PERs : All issues questions...2018-current

[garb811]

My frustration with the PER process or the fairness continues. I seen a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER. One bubble short of an MOI. How is that possible? I always knew that most of the system was a "who you know" system for some people. I asked to see their PDR that was done, under section 5B, all it said was "nothing major to report". I couldn't believe my eyes. The PDR was written by a 32 years serving opposite sex Military Member.

  The honest hard working soldier does not have chance!

This raises questions for me as well. 

How was it you saw the member's PER?  I'm presuming you're talking about the PER that was issued this  year, which should no longer have any copies floating around the unit as it was due at the processing center long ago.  Unless there is a reason like an informal resolution going on or a grievance which means you should only be seeing it as someone involved in that informal resolution or grievance process and should be professional enough not to be doing what you just did. 

Your post also leads me to believe you aren't in their direct chain of command, where you would have been involved in writing and substantiating the PER.  You would also then have access to their PDRs without having to ask for them.  Both of those documents are designated and are only supposed to be accessed for official reasons.  Be interesting to know what you thought yours were...

I suppose the member could have trusted you enough to show their copies to you for some obviously misguided reason. If that's the case, it's sad to see that trust is misplaced because all you are using it for is to bad-mouth that member on an anonymous internet forum and implying the only reason they got the PER they did is because someone more senior and apparently much older than they are, isn't professional enough to see past the fact they are the opposite sex.

EDIT TO ADD:

And I'm going to say what I always say to a subordinate who comes to me to try to complain about what "someone else got" on their PER.  If you are so worried about your own promotion prospects that someone else's PER is an issue, stop worrying about what others are getting and start focusing on what you can do to improve your own. 

Almost every single subordinate who complained they were getting screwed over by the system on their own PER was really the one screwing themselves because they were too worried about fighting the process as opposed to understanding it and maximizing their own chances for success.  In those rare occasions when someone actually has gotten "screwed over", the ones who understand and work within the process are able to go to the informal resolution, or in the worst case a grievance, with a slam dunk. 

 

[MARS]

I seen a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER. One bubble short of an MOI.

That is so awesome!!  I was lucky enough to have someone like that under my Command once....I couldn't promote him fast enough!  Literally years. I (he, actually) had had to wait the YEARS required at each rank before EPZ kicked in.  I was fortunate enough to be the person to promote him one of those times and fortunate enough that he served under me for the duration of my Command.  It was a pleasure to write his PER.  You wonder why this person chose our profession to devote his talents to, and not any number of civilian careers where he would certainly be making TONS of cash, and moving up a corporate ladder much more quickly, where his talents could be better recognized and compensated for.  And you hope that person NEVER thinks the grass is greener.  Those people are rare, almost like unicorns.  And it is indeed an awesome experience to serve with and for them, isn't it??  You are SO lucky to have a person like this in your unit.  i envy you.

 

[Mediman14]

Garb811,
  You are right about the assumption about the Member showing me the PDR and PER, I also showed them mine, actually I finished above that member, except with more time in rank. We both thought it was a joke and laughed at it. The conversation was about how a person received PDR's with no points for developing.

  I was not bad mouthing them, I just have issues with the people writing them and how things are perceived. This year I was on a PER board and witness a MCpl who got promoted on MATA leave and receive a ready as well without working one day as a MCpl. One of co-workers had asked how was that possible.

It is not one person getting screwed over, it is all of us. Could you imagine having a Snr commander with very limited years in? Experience comes with years in. Promoting people fast only hurts them in the long run. We should be developing them for the next rank not pushing them faster into that rank not prepared. That is how the honest hard worker don't have a chance.

 

[MJP]

It is not one person getting screwed over, it is all of us. Could you imagine having a Snr commander with very limited years in? Experience comes with years in. Promoting people fast only hurts them in the long run. We should be developing them for the next rank not pushing them faster into that rank not prepared. That is how the honest hard worker don't have a chance.

There are quite a few people that don't need much experience at certain levels in their careers and should be pushed to the next rank as soon as possible.  Seen it, agreed with it and helped it along when it was my dude(ette).  It shouldn't' just be done to fill spots which happens in some areas but pushing the right people along faster than the average hard worker is just good pers management IMHO. 

 

[Mediman14]

No doubt there is some awesome soldiers out there who have outstanding future in the CAF. In my career I have seen some outstanding soldiers get promoted fast only to fall hard, because of not being prepared, not being exposed. An example of this, one of my closest friends has an MCpl with a great work ethic and is awesome at administration as a subordinate, with a section of 13 people. Went on MATA/PATA leave, never ever did a PDR/ PER and did not know that a PDR interview was ever a thing. How do you write them up? In my opinion, they are not ready for the next rank. They are one of the many who got promoted fast. Many people are great in certain ranks, but struggle in the next rank.
  Then we get into the debate on who's fault is it? Is the member at fault? Or is the supervisor that promoted them at fault for not preparing them? Is it the system?

 

[garb811]

Mediman, you need to take a step back for a second here I think, and take a look at how you're coming across in this conversation. 

