Author Topic: CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic  (Read 406910 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Highland Lad

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 70
  • Up the Glens!
It seems to me that too many "career corporals" are not happy with their lot in life. I can't speak to the current PER system, but some points raised here seem fair - some form of 360 ° review would help (I have received Pers Assessments that disagreed wildly about my ability to perform, and seen them consistent by writer, rather than by task or assignment), as would some form of formalized competition (I've seen guys who didn't want to be promoted to Sgt - one who didn't want the added potential responsibility and one who felt he wasn't ready - guess who turned out the better Sgt in the long run?)

As to the point of only having 4 incentive levels - What's wrong with that? It discourages "coasting" for career corporals - If an individual finds themselves 'trapped' in rank, there is some financial incentive to look at what they really want from a military career, and to put up or shut up. The CF cannot afford to see the Peter Principle in action over and over again. If pay is the issue, it's time to look over at civvy street.

I'm not pointing any fingers or making accusations - I don't know anyone's individual situation, nor do I want to (unless you work for me).
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
JFK 1961

Offline 2 Cdo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,429
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 863
I personally don't have a problem with "career corporals", not everyone can be a leader. Some of the smartest troops I've known over the years have been Cpl's with 15-20 years in. They know their job and they are happy with their load station. As for NCO's or officers that "show bias" I agree that it is wrong, but everyone is guilty of it to one degree or another.
A good NCO or officer has to work at overcoming his own bias and try to score people accordingly. I've been very fortunate in my career to have worked for NCO's that were honest and didn't promise things that they couldn't deliver. Sorry mseoptrucker maybe you just had the bad luck of working for weak NCO's, I don't know. The PER system is not perfect but no system ever is, someone will always complain about something.
AIRBORNE
2 Cdo 84-88

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,408
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,815
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
I personally don't have a problem with "career corporals", not everyone can be a leader. Some of the smartest troops I've known over the years have been Cpl's with 15-20 years in. They know their job and they are happy with their load station.
I agree.
One of the best Cpls I had the privledge to work with, knew his stuff inside and out, but he couldn't lead a kid to a candy store. He wanted to advance but he was dismal when it came to motivating others and supervision, and unfortunately he knew it as well...If you can't develop those traits, you can not be a MCpl or above in the CF.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline Highland Lad

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 70
  • Up the Glens!
100% agreement here.

I used "career corporals" as an example to look at the 4 incentive levels as a means of examining career progression. If your career has stalled and you want more out of it, it's either time to put out more effort or to look elsewhere. If your career has taken you as far as you want to go, good for you, so long as the job is what you want and you do it well.

I agree that a long-term Corporal can be a great help for junior NCOs, and if someone is promoted into a leadership role that they don't want or can't perform in, you only hurt the CF by forcing them into it (both by losing a good corporal and by gaining an ineffective MCpl, in this example).

Part of any promotion is assessing how well an individual can perform at the next level, and this is a lot easier in some trades than others (in the infantry, for example, on exercise a Pl Comd can point at a sec Comd and say "bang! you're a casualty. Take over, 2 i/c."), and this can be an issue for some candidates for promotion.

My 2 ¢ - The PER system ain't broke, but could use some tinkering, and honesty and objectivity are the best tools any leader can use when assessing a subordinate.
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
JFK 1961

