PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[donaldk]

@jewalsh

As said with many of the other replies, your Memo has way to much personal conjecture added to it -- its a blubber fest.  Granted you may have evidence left offline for good reasons, but even if you did have substantiation behind your memo the language in it just screams cry baby making a river.  Before I went REGF Officer last year, I was a ResF MS  on Class C and often was stuck with supervisory duties involving a fair bit of personal and pulling long hours at work.  My first year in that rank the PER was only put to a developing level, but being first year in rank I expected this, although I did not like it, the PER narrative and dots matched the divnotes written and the PDR guidelines were clear.  The next year on the same ship I worked on my flaws with the same subordinates / supervisor and got a Ready as expected.  If anything I look back at being an MS as a good experience that now helps me as an MSEng officer.  If your PERs were that bad and your redresses kept getting bounced back... then either you did not push them high enough (although it takes time you can push them right to the CDS)... or you just truly were shit and good thing you left the Forces.

As a supervisor and also a subordinate, my major beef is not necessarily with CFPAS but with the training system and how CFPAS is loosely explained at the CFPLQ level for the NCMs and before that nothing is mentioned.    AB/Pte's should be exposed to CFPAS so when it comes time they know what is expected of them and what to expect from the supervisor when the PER comes -- this would also help makes them MUCH better followers!  This is where I find the root of the problem with the system exists, in that the members do not know what to expect from the process.  Even scarier, talking to my colleagues in the officer world, the DEO/ROTP types do not even get a handle on CFPAS on their BMOQ but shortly after they could wind up being the signing authority for a sections PERs.  He he, this is one thing that makes Phase VI a wake up call.

Now flip over to my twin brother and he got a developing PER as a Class A reservist -- his was a case to redress (he got nailed for things that were outside the scope of his PDRs)--- but because he did not know the CFPAS system at the time how it worked he just signed it.  I was on contract away from home so I did not get to review his PER... fast forward 3 years later and that is what held him up for his MS promotion when he finished his CFPLQ.  His beef with the system was if he had known CFPAS beforehand he could have quickly dealt with it in unit.  He would have written a redress if needed in his sleep but now 3 years later it is way to late to grieve.  He just said "Life goes on", it barely makes a difference on pay/pension and his CT/OT was executing within a couple months of the merit results coming out anyways.  His lesson... learn the system and how to play with it.

Good Luck on your Memo / upcoming redress... but do us a favour and take out the personal whiny bits that have no substantiation out of it.

K12 D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think she gets the point by now. No need to carry this on any further.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[jewalsh]

Here are some excellent documents on the CFPAS system.

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc30/mds/cann.pdf
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc31/exnh/hausberg.pdf

 

[dogger1936]

One thing that really bugged me during the last PER season was being FORCED to write a guy up with a certain score given to me by higher. While this guy was maybe a supersoldier the previous year; he was under par during his time under my command. Being told he will get x number of far right bubbles annoyed me; and I would have had to flat out lie about his work. Not being the lying type I handed it to my officer and told him to do it if they dont want honest feedback/ a reflection of his poor PDR's and work ethic.

This person is now promoted.

 

[Infanteer]

Interesting thread that I had to go through again.  It was pointed out that no system is ideal and the CFPAS isn't, but it ain't bad and it could definately be worse.  A few observations on PERs:

1.  There could probably be less bubbles and less PF/AFs.  As it stands now, the system is almost overwhelming.  Fewer bubbles and PF/AFs allow a rough, quantitative picture to be formed while a narrative gives the qualitative goods to merit/promotion boards;

2.  I don't know about other branches, but where I was the language of the PER system is byzantine.  "Skilled" was the baseline and was given to soldiers upon entering that rank level.  Less than skilled usually meant something bad.  So essentially we only used three of the six bubbles (S, ES, M), with anything to the left (U, L, D) being reserved for special cases and all essentially meaning the same thing.  Not Assessed  (NA) was never used despite the fact that 90% of my Corporals were not in leadership positions.  To me, this supports my reasoning behind the above pointof simplifying bubbles.  Recommendations of "Ready" for promotion are meaningless, and "Immediate" recommendations get one's foot in the door - for some ranks 3 successive years of "immediate recommendations" are required before even being looked at.  There is nothing wrong with the way the scores are used, but the language should be altered to give a realistic understanding to the score - ie, the far right bubble for promotion recommendation should be ready because it tells you you are being looked at;

