PERs : All issues questions...2018-current

[PuckChaser]

Pretty sure your gender is on your MPRR and the national merit board has access to that.

I find it hilarious that for PERs we hide someone's gender now to remove bias but in recruiting if you're a certain gender your file is going right to the top to meet a quota.

 

[brihard]

It's sad to think our senior leadership for both NCOs and officers are singling out women to keep them down. Not very professional of us.

Is it really believable that members sitting on a merit board won't know someone's gender? When I seen files prepped for merit boards for a unit they included course reports and letters of reference, both with pronouns. Do national level merit boards work different?

Funny thing about that, unit level 'merit boards' (or 'raning boards', 'ranking committee', whatever you want to call it) for the PER process are actually banned by CANFORGEN and have been for years. This process of a company getting together, ranking its soldiers, and then adjusting PERs to suit isn't how it's supposed to be. I actually fought and won that fight on behalf of one of my Cpls in one of my last couple years in- chain wanted him ranked middle third based on grounds they couldn't articulate to me, while he'd done an absolutely bang up job as my section 2ic and was a rock solid performer. Highly effective rather than flashy. Happily I had a Pl Comd who had the spine to back me on my assessment.

 

[SupersonicMax]

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Funny thing about that, unit level 'merit boards' (or 'raning boards', 'ranking committee', whatever you want to call it) for the PER process are actually banned by CANFORGEN and have been for years. This process of a company getting together, ranking its soldiers, and then adjusting PERs to suit isn't how it's supposed to be. I actually fought and won that fight on behalf of one of my Cpls in one of my last couple years in- chain wanted him ranked middle third based on grounds they couldn't articulate to me, while he'd done an absolutely bang up job as my section 2ic and was a rock solid performer. Highly effective rather than flashy. Happily I had a Pl Comd who had the spine to back me on my assessment.

Oh ya, you got that right. Like the shadow files that were banned.

If gender is such an issue for promotion then maybe it's time we get rid of an opinion based approach to promotion and move to merit and technical proficiency.  Give me a PT test and 8 hour exam over a year of budsing in the smoke pit any day.

 

[brihard]

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.

Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per policy, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.

Easy for a guy in my position to say 'No, here's my honest assessment of my soldier'. A lot harder for a Sgt in battalion to buck the CSMs/RSM on that.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per police, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.

Jeepers, its just a PER, don't get the cops involved. ;D

 

[brihard]

Jeepers, its just a PER, don't get the cops involved. ;D

LOL, nice catch on the typo, thanks Bruce. Policy.

 

[kev994]

The dots need to match the help file. If a dot needs to be moved, it’s got to be because it wasn’t written IAW the matrix in the help file, not because we like Cpl Bloggins better.

 

[Throwaway987]

I wish their explanation/justification focused more on ensuring fairness by blinding the assessors to gender instead of the fluffy cultural shift angle.  The outcome and benefit would have been the same but with less risk of the perception of superficial virtue signalling.

i.e. Are we making this change to promote fairness by eliminating the role of bias? Or are we doing this to get the GBA+ brownie point and score some political points? If it was mainly the former...shouldn%u2019t that be a good enough reason on its own?

Edit: Rephrasing the justification towards fairness could also signal to the rest of the CAF that senior leadership values eliminating systemic factors that contribute to gender bias. Opening with that rationale could motivate other leaders to explore similar changes within their own organization/processes.  Seems like a bit of a missed opportunity.

 

[brihard]

The dots need to match the help file. If a dot needs to be moved, it’s got to be because it wasn’t written IAW the matrix in the help file, not because we like Cpl Bloggins better.

That's great til you're told to rewrite the narrative so that the dots can be shifted to match a unit ranking board. Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Indeed. But those objectives quickly contradict each other. If the unit is allowed to do their ranking, BUT ranking cannot contradict the dot count, something's gotta give. Per policy, we know it should be the unit level ranking. In practice we know that units drag dots around and say 'Sgt, go adjust this member's PER to match the rankings'.

Easy for a guy in my position to say 'No, here's my honest assessment of my soldier'. A lot harder for a Sgt in battalion to buck the CSMs/RSM on that.