CH1

  • Guest
I AM CURIOUS AS TO YOUR POSITION.  I TAKE IT YOU ARE STILL A GRUNT AFTER 17 YEARS.  MY CAREER HAS BEEN RIDDLED WITH "ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT" ON MY PART.  THE ONE THING THAT HAS GOTTEN ME THROUGH MORE THAN DOUBLE YOUR TIME, WAS THE SIMPLE FACT I KNOW & DO MY JOB WELL & AT SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE AVERAGE.  IF I WOULD HAVE HAD TO DEPEND ON THE BUDDY SYSTEM I WOULD NEVER HAVE HAVE MADE IT PAST BOOT CAMP.  IT IS TRUE THAT I HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WW II & KOREAN VETS WATCHING OVER  SO AS NOT TO STRAY BEYOND THE POINT OF NO RETURN.  NOW I HAVE BEEN AN OFFICER LONGER THAN I WAS IN THE RANKS.  I GUESS MY QUESTION TURNS TO CONFIDENCE AND WHY YOU DID NOT QUESTION THE OLD MAN AS TO WHY YOU WERE CONSISTENTLY BYPASSED.  I HAVE SEEN THE TIMES WHEN IT TOOK 10 YEARS TO MAKE LANCE JACK THEN TO THE POINT WHERE M/CPL's WERE COOKIE CUTTER.  THEY MADE M/CPL's FOR A TIME IF THEY MADE 6 MONTHS PAST BMT.  NO DISRESPECT INTENDED BUT I WOULD LOOK TO YOUR SELF CONFIDENCE AND BASIC CHARACTER.  MAYBE YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORNS, AND REQUEST A SPOT ON THE APPROPRIATE COURSE, JR/SNR NCO, WHATEVER THE CASE.  LOOSE THE BITTERNESS AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SELF.  WISH I HAD THE CHANCE TO DO IT AGAIN, BUT MY TIME IS ALMOST GONE WITH CRA WITHIN HANDS REACH.

.................GOOD LUCK & GOOD HUNTING

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,408
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,815
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
CH1,
good post with the exception of,

ALL CAPITALS  IS CONSIDERED shouting...

on the left side of your keyboard, third button up is a key called "Caps Lock", generally when it is pushed repeatedly a little light on your keyboard will light up...

Next time you post, please ensure that little light is off.

thanks.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2005, 17:27:15 by Armymedic »
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

CH1

  • Guest
Thanks, getting the sit rep clearly.  major learning curve.  too used to writing reports for mother hen down east.  Seems they cant get coke bottles big enough in ottawa!

mseoptrucker

  • Guest
I can add that Ii don't think I would be a Career Coporal if I had  idea of staying in the Military. As was suggested I did see my superiors about the stagnation of my career and as a result I have been put into a advancement position. The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .I'm not looking for sympathy here I'm just highlighting what I believe to be a problem. I am one of maybe 2 or 3 English people in a French unit I don't believe as was suggested to me that my Superior didn't think I wanted to advance to the next rank. But I will give credit that after I approached them about it I was given my opportunity and I am making the best of it .However had it been the case that they thought I didn't want to advance shouldn't have someone approached and asked my intention I mean I'm not the type to blow my own horn at work.I work hard and wait till that speaks for me. Maybe thats my downfall but I think if you have to tell your boss that you are a hard worker and that your working hard to advance then maybe he isn't doing his job. I have been deserving of the position I have but I had to ask for it and wasn't asked if I was intrested in taking it and my first evaluation in that position is exemplary.I just think its too late.
        I  am frustrated after working for so long for nothing I am feeling too old and my body is not keeping up with it all. I don't think I will last any more then the 20 years I have too which is over in less then 4 years .
        a cpls time in the Field is harder on the body then a WO or a Mwos time, not taking away from what they do,  It is a required and they have usually done their time in the sh__ as well. Its just that at a certain age some of us won't be able to keep going due to bad aging, injuries ect ect. That is the time to get out.I think 40 years old is too old, for me anyway, to be still working at a Cpls level, after allready doing it for the better part of my career.
        That being said I would suggest that had I not been passed bye I may have been in a position more suitable for me by now. I'm not saying Wo or Mwo, Just with a bit more choice in my career.If it were due to what my superiors thoughts about what my career intentions were then the change I have suggested in my messages would dispel any doubt as to the intentions of a member. If someone didn't want to advance he wouldn't want to take part in any type of advancement evaluation testing.
         It should be a members right to prove he or she can advance and not left it up to someones personal opinion I can be the best worker there is but if at one time in my career I pissed off the boss I can be held back.There is measures to prevent this but none are infallible and are subject to abuse. Anyone that says" there has never been someone deserving held back" is dreaming.It happens more then we like to admit.Like wise there is promoting going on that shouldn't be and the type of systeam I have suggested may go a long way in preventing such abuse.Not for me but others.