3.  One of the biggest problems with the system is that we tie the concepts of "performance" and "experience" together within the Performance scoring.  At least in our branch, when meriting the performance of individauls, consideration is given to previous appointments held, qualifications, etc, etc.  So, in an Infantry Battalion platoon commanders will be at the "SND" level while senior Captains like the Adjutant, on the basis of having successful platoon command, ERE experience, and Army Staff College, will be at the "MOI" level.  This makes sense in the grand scheme of things, but also acts to restrict the performance narrative's utility as performance is rated for one's rank and not their position.  So, you will not have any "Mastered" platoon commanders (despite the fact that some have mastered that specific position); likewise a "Skilled" Adjutant is likely looking for a new career.  This does not allow a rater to show dramatic variation between subordinates in his assessment, thus a less accurate assessment as he is hamstrung by being forced to score his subordinates to fit their level of experience; and

4.  PERs are a powerful tool with which to effect cultural change within the organization.  For instance, a "Pass/Fail" PT rating on the PER means that only the minimum is encouraged whereas a scored system gives powerful incentive for all to improve their fitness.  Want to encourage good soldiers to certain positions like recruiting or highlight acomplishments and contributions to the profession (such as articles, PD, etc, etc)?  Than give it more points at boards.  A simple tool like this can have powerful effects on organizational standard as they do set the bar.  An interesting study would be to look at what sort of behaviours are current system promotes (any PSELs out there need a thesis?).

5.  The "So What" in this?  If these alterations were made to the PER, you would have a one page PER:

a.    with 3 boxes - "Performance" (ie: how do I rate in my job, especially when compared to my peers), "Experience" (how does my depth of experience rate against the ideal candidate for promotion at my rank level) and "Potential" (ie:  how does my chain-of-command feel I would do at the next rank level");

b.    with fewer PFs (8?) and AFs (4) along with "EFs" (2-4) which speak to experience and 4 bubbles with accurate, unambiguous adjectives; and

c.    a slightly larger and more developed narrative for each box, as this should be the "heavier" portion of the PER.

Thus, a soldiers Performance rating is highly fluid and can move up or down while his "Experience" and "Potential" factor creep to the right if the soldier develops.  Merit boards would focus more upon the qualitative narrative and worry less about "bubble politics".

 

[pbi]

anonymousjrofficer: I have to heartily second the advice of the folks here telling you to have a sit-down with your boss. The very first thing you should do when asssuming any new position is to have that chat. Find out your commander's expectations, requirements, and methods of operation. Just because there is a list of duties published in a manual somewhere does not mean that by reading it you will know what your job is. Every unit, sub-unit and every leader is slightly different: find out the "lay of the land".

Once you've had that session with the OC, have a very honest, straightforward talk with the CSM. He is a very important figure in the company: arguably the most important after the OC, in terms of having a happy, well-run "tight ship". Get to know him.

Then, once you've done that, and you've had a chance to absorb all that you've been told, turn around and have the same talk with your key immediate subordinates (probably the CQMS, the Coy Clerk, the Coy Sig NCO and maybe the Coy Tpt NCO if you have one), only this time the topic will be your relationship with them: the same sorts of things your boss told you.

That should be a good start.

Cheers

 

[McG]

One of the biggest problems with the system is that we tie the concepts of "performance" and "experience" together within the Performance scoring. 

That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.

At the merit boards the information needed to weight experience is available.  Boards look at current and past PERs, and points are allocated for experience in positions of different seniority.  Certain qualifications can also grant points at given rank levels.  All of this to say that there is no need for units to be handing out candies on the PERs just because someone is in a position considered more senior.

 

[jewalsh]

That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.

In my personal opinion, the merit boards spend too little time reviewing each person's file. Thus they may not get an accurate sense of experience of a person. It would be nice if there was some was to incorporate experience into the PER but since one PER only focuses on a single year it is not practical to put experience into the PER.

At the merit boards the information needed to weight experience is available.  Boards look at current and past PERs, and points are allocated for experience in positions of different seniority.

 

Also they only only go back three years and that's it! Agreed the information is there but with the boards spending so little time on a file, most of a persons experience does not come into play.

