one.  Also, it give the upper level time to mentor them.  I disagree with the idea of just promoting someone to fill a spot regardless of their experience level, just because they are thought to be super-keen.

This is by no means a flame to the ppl who have gone through this system, in many ways I'm kind of in awe that you did it and did so well.  Before I was in the regs, I used to be a MCpl in the reserves and I know what it takes, and what the job entails... and to me it would kind of suck to have that thrown at me, when I was still trying to find my feet and get in the groove as to how evewrything worked in real life and not course life.

Anyways just my thoughts.

 

[ex royal now flyer]

As I stated before I am product of DAP.   I believe that it has served me well and I have served it well.  
I disagree with the idea of just promoting someone to fill a spot regardless of their experience level
Good point, and I would like to say that I totally disagree with the acting/lacking concept.   One is either qualified or one is not.   If they are competent then get them course loaded and promote them afterwards.

As for those who are promoted by DAP, they should not be critisized too harshly as it is not their fault.   They are simply products of the system.   When I was a private I never knew another private to turn down the opportunity to attend ISCC.   Some passed, some failed.   I have only ever known one newly promoted MCpl from Pte relinquish his appointment because he felt he was not ready or capable.   He was still ISCC qualified and promoted the following year after spending the year in Coy Tpt.   Wonder how much he learned there?