Offline Highland Lad

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 70
  • Up the Glens!
I would have to say that one of the criteria that gets a lot of notice come promotion time is whether an individual is "seeking out and accepting increased responsibility" - in other words, no-one gets shot down for asking about promotion (unless it's the new pte asking about his chances at taking over the sec or Pl... I've actually seen that happen). IMHO, it's easier for commanders at any level to accept the status quo than to go out and look for promotable soldiers. That being said, the best officers don't typically accept that the easy way is the best way.

Congrats on being given the opportunity, and good luck with it!

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
JFK 1961

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 80,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,327
I imagine promotion in the CF is limited by vacancy ? If so the government could help morale by providing yearly pay increases and provide some type of housing allowance for enlisted/NCO's so housing costs wont have to come out of the monthly paycheck.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Tomahawk 6: We are actually already fairly well paid in absolute dollar terms, with an annual "incentive" increase for each year in rank, and an annual "cost of living" increase.

Our military housing is handled differently from yours: we pay for our MQs, the rate graduated depending on our rank-junior ranks paying less for the same type of house. Although, unlike your Army, with very, very few exceptions there are no longer any "officer houses"-houses are usually allocated based on family size not on rank.

Depending on the average housing costs in the area we are stationed in, we can receive an Accomodation Assistance Allowance that can range from around 40 dollars/month to around 1,000/month. However, as only about 20% of our Regular Force actually lives in military housing, it really isn't a huge issue for the Govt or the military to do more about it. In the long run, the Dept intends to get completely out of the housing business altogether except for very isolated posts, of which we have only a tiny handful left.

Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 80,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,327
Thanks for the clarification.

E31

  • Guest
The PER system works on both performance and potential. A soldier can be an outstanding performer but have very little potential for the next rank, which I assume is the catergory you fall in. I too have 20 years in, am a WO and have sat on  many merit boards, both at the Tp level and Sqn. Many times the tie breaker on 2 soldiers who have rated high in the unit will be courses completed, OPME's etc. I have run into many people like you in the CF, who are wasting all their time and energy worrying about what the other guy is doing (ie completing Middle management course's,taking second language trg, improving their education) instead of taking a good hard look at their own file and seeing what can be done to improve themselves.

Their is nothing wrong with the PER system, it has improved over the years. What hasn't is soldiers like yourself. Enjoy retirement.

Offline Recce41

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 817
  • Yes, I'm a prick! What about it!
MSE
 If you felt you deserved better. You should have redressed your PER. What other job do you get off to take your kids to the doctor. Get 8 weeeks off payed (average). Get medical, and dental at a cheap cost for your family? Etc,etc.
 Most jobs only giver you 2 weeks off in summer, you cannot just take off, or med care. One of my BoLs got out, and hated it. A week off in the summer, and a week off at christmas. Yes he was payed 35$ an hr, but if you don't work, you don't get payed. One of our Sgts got out to drive truck. Well, he works 7 days a week, 12 h/d, with no real time off. Now he waits to get back in. (AS A CPL)
 PBI
 The graduated PMQ rate has been dropped. I pay the same as the Cpl next door.
Canadian Decoration,Chief of Defence Staff Commandation.Bold and Swift/Airborne

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,318
As you know there are 4 incentives as a Cpl and after that you have no pay increase without a promotion.
Well, there is the annual cost of living increase that comes from the government but that doesn't necessarily cover real cost of living increases.  I wonder if this isn't the primary cause of your bitterness.

In any case, I think it is generally accepted that there are many outstanding performers in the rank of Cpl that may not be suited (or may not want) to work as a leaders.  Why not introduce more incentives?  We have them for captains.

Why do dental hygenists and band personnel have automatic Sgt rank when their courses are compleat?
Good question.  Maybe it is time to review this practice.

Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases.
If the problem was identified on a PDR, then the member should have had chances to improve where they are lacking.  I prefer to be harder on PDRs because they have enough space for me to do so and because they give the member honest feed back on where to improve.  It also means that there should be no surprises for anyone at PDR time.  If something has been described as â Å“weakâ ? in several of the PDRs, then a relatively poor score can be expected on that assessment factor come PER time.  Likewise, if something has consistently been described as excellent, then that score can be expected.  If a soldier strongly disagrees with assessments, they can be disputed locally and before a PER is written.  However, if the assessment if fair, then the supervisor will have at least 3 PDR assessments on the soldier supporting the final assessment put on to the PER, and those three assessments will bear the approval of the assessor's supervisor.  Meaning that harassment labels would have to be thrown at least two levels in the CoC (more when one considers the section 6 review required in a poor PER).