If more than one person has the same potential dot score, the board is the tie breaker. 

 

[MJP]

That's great til you're told to rewrite the narrative so that the dots can be shifted to match a unit ranking board. Let's not pretend this doesn't happen.

There is no need to re-do a narrative to fit dots as the dots, that is an old old way of looking at PERs back when we wrote flowerly prose and everyone was awesome. Now you just write activity  - result.  The dot score indicates how well they did that activity (generally because of the 9 line limit it covers more than one Performance Factor).

That said I haven't seen this magical supposedly widespread practice of adjusting dot scores to match rankings yet in many many many years of doing PERs. Personal opinion it is like many things it in the CAF actually uncommon in practice but the myth of its use has made it common thought.

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.

If more than one person has the same potential dot score, the board is the tie breaker.

The problem with both statements is the assumption that PER scores alone is the driving factor in boards. While the general practice is to use proposed scores to at least have a starting point in a ranking board the scores really don't matter. Besides niether are real rules as listed in the CFPAS help menu.

CFPAS Help

Potential Ranking. Theatre PERs are not ranked. The Annual PER potential ranking is based on assessed potential as reflected in the scoring of the potential factors only and not on overall PER scoring. As it is a potential ranking an individual with high potential but average performance would be ranked higher than a subordinate with high performance but only average potential. Potential ranking applies to personnel of the same rank and MOS, within the same Dept ID and on Annual PERs only:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Unit COs must rank the top 10 individuals or the top 50% of personnel of the same rank and MOS within their unit, whichever is less.
[*]Ranking ties are not permitted. However, this does not preclude units from submitting PERs with identical AFs and PFs.
[*]Where an odd number of personnel exist, the ratings will be extended or rounded upwards (i.e., 5 individuals - therefore rate the top 3).
[*]If the subordinate is the only one of that rank and MOS in the unit "1 of 1" must be filled in. Formations shall not combine Dept IDs to rate personnel together in Section 5;
[*]when a person is assigned or posted prior to 01 Jan to any of the establishments indicated in chap 1 sect 110(1), or is attached posted away from his/her home unit prior to 01 Jan for operational deployments of three months duration or more, and will not be returning prior to the end of the reporting period, no Section 5 potential ranking is to be completed. The Potential Ranking box shall indicate 0 of 0
[*]where a rear party or a detachment is geographically separated from the main unit, such as a deployed battalion, every effort shall be made to fairly rank all personnel within the same Dept ID.
[/list]

 

[SupersonicMax]

There is no need to re-do a narrative to fit dots as the dots, that is an old old way of looking at PERs back when we wrote flowerly prose and everyone was awesome. Now you just write activity  - result.  The dot score indicates how well they did that activity (generally because of the 9 line limit it covers more than one Performance Factor).

That said I haven't seen this magical supposedly widespread practice of adjusting dot scores to match rankings yet in many many many years of doing PERs. Personal opinion it is like many things it in the CAF actually uncommon in practice but the myth of its use has made it common thought.

The problem with both statements is the assumption that PER scores alone is the driving factor in boards. While the general practice is to use proposed scores to at least have a starting point in a ranking board the scores really don't matter. Besides niether are real rules as listed in the CFPAS help menu.

CFPAS Help

Potential Ranking. Theatre PERs are not ranked. The Annual PER potential ranking is based on assessed potential as reflected in the scoring of the potential factors only and not on overall PER scoring. As it is a potential ranking an individual with high potential but average performance would be ranked higher than a subordinate with high performance but only average potential. Potential ranking applies to personnel of the same rank and MOS, within the same Dept ID and on Annual PERs only:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Unit COs must rank the top 10 individuals or the top 50% of personnel of the same rank and MOS within their unit, whichever is less.
[*]Ranking ties are not permitted. However, this does not preclude units from submitting PERs with identical AFs and PFs.
[*]Where an odd number of personnel exist, the ratings will be extended or rounded upwards (i.e., 5 individuals - therefore rate the top 3).
[*]If the subordinate is the only one of that rank and MOS in the unit "1 of 1" must be filled in. Formations shall not combine Dept IDs to rate personnel together in Section 5;
[*]when a person is assigned or posted prior to 01 Jan to any of the establishments indicated in chap 1 sect 110(1), or is attached posted away from his/her home unit prior to 01 Jan for operational deployments of three months duration or more, and will not be returning prior to the end of the reporting period, no Section 5 potential ranking is to be completed. The Potential Ranking box shall indicate 0 of 0
[*]where a rear party or a detachment is geographically separated from the main unit, such as a deployed battalion, every effort shall be made to fairly rank all personnel within the same Dept ID.
[/list]

