- Reaction score
- 4,705
- Points
- 1,160
motorhead1 said:
Voluntary Release. Or have a real good compassionate reason to not go (career implications here).
PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019
- Thread starter sgtdixon
- Start date
- Status
Voluntary Release. Or have a real good compassionate reason to not go (career implications here).
- Reaction score
- 1,511
- Points
- 1,260
motorhead1 said:
See also,
discussion on refused postings
http://army.ca/forums/threads/69503.50
3 pages.
Postponing a Posting
http://army.ca/forums/threads/106017.0/nowap.html
Posting question : Can a posting be delayed?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/100902.0
Posting Evasion & Promotion Cancellation
http://army.ca/forums/threads/57698.0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Last time one of my guys refused a posting the CO just said "ok, sign here" as he handed over some release forms. The member signed them and was out in due time.
Now, if someone wants to try to explain why they would prefer not to take a posting and ask, with valid reasons, for the location to be reconsidered then fine...it may be considered. But if it's not then be prepared to get out or go on the posting.
Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening. He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state. He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision.
Now, if someone wants to try to explain why they would prefer not to take a posting and ask, with valid reasons, for the location to be reconsidered then fine...it may be considered. But if it's not then be prepared to get out or go on the posting.
Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening. He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state. He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Schindler's Lift said:
Jesus! He legitimately fails the screening but his options are to still be posted or out? That's wonderful. Wtf the is point of the screener then?
This is why we have retention problems ffs.
- Reaction score
- 4,705
- Points
- 1,160
CombatMacgyver said:
Depends on how senior the member is. If there's only X number of positions across the CAF for them in succession planning, and they've timed out of the spot they're in, I can absolutely see an IR, Commission or Release ultimatum. The CM should have been looking to swap a position, however.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
Pass that on to my TC on Tuesday but we still have to wait for Regiment and Squadron to issue the new instructions....
I often see friends do PER on their subordinates who are close friends outside of work. Often those PERs are inflated to the point that they get promoted with very little experience under their belts! Is this really helping anyone?? Except for the person's pocket? Does this show the consequence later down the road??
I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?
I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?
MedCorps
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 119
- Points
- 480
You asked, "Does this show the consequence later down the road??"
There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
MC
There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
MC
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
People rise to the level of their incompetence. After that, their godfather gives them a push.
I've known a guy who was a good corporal, an ok master corporal, and was drowning at last sighting as a sergeant major.
Another that I'm in more regular touch with is a sergeant who is effectively afraid of people- can not even effectively get a work detail of two privates to do a series of simple, repetitive tasks. Believes in doing everything as well as possible, does everything (that they perceive to be) possible to accomplish the mission, and completely incapable of seeing the forest. Over twenty years in grade, never understood the concept of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or that getting outside the comfort zone long enough to fake and become an effective leader is necessary to accomplish a task efficiently. The sergeant is underappreciated, given their dedication, but is ineffective- period.
On the other hand, I know one corporal where the world is orderly enough such that the entire chain of command knows that it would be a horrible mistake to give him any leadership opportunities *and* he is self-aware enough to have not the slightest bitterness over never being promoted. He's cheerful, hardworking, and everybody loves him (though they sometimes mutter over the new depths of stupid he manages to find). If he were a sergeant, he'd be miserable and self-loathing.
I really wish that there was a mechanism to separate leadership and technical ability. You've been a Cpl for twenty years? No pay raise. You've got outstanding skills and no leadership ability? Best thing for you is to promote you to the point that you're ineffective at your job description. I've known excellent, colourful corporals (and plenty of mediocre ones) who bring something to a unit, but neither the unit nor the individual gains anything by "helping them" with a bad promotion. If they fail spectacularly enough (perhaps by failing PLQ, perhaps by making it blatantly obvious that they'll never grow into the role), maybe they get sent back to where they belong. It doesn't happen often enough, though.
After one blatant failure, which I don't think the sergeant I described even fully understood, a decision was made to hand out tasks to undermine them to the point that they would quit. Safety and environmental briefings to audiences of dozens (stuttering all the way until discovering the trick of pointing at someone and telling them to read the powerpoint). crap taskings. They took it and just kept their mouth shut. Still kicking, seven years later, and the entire rest of the CoC that damned them has left the unit.