Take a read of your posts from the perspective of someone who doesn't know you. Do an honest assessment of what you've just portrayed about yourself as a leader and more importantly as a peer who someone confided in, and then re-read what I added to my post via the edit.  I think you have a bunch of growing to do before you start complaining about what is going on with everyone else.

 

[ballz]

I've seen plenty of people promoted to too fast and it hurts them, because for some reason there are senior leaders (commissioned and non-commissioned) who think the CAF is great at deep-selecting and "developing" people. I've seen plenty of people promoted far too slow because they weren't deep-selected and there is glut of "experienced" folks ahead of them and they just have to wait their turn. Neither is good in the grand scheme of things.

But I always find it funny when people argue about "experience." Which bubble on a PER is experience exactly? There is no bubble for experience because experience is not a skill or personal attribute. So why is experience important?

Well, I'd argue it's important because it can make you perform better and can enhance your personal attributes. In that way, to me it is a force multiplier. The value of that experience will show up in every single bubble of scoring criteria.

But, if you multiply anything by zero... it's still zero. So no matter how much experience you have, if you're incompetent you are still incompetent and should be scored as such.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Mediman, you need to take a step back for a second here I think, and take a look at how you're coming across in this conversation. 

Take a read of your posts from the perspective of someone who doesn't know you. Do an honest assessment of what you've just portrayed about yourself as a leader and more importantly as a peer who someone confided in, and then re-read what I added to my post via the edit.  I think you have a bunch of growing to do before you start complaining about what is going on with everyone else.

{going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.

That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...

..a new Sgt (3 months in rank) with half of that on Sick leave received a high ready on their PER...

But this part was a  ??? for me:

I always knew that most of the system was a "who you know" system for some people...The PDR was written by a 32 years serving opposite sex Military Member.

  The honest hard working soldier does not have chance!

MM14, that doesn't come across very professional.  What does the supervisors sex have to do with the PER?

 

[garb811]

{going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.

That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...

It is a valid question for sure, but right now all we are seeing is one side of the story from a source with an obvious bias...

I'm not sure how that PER world is running, but in my PER world, a PER like that would require every other WO in the unit, a MWO, maybe a CWO depending on the unit, and at least a Capt to be involved in the shenanigans to pull it off if it wasn't on the up and up.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There are quite a few people that don't need much experience at certain levels in their careers and should be pushed to the next rank as soon as possible.  Seen it, agreed with it and helped it along when it was my dude(ette).  It shouldn't' just be done to fill spots which happens in some areas but pushing the right people along faster than the average hard worker is just good pers management IMHO.

And that underlined portion is how we get into trouble with PO1/WOs and above who have tons of technical knowledge but couldn't lead a kindergarten class in a rendition of the wheels on the bus with any marked degree of success.

I have seen examples of golden children who rise to fast then end up crashing when they discover they actually have to look after their people first and not themselves.  One in particular comes to mind, as the member deployed and was repatted 3 weeks later because he crumbled under the weight.  It lead to him leaving the CAF at around the 15 year mark.

{going back to Mediman's first on this page} Playing the other side of coin, though, there was a valid question, IMO, about the concept of a newly promoted Snr NCO, with 3 months in rank (1/2 of that on sick leave) being written as a High Ready.

That doesn't raise any eyebrows?  1.5 months in rank observed performance = ready for WO/PO1?  Most trades, IIRC, are somewhere around 3 years for EPZ from Sgt/PO2 to WO/PO1.  I know there are fast-trackers and some people excel but...

I think this has allot to do with how we inflate PERs so much and the poor wording that was chosen.  E.g. Developing, Ready and Immediate.  I am of the opinion that we should be promoting predominantly from the ready group with the immediate being few and far between.

Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.

 

[dapaterson]

Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.

So good he didn't even have to show up to work regularly, apparently.

 

[PuckChaser]

Anecdotal story, a good friend of mine and battle buddy has a framed PER of his in his house.  Its 100% right justified in all columns and even mentions his guilty charge for AWOL in that reporting period.

There is an entire chain of command that failed in that situation...  :facepalm:

But yes, we're terrible at inflating PERs. It takes 1 supervisor at 1 unit to allow someone who the entire trade knows is substandard to make a formation merit board before 1st year pers are given immediate promotion recommendations. We also fail ourselves by not allowing a person to be skilled in performance but have outstanding potential, or vice versa. Promotion recommendation dot should be a total score, not just rely on potential. Hopefully the new PER system will fix that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So good he didn't even have to show up to work regularly, apparently.

In his defence he was pretty sheepish about it and points to it in humor; and as an example of how we have made a mockery of our personnel evaluation system.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There is an entire chain of command that failed in that situation...  :facepalm:

But yes, we're terrible at inflating PERs. It takes 1 supervisor at 1 unit to allow someone who the entire trade knows is substandard to make a formation merit board before 1st year pers are given immediate promotion recommendations. We also fail ourselves by not allowing a person to be skilled in performance but have outstanding potential, or vice versa. Promotion recommendation dot should be a total score, not just rely on potential. Hopefully the new PER system will fix that.

Exactly 100% on point.  There is no reason your performance and potential have to match. 