For ranking personnel within the same MOC yes, Potential dot scores are the only discriminator with inputs for ties.  The Potential score won’t change but we would rank, for two people with the 6 potential factors fire-walled to the right, make one 1 of X and the other persons 2 of X.  Other factors than dot scores would come into play.  For ranking in the whole unit (all trades), the board looks at other factors as well. 

 

[MJP]

For ranking personnel within the same MOC yes, PF dot scores are the only discriminator with inputs for ties.  The PF score won’t change but we would rank, for two people with the 6 PFs fire-walled to the right, make one 1 of X and the other persons 2 of X. Other factors than dot scores would come into play.

Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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.

And, yet, it is still happening (personally witnessed this more than once).  I asked direct "why is this being allowed to happen" question to my immediate CofC and got zero answer.

So it's great to publicly say 'this is not happening' but it still is, just as it was the year the direction was released and every year after it was released...

 

[SupersonicMax]

Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.

Unit ranking within MOS (x of x) is in section 5 (potential) and the ranking is labeled “potential ranking”.  Does it need to be clearer?  IIRC, it is also in the CFPAS help file.

Section 6 ranking (written in prose) is theoretically disconnected from the Section 5 ranking as it should also include performance dot scores and other factors (SLT, education, etc).  In theory, your #1 person for potential ranking within a MOC in a unit could rank, on the unit board (for section 6), below the #2 for potential ranking in the same MOC in section 6.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Where does it say that? I am not seeing that nor is that how I have seen MOC boards run. Scores at boards are useful starting points not deciding factors in rankings. People with the same potential "score" can't have the tie broken by PF dots hence the need for the board to decide via other factors from the outset.

My bad, I will edit my post.  I meant potential factors for PF.  You can’t only use Performance factors to tie break potential ranking.

 

[Navy_Pete]

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.

Where are you getting these rules?

Not sure exactly how you get rankings without some kind of group huddle.  Usually timing wise this is being done as the drafts have maybe gone through an initial supervisor review for the scores, but is pretty early in the process (and likely only dot scores with a rough draft PER and supporting notes).  This is exactly when scores should be getting a reality check. It's a bit easier on ships, as MOCs are typically only part of a specific department, but there are also lots of things happening interdepartmentally (like on duty watches). Those kind of things tend to differentiate the top performers, and may justify a score change.

Not unusual to find someone being oversold/undersold at some point, and I've seen others from outside the normal immediate CoC argue for others scores to be raised/dropped based on specific interactions.  It's a good check and balance against people getting hammered by a supervisor that doesn't like them, or alternately a soup sandwhich that has their boss fooled, and if done properly, keeps people honest.  Maybe easier on a ship, as you tend to work with a lot of different people at one point or another between normal days and when on duty watches. Aside from a ranking, it's a useful exercise to make sure people in the unit are scoring their people consistently. 

That also can happen during the PERMON process, if someone is unable to justify a score, or the rankings and scores are really inconsistent amongst a group.  Without that outside review with a bit of authority to make sure scores are fair/justified, the whole thing is a bit of a waste of time, so not sure why there should be any restrictions for scores changing at the ranking board.

 

[SupersonicMax]

CANFORGEN 010/17.

SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS.

Through the formal review process, absolutely.  To meet a ranking established by a board?  No.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

CANFORGEN 010/17.

SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS.

Through the formal review process, absolutely.  To meet a ranking established by a board?  No.

Or, to change the scores/narratives on mbr's after the 'group huddles' have happened and people didn't shake out the way 'senior unit personnel' thought they would/should...