Ideally, someone recognizes a subordinate's strengths and weaknesses and is able to help them improve. That's great. Sometimes its not possible. Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them. Its easier for someone who's already demonstrated good technical strengths to train in something else than it is for someone who's already manifestly demonstrated their inability to overcome their leadership weakness to do more than bang their head against the wall.
Another that I'm in more regular touch with is a sergeant who is effectively afraid of people- can not even effectively get a work detail of two privates to do a series of simple, repetitive tasks. Believes in doing everything as well as possible, does everything (that they perceive to be) possible to accomplish the mission, and completely incapable of seeing the forest. Over twenty years in grade, never understood the concept of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or that getting outside the comfort zone long enough to fake and become an effective leader is necessary to accomplish a task efficiently. The sergeant is underappreciated, given their dedication, but is ineffective- period.
On the other hand, I know one corporal where the world is orderly enough such that the entire chain of command knows that it would be a horrible mistake to give him any leadership opportunities *and* he is self-aware enough to have not the slightest bitterness over never being promoted. He's cheerful, hardworking, and everybody loves him (though they sometimes mutter over the new depths of stupid he manages to find). If he were a sergeant, he'd be miserable and self-loathing.
I really wish that there was a mechanism to separate leadership and technical ability. You've been a Cpl for twenty years? No pay raise. You've got outstanding skills and no leadership ability? Best thing for you is to promote you to the point that you're ineffective at your job description. I've known excellent, colourful corporals (and plenty of mediocre ones) who bring something to a unit, but neither the unit nor the individual gains anything by "helping them" with a bad promotion. If they fail spectacularly enough (perhaps by failing PLQ, perhaps by making it blatantly obvious that they'll never grow into the role), maybe they get sent back to where they belong. It doesn't happen often enough, though.
After one blatant failure, which I don't think the sergeant I described even fully understood, a decision was made to hand out tasks to undermine them to the point that they would quit. Safety and environmental briefings to audiences of dozens (stuttering all the way until discovering the trick of pointing at someone and telling them to read the powerpoint). crap taskings. They took it and just kept their mouth shut. Still kicking, seven years later, and the entire rest of the CoC that damned them has left the unit.
Ideally, someone recognizes a subordinate's strengths and weaknesses and is able to help them improve. That's great. Sometimes its not possible. Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them. Its easier for someone who's already demonstrated good technical strengths to train in something else than it is for someone who's already manifestly demonstrated their inability to overcome their leadership weakness to do more than bang their head against the wall.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.
- Reaction score
- 4,705
- Points
- 1,160
Sheep Dog AT said:
Or stop linking performance with potential. I should be able to rate someone as outstanding for the potential bubbles but with skilled performance, and vice versa. The whole problem with the PERs the way they are is the promotion recommendation is linked solely to potential, not performance. It should be a total score on the PER that generates the recommendation. I think we'd see a lot less Immediates out there if we did that.
I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance.
It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.
I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most. Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile). The narrative was where this stuff was caught. I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.
I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.
It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.
I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most. Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile). The narrative was where this stuff was caught. I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.
I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The PDR is designed to flesh out what the member needs to improve upon.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
There is also a theory similar to the Peter Principle called the Dilbert Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle. This basically says you promote them because they are incompetent, so they cause less damage to the immediate workflow. Normally this is meant for more technical tasks (you promote the worst surgeon to management in order to get him out of surgeries). However, in general, the idea of this is that the more someone screws up the more you want them managing more general aspects of people and the less you want them doing hands on work that has larger ramifications when it goes wrong. So to go off your last point Brasidas
the idea is that the best course of action would actually be to promote them further in order to get them more removed from any process that they can hurt. It is an interesting idea but is also an explanation sometimes for when you have cases of
because almost certainly someone else who has decision making power has noticed the same thing. (I've also read of this principle being used with where you get posted as well, I remember reading a post a while back where a colonel was causing problems so he got promoted and put somewhere where he couldn't cause as much damage).
the idea is that the best course of action would actually be to promote them further in order to get them more removed from any process that they can hurt. It is an interesting idea but is also an explanation sometimes for when you have cases of
because almost certainly someone else who has decision making power has noticed the same thing. (I've also read of this principle being used with where you get posted as well, I remember reading a post a while back where a colonel was causing problems so he got promoted and put somewhere where he couldn't cause as much damage).
- Status
Similar threads