 

[MJP]

And that underlined portion is how we get into trouble with PO1/WOs and above who have tons of technical knowledge but couldn't lead a kindergarten class in a rendition of the wheels on the bus with any marked degree of success.

I have seen examples of golden children who rise to fast then end up crashing when they discover they actually have to look after their people first and not themselves.  One in particular comes to mind, as the member deployed and was repatted 3 weeks later because he crumbled under the weight.  It lead to him leaving the CAF at around the 15 year mark.

I have found that the number of people people that succeed while being pushed as fast as possible exceeds the folks that crash and burn.  There will always be natural attrition, people may be excellent at one rank but not succeed at the next right away.  It is then up to the CoC to guide and mentor them.  Some people will have the ability to push through, others not so much.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have found that the number of people people that succeed while being pushed as fast as possible exceeds the folks that crash and burn. There will always be natural attrition, people may be excellent at one rank but not succeed at the next right away.  It is then up to the CoC to guide and mentor them.  Some people will have the ability to push through, others not so much.

What qualifies as success ?  I am of the opinion that we do a piss poor job of actually maturing, mentoring and growing leadership.  Instead we assign leadership a course code and give someone the title of leader for having passed that course.

Speaking for my own trade, Sup Tech, we have consistently promoted people because they are capable technicians.  Unfortunately this account for almost SFA the further you get away from the LS/Cpl rank. 

On my previous ship I had an Army MCpl who had been in rank 4 years.  And that was his first time having subordinates.  Yup, a 4 year MCpl who had never even written a PDR let alone go through the whole process, and first time leading anyone other than himself.  Its not his failure, its ours as a trade and leaders.  We let him get to this position.  Hell I know WOs in my trade that honestly think EPZ means expected promotion zone and couldn't understand why they weren't MWOs in minimum time.

Speaking only on the knowledge I have of my trade I strongly feel we promote too fast, and we do not place enough emphasis on leadership.

MJP I think we have to agree to disagree.

 

[MJP]

What qualifies as success ?  I am of the opinion that we do a piss poor job of actually maturing, mentoring and growing leadership.  Instead we assign leadership a course code and give someone the title of leader for having passed that course.

Speaking for my own trade, Sup Tech, we have consistently promoted people because they are capable technicians in my trade.  Unfortunately this account for almost SFA the further you get away from the Cpl rank. 

On my previous ship I had an Army MCpl who had been in rank 4 years.  And this was his first time having subordinates.  Yup, a 4 year MCpl who had never even written a PDR let alone go through the whole process, and first time leading anyone other than himself.  Its not his failure, its ours as a trade and leaders.  We let him get to this position.  Hell I know WOs in my trade that think EPZ means expected promotion zone and couldn't understand why they weren't MWOs in minimum time.

Speaking only on the knowledge I have of my trade I strongly feel we promote too fast, and we do not place enough emphasis on leadership.

MJP I think we have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you that generally right now the Sup Tech trade is pretty weak and is as you describe.  I am certainly not talking about them when I talk about pushing the right people through.  Although I have seen it happen for a few, they are far and few between in my experience with the Sup Trade.  I generally find the Sgt/PO2- MWO/CPO2 is fairly weak with your description of EPZ example being rampant.  Lots of excellent junior leaders coming up though, been impressed with the younger state of the trade.  However the problem is they don't have great leaders above them to develop them properly.   

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree with you that generally right now the Sup Tech trade is pretty weak and is as you describe.  I am certainly not talking about them when I talk about pushing the right people through.  Although I have seen it happen for a few, they are far and few between in my experience with the Sup Trade.  I generally find the Sgt/PO1- MWO/CPO2 is fairly weak with your description of EPZ example being rampant.  Lots of excellent junior leaders coming up though, been impressed with the younger state of the trade.  However the problem is they don't have great leaders above them to develop them properly. 

I really can't argue with anything you have said above.  I think its an honest and blunt critique of my peer group in general terms.

Slight correction for you the RCN equivalent of Sgt is PO2 not PO1.  PO1 = WO to the Army and RCAF folks. 

 

[PuckChaser]

I think part of the solution is already happening: streaming technical trades into leadership/technical senior positions. A lot of the CWO Sigs positions are being dropped to MWO as they are purely technical in nature and do not need the leadership/clout of a CWO rank to accomplish. I'd like to see us extend technical MWOs with more IPCs so we can get the benefit of their technical expertise without clogging up the succession planning boards.

 

[dapaterson]

Some of those are occupational structure issues.  A healthy occupation requires a pyramid - so there's no constant rush to fill the next level, regardless of who's ready.  If you have 55 Sgts and want 50 WOs, almost every Sgt will become a WO.  (Add in the reality of higher attrition rates at higher ranks due to increased age and Years of Service, and the pressure can become greater).

For example, Int Op used to have a rank structure that wanted more MCpls than Cpl/Ptes; more Sgts than MCpls; and more WOs than MCpls.  So there was little to no time for development; a PER reading "Has a pulse" could see someone promoted (Note: This is a joke.  Barely).  The recent restructure created a more balanced structure that permits more time in rank and avoids constant panics to make someone "the next", ready or not.