PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Shamrock]

<snip>
I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER...

In my organization we call that sheet the PDR.  Each PER comes with a minimum of 2.

 

[AirDet]

I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!

That in itself will save a lot of time. It'll also reduce the bleeding PER syndrome and back-and-forthITUS PERs suffer from.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.

Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.

I agree completely, this is direction not an option.  And I'm sure my Bn is struggling with whether their is room for the physical fitness and dress and deportment statement they have traditionally liked.  But with 17 lines of text for an MOI, even nose to tail, I doubt there is much room left over.  We were discussing this in my shop yesterday, that a Developing or Skilled solider is getting a PER with dots and signatures and that is it, that is the policy.  I already have one solider that is very happy with his job as it is, and doesn't want a PER, so clearly this draft CANFORGEN is a step in the right direction.

My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I agree completely, this is direction not an option.  And I'm sure my Bn is struggling with whether their is room for the physical fitness and dress and deportment statement they have traditionally liked.  But with 17 lines of text for an MOI, even nose to tail, I doubt there is much room left over.  We were discussing this in my shop yesterday, that a Developing or Skilled solider is getting a PER with dots and signatures and that is it, that is the policy.  I already have one solider that is very happy with his job as it is, and doesn't want a PER, so clearly this draft CANFORGEN is a step in the right direction.

My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....

Probably from someone who didn't want to do them.....

 

[AirDet]

My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....

We've been told that no PER for 2Lt, Lt, or Cpl <2 years. 1CAD was quoted as the source.

We were also given a few examples of the new PERs. NO CRIB SHEETS!

 

[Transporter]

We've been told that no PER for 2Lt, Lt, or Cpl <2 years. 1CAD was quoted as the source.

We were also given a few examples of the new PERs. NO CRIB SHEETS!

The draft CANFORGEN that I received yesterday says nothing about Cpls < two years not getting a PER (as does for Lt/SLt). Interesting.

 

[Old EO Tech]

The draft CANFORGEN that I received yesterday says nothing about Cpls < two years not getting a PER (as does for Lt/SLt). Interesting.

Same here, that is why I was wondering about the difference in the received draft CANFORGEN and the info that was given here by knowledgeable people.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?

 

[Transporter]

How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?

Just exchanging info my man. Of course we'll wait for the actual CANFORGEN. Did anyone suggest we do otherwise?

 

[AirDet]

Just exchanging info my man. Of course we'll wait for the actual CANFORGEN. Did anyone suggest we do otherwise?

I'll find the 1CAD ref and post it. I agree with Transporter as well that this is all speculation until the actual CANFORGEN is released.

 

[PuckChaser]

My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.

 

[MJP]

My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.

We did this as well.  Best way forward IMHO is to get the 80-90% solution now and then adjust once the CANFORGEN is released.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.

I hear that 1 CMBG is providing examples of a raft of possible PERs to ensure that they can stamp out any nonsense early - and that the new rules will be ruthlessly applied.

In other words, after years of complaining about the PER process, the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....

 

[Journeyman]

...... the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....

Heresy!   

 

[Old EO Tech]

We did this as well.  Best way forward IMHO is to get the 80-90% solution now and then adjust once the CANFORGEN is released.

That is exactly what I told my Sect Comd, while we wait for the new Bn instruction based on the CANFORGEN and any 1 CMBG guidance.

 

[Old EO Tech]

I hear that 1 CMBG is providing examples of a raft of possible PERs to ensure that they can stamp out any nonsense early - and that the new rules will be ruthlessly applied.

In other words, after years of complaining about the PER process, the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....

Staff work from the Bde Staff.....and in a timely fashion?  Not to be overly cynical but I will await with bated breath

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Staff work from the Bde Staff.....and in a timely fashion?  Not to be overly cynical but I will await with bated breath

Perhaps I have more faith than you in this case

 

[TChuki]

I read most of the messages on this topic and I am not going to beat over a dead horse. My perspective is that immediate supervisor’s have too much power with the current system. Too much emphasis is put on this bell curve statistics during the assessment. I am also convince that stacking up, and assessing performance and potential is rarely done in the full context of the squad looked at. Often those reviewing have pretty good idea of who’s who well ahead, and that alone dictates the scores and nothing else. I understand that units and individual trades ought to rank their members, and that the process is time consuming, I just can’t help but shake my head for the miserable morale of the troops and lack of honesty.

That 360 system sounded interesting

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo5/no1/mp-pm-eng.asp

 

[George Wallace]

....... My perspective is that immediate supervisor’s have too much power with the current system.

Ummm?  Whom should be doing the evaluations of their troops then?  Perhaps someone from another unit in another Trade?  Whom do you suggest, that would be able to give as honest an evaluation of their people's work, work ethic, skills, knowledge, aspirations, etc.?