PERs : All issues questions...2018-current

[SupersonicMax]

No, same MOC.  The distinction is that while one had more potential than the other, the other had an overall better file (including performance, second language profile, etc)

 

[Navy_Pete]

Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.

IMHO, that kind of thing is demotivating for the high performer, especially if they are covering off for the other person while they are off doing SLT and other things for ticks in the boxes for promotion. Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.  If someone is still learning the current job, doesn't do them favours to rush them to the next one, and lots of times potential is unrealized when you don't have the solid foundation to build upon.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.

So is potential, leadership, professional development....  Section 6 should definitely encompass the individual as a whole.  I disagree that performance at the current rank is a good indicator of performance in the next rank. Plenty of excellent people in their current rank that would be horrible in the next rank because of other factors.

 

[TCM621]

Unless it's relevant to the PER (by doing self directed learning on own time for example), things like SL profile shouldn't be relevant to scoring/ranking.  It is already getting counted for promotion at the board; units don't need to skew the result further by double accounting for it.

IMHO, that kind of thing is demotivating for the high performer, especially if they are covering off for the other person while they are off doing SLT and other things for ticks in the boxes for promotion. Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.  If someone is still learning the current job, doesn't do them favours to rush them to the next one, and lots of times potential is unrealized when you don't have the solid foundation to build upon.

I think having an SL profile is important because we are a bilingual country and the CAF has to serve that country. That said, I think the way we do SL scoring is junk. For one, we always require the Verbal score to be the highest when reading and writing are as important if not more so. If someone manages to improve one of the 3 areas they should be rewarded for it. The other issue is that you get more points as you get promoted for doing nothing but maintaining. I can't remember the officer scale but for NCMs BBB will get you 3 points at MCpl but it will give you 5 at WO.

Potential is great, but demonstrated performance at the current rank is a better indicator of future performance at the next rank.

I could disagree with this more. I don't know how many "leaders" I know who couldn't lead a line of ducks to a pond but got promoted because they were good technicians or operators. Leadership, communication, etc are all skills that are separate from the skills needed to be successful at job tasks. Temperament matters as well. I have known a lot people who I would trust with a job but the idea of them being responsible for troops is asking for trouble. The (old) Army was particularly bad for this as it seemed quite often the ones promoted were good at PT, had drinking problems and never met a piece of tail they wouldn't try and sleep with effects on morale or discipline be damned.

IMO the problem isn't that we separate those aspects, it's that we have no way to reward someone who is good at their job but isn't suited, or inclined, to be further up the leadership ladder. Whether it's a different rank akin to master tradesman status, medals or financial incentives, we need to give leadership some tools to separate the leaders from the workers while rewarding someone who just does their job well. In fact, the biggest complaint I hear is that X shows up everyday and works hard yet they see nothing come PER time while Y is off on some other secondary duty or task and Y gets promoted.

 

[Infanteer]

It's called the Peter Principle.

 

[TCM621]

It's called the Peter Principle.

People forget it is a real management theory based on real research.

 

[Navy_Pete]

To clarify, by demonstrated performance outweighing potential, I meant more that if you are still developing at the current rank, potential for future jobs doesn't really matter as much as mastering the skills needed for what you do now.

The way our PERs work, the 'performance' rated skills directly relate to the potential ones.  For example, if you score highly on potential for communicating at the next rank, you should score highly on oral/written communication at the current rank. A high leadership potential for the next rank should correlate to high performance scores at supervision, organization, etc.  So logically anyone scoring high across the board on potential at the next rank should also be high across the board in performance at the current rank.  The reverse isn't true though; someone can be a good at the current rank but not be suitable for the next rank. In any case, that's why I think someone with a higher perceived potential ranking someone with higher scores might be a problem and needs to be looked at, to make sure the scoring makes sense.

So to me, if I read a PER with hard right potential without corresponding performance scores at the current rank, it doesn't work logically. You are either over-estimating their potential, or pushing them up faster then they need to gain the experience at the current rank. If people rush through the ranks too fast, the Peter principle becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as you just aren't giving someone enough time to develop the baseline competencies required for success at higher levels. It's also about perspective as well; it takes time to shift your mind from thinking about the day to day to the bigger/longer term. Some people might be able to do it really easily, some might need a long time (or never get there).

 

[Blackadder1916]

People forget it is a real management theory based on real research.

While Dr. Peter may have "researched" his principle by observation, his book was meant to be satire, not a treatise on management theory.  It probably says something about how managers viewed themselves that his book (and a good part of his later career) became so successful.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/15/obituaries/laurence-j-peter-is-dead-at-70-his-principle-satirized-business.html

Dr. Peter maintained that his principle was ''the key to an understanding of the whole structure of civilization.'' He also said he was only kidding. Publisher's Weekly, which was not kidding, said the book was ''precisely geared for the Age of Conglomerates.'' Some conglomerates - which were not kidding either - offered to hire Dr. Peter as their management guru. He turned them down, saying he did not want to rise above his own level of competence.

 

[TCM621]

To clarify, by demonstrated performance outweighing potential, I meant more that if you are still developing at the current rank, potential for future jobs doesn't really matter as much as mastering the skills needed for what you do now.