All of this to say that there is no need for units to be handing out candies on the PERs just because someone is in a position considered more senior.

Agreed it should be best person for the job, and not based on who's been around longer or is more buddy buddy with the supervisor.

 

[aesop081]

 

Also they only only go back three years and that's it!

The boards only go back 3 years in terms of PERs. PERs are not the only information input into the boards. All your career information that is summed up on your MPRR is available to the board for evaluation, thus all your courses and relevant positions are there ( your experience).

 

[jewalsh]

The boards only go back 3 years in terms of PERs. PERs are not the only information input into the boards. All your career information that is summed up on your MPRR is available to the board for evaluation, thus all your courses and relevant positions are there ( your experience).

Too bad my ex-career manager did not know that when he told me everything I did 4 years ago and my top student in my QL3 reserve course (in 2004) counts for nothing. In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.

 

[PuckChaser]

Too bad my ex-career manager did not know that when he told me everything I did 4 years ago and my top student in my QL3 reserve course (in 2004) counts for nothing. In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.

Unless you were dropped a rank in your CT, none of your PERs/course reports from the reserves count. If you were rank protected when you transferred, you start at the bottom of the pile and need 2 PERs to get to the boards, regardless of the seniority you were given on transfer.

 

[aesop081]

In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.

Mine is just fine. Maybe you should make sure yours is too.

 

[PuckChaser]

Mine is just fine. Maybe you should make sure yours is too.

I'd have to agree here, MPRRs are pretty well kept, considering everything is digital and linked. MITE had a course on my MPRR 2 days after I finished it.

 

[George Wallace]

I'd have to agree here, MPRRs are pretty well kept, considering everything is digital and linked. MITE had a course on my MPRR 2 days after I finished it.

For the most part this is true.  There are, however, a few tiny flaws in the MPRR that, unlike the UER, are regulated by "Posn Numbers".  One may for instance be on OP CADANCE at LFCA/JTFC in Toronto, but show up on a MPRR as filling a Posn Number for a SOFCOM posn in another unit elsewhere.  In the digital age some things do not reflect reality.  The UER is at times more accurate as a hardcopy employment history (if maintained by a diligent supervisor) than a MPRR printout.

This is also why, one should regularly check their MPRR making corrections as necessary before signing and returning it to the OR staff. 

 

[McG]

Also they only only go back three years and that's it!

The boards only go back three years for the PER score calculation, but the older PERs are available to be pulled up, and I have listened to CMs comment on those older PER also being reviewed in some casese where boards needed/wanted more information on an individual's experience.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The boards only go back three years for the PER score calculation, but the older PERs are available to be pulled up, and I have listened to CMs comment on those older PER also being reviewed in some casese where boards needed/wanted more information on an individual's experience.

I can personally vouch for this - indeed I am sitting on a board right now, and we routinely look deeper than three years - I looked at PERs from the 90s.  We also consider Reserve PERS.  In a general sense, every board member tries their hardest to find as many points as they can for each file, and in the event of discrepancies, the benefit always goes to the member.

 

[Infanteer]

That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.

Agreed, but it is the case - I've heard of more than one case of "I couldn't give you a higher ranking as you're too junior".  This all falls out when members are merited and bubbles assigned.

I've never heard of really good platoon commanders getting MOIs and only mediocre to poor senior captains earn less than an MOI.

 

[McG]

I've heard of more than one case of "I couldn't give you a higher ranking as you're too junior". 

Anyone being told as much would have the ammunition they need to greive the PER.

Rather than adding another element to be scored (that of experience) in the PER, I think the issue to address is how to stop the practice of handing-out candy for seniority in rank. 

 

[Infanteer]

Is it better to form the administrative measures to our institutional method of assessing our subordinates or try to bend the institution to our administrivia?  It may be easier to simply make another box.

 

[McG]

Is it better to form the administrative measures to our institutional method of assessing our subordinates or try to bend the institution to our administrivia?  It may be easier to simply make another box.

If we do not address the problem of people setting scores based on factors outside the scope of assessment, then adding a new box for experience will just provide another location to abuse and give out free candy to the annointed (or the unusually long-in-rank).  If the problem is addressed, then there is no need to include a new box for something the merit boards will just calculate seperately from information already available to them.