The way our PERs work, the 'performance' rated skills directly relate to the potential ones.  For example, if you score highly on potential for communicating at the next rank, you should score highly on oral/written communication at the current rank. A high leadership potential for the next rank should correlate to high performance scores at supervision, organization, etc.  So logically anyone scoring high across the board on potential at the next rank should also be high across the board in performance at the current rank.  The reverse isn't true though; someone can be a good at the current rank but not be suitable for the next rank. In any case, that's why I think someone with a higher perceived potential ranking someone with higher scores might be a problem and needs to be looked at, to make sure the scoring makes sense.

So to me, if I read a PER with hard right potential without corresponding performance scores at the current rank, it doesn't work logically. You are either over-estimating their potential, or pushing them up faster then they need to gain the experience at the current rank. If people rush through the ranks too fast, the Peter principle becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as you just aren't giving someone enough time to develop the baseline competencies required for success at higher levels. It's also about perspective as well; it takes time to shift your mind from thinking about the day to day to the bigger/longer term. Some people might be able to do it really easily, some might need a long time (or never get there).

That works in a world where everyone starts fresh and gets promoted just as they are ready to take the next step. The reality is much messier. Let's take remusters for example, if a Sgt remusters and becomes a Cpl does he lose all his leadership abilities? Of course he doesn't, he may have to adapt those skills to a new environment but his potential for the next rank will be very high because he has proven success at that level.  Another example is an MOI Captain who gets posted before promotion. There is no way she will realistically master her new job in the 6 months between posting and the PER deadline, should that mean she is no longer ready for an immediate promotion? Of course not so what we often get is someone who gets high section 5 rankings that don't reflect reality in order to justify the high section 6. The opposite is worse when they artificially lower second 6 to match section 5.

The reality is there is no perfect answer within our system. We have no way to reward the hard worker but move into a leadership position. We have no way to reward seniority except promoting to a leadership position and it often leads to bad leaders who are otherwise good at their areas of expertise. I would prefer the opposite because the further away you get up the ladder the less important technical knowledge is and the more important knowing how to use the knowledge under you is.

 

[CountDC]

You can conduct unit boards.  You just can’t adjust dots in relation to the board results.  The only rule is that you cannot have more dot scores in section 5 than someone higher in the ranking but have a lower section 5 scoring for someone in the same MOC.  Boards are required to fill the ranking in section 5.

haven't seen that anywhere, where is it from as CFPAS indicates that is for the reviewing officer not a merit board? Be good to have for the next time we do the boards or they tell me to fill them in. Never saw a board fill in those dots but as the supervisor drafting the PER have been required to fill them in along with comments if needed. From my participation in boards the drafted PER from the supervisor is one factor in the merit of the member so a member could have the same or slightly lower PER but score higher on the merit due to the other factors that are laid out in the merit board directions. 

I was "requested" to change my PER on a member working for me as another member had scored higher on the board but their PER was lower.  I said no as the PER was valid and I was not going to penalize my staff. Perhaps they should go back to the sgt writing the other PER, explain to him about the CFPAS footprints and how a PER should be, and get him to redo his PER if needed.  To be honest due to my position I had received the PER and it was low for someone scoring high on a merit, it was mediocre at best mostly D with a few S.  The catch was he was working in trade and was in a year longer while my member was working out of trade.  My member had S along with a couple ES and Part 5 having one higher bubble but both were rated ready.  My PER stayed and as far as I recall they opted to leave both as they were.

 

[KuroKuma]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me whether or not working out of trade can affect your scoring during the selection board process. I'm a S1 Steward that's been working as a MS/PO2 Nav Comm for the past 5 years and my last three PER's were stellar with immediate recommendations. But for the last several years I've gone down on the ranking board and this year I didn't even rank. So I'm just wondering if it's because I haven't been working in trade. I'm open to any opinions on the matter and greatly appreciate your time.

 

[PuckChaser]

Your PER score just gets you onto the merit board. After that, each trade has a SCRIT point system (please don't ask what that acronym means). For example, as a Sig Op I get extra points for Breadth of Experience, Mobility, PD, Education, 2nd Language, deployment in rank, and a few other ones that escape me right now. The boards are also limited to 3x the number of promotions plus ties, so if your trade is only promoting 5 folks to MS, then they'll take 15 files plus any ties. This makes every PER point count.

This is where your disconnect could be, you've got 120 MOIs but against your peers you're missing points that only the merit board gives. One of your POs or Chiefs could get ahold of your Steward SCRITs and see where you're missing out.

 

[MJP]

Your PER score just gets you onto the merit board. After that, each trade has a SCRIT point system (please don't ask what that acronym means). For example, as a Sig Op I get extra points for Breadth of Experience, Mobility, PD, Education, 2nd Language, deployment in rank, and a few other ones that escape me right now. The boards are also limited to 3x the number of promotions plus ties, so if your trade is only promoting 5 folks to MS, then they'll take 15 files plus any ties. This makes every PER point count.

This is where your disconnect could be, you've got 120 MOIs but against your peers you're missing points that only the merit board gives. One of your POs or Chiefs could get ahold of your Steward SCRITs and see where you're missing out.

SCRIT= Scoring CRITeria


DGMC Occupation page hasn't been updated since 2014 but below was what they looked at 7-8 years ago to fill out the other 40 points (100 total 60 for PERs, remainder from SCRIT)






To answer the question of why you are not getting promoted would be hard to answer as there are often other issues at play that only your trade, CoC and you are aware of. Every trade has their nuances to promotion and some take longer than others. and the same applies to individuals.