The PER system works on both performance and potential. A soldier can be an outstanding performer but have very little potential for the next rank, which I assume is the category you fall in.
I think this is an important factor that is often overlooked in the writing process.  I've seen units conduct merit boards where members were ranked within their rank and then scores were assigned according to a bell curve (a process we are not supposed to do anymore, but which I suspect lives on anyway).  This process rarely allowed the writer to reflect an excellent performance but weak potential to advance.  Some soldiers deserve outstanding performance assessments without deserving the outstanding potential assessments.  Our PER system is designed to allow for this; it is up to the PER writers to ensure it is used this way.  (Note:  Potential also carries a greater weight toward the score because it is the most relevant to promotion suitability).

There are some problems with our PERs, but IMHO it is not with the system. The CFPAS system, if applied properly and completely  with properly run sub-unit and unit rating boards, is a very good one.

Agreed.

The real problem IMHO is with the people who lack the courage to rate people where they really should be.
I would argue that the real problem is an artificial expectation of improvement.  I've dealt with PER redresses that were solely based on â Å“but I did better on my last PER and some of the areas that I lost points were not mentioned in my PDRs.â ?  I have not seen this type of redress win but it reflects the mentality.  I've also seen this mentality reinforced through the ranking process where efforts have been made to ensure scores do not drop from previous years (another process we are no longer supposed to do, and one that I think we are a little better at than ranking).

Let's face it: the majority of people are average: no more. Average to me means you perform the duties expected of you in a competent manner, meet the standards set, do not screw up such as to harm the mission or the team, and are good to have around. Therefore, most people should be rated right around the middle. As well, we have a small but significant number of people whose performance is mediocre to marginal. They show little or no initiative, do not peform all of their duties adequately, do not meet the standards, and require more supervision than normal. They are not necessarily good team members. These people should  be rated below average, over towards the left side. Probably, they should be put on the RW/C&P/release track if no improvement is seen.
Unfortunately, in my experience, what happens is that within a year of issuing a new PER system, we have begun to debase it by dragging everybody over to the right side of the scale, regardless of what they have actually done or failed to do. "Average" becomes the baseline rating that we give out, no matter how inadequate a person's performance. People who should be rated as "average" or perhaps slightly above, begin to drift to the right. Once that rightward drift starts, it is hard to stop or reverse because that is seen as "harming" the individual, regardless of whether or not the person actually deserves the scores. Aggravating this is a belief (strongest, I am sorry to say, amongst some older WOs...) that a younger person in a rank level "should not" get rated above those with more seniority in rank. This IMHO is unionism plain and simple, and just as in the civvy unionized work world is the weapon of the lazy and complacent against the hardworking and dedicated.
 
I like that our PER system has specifically stayed away from a performance score of â Å“average,â ? which is relative and can vary based on the average training, experience, and personalities of the assessed rank group within a unit.  However, the threshold of unsatisfactory, capable, etc is more static.

I think it is fair to generalize that a soldier new in a rank will be learning the new responsibilities and likely receive a rating of â Å“Developing,â ? but I agree that this should not be the expected score.  I agree with your assessment that soldiers earning the unaccepted scores should be on the track to RW/C&P/release (or possibly on a track to reversion).  As long as we only promote those personnel that are ready and deserving, I think it is also fair to expect the number of soldiers consistently earning unacceptable scores to be far fewer than those earning above standard scores.  Basically, I think it is fair to assume â Å“developingâ ? should be the baseline score (however, this is still reasonably to the left).

I've been advised by various individuals that PERs should be justified (decide the score you want to give the soldier and align all the dots as far right as possible with that score).  The logic is that is presents a consistent performer to the selection boards & CM.  I find that to be a little bit of BS.  I've produced a few shotgun pattern PERs, but that is because the soldier's performance was all over the place.  Am I doing the guy a disservice?  Not as long as other PER authors are honest with the ones they write.




HONEST  <--  and there is the one word correct answer to fair PERs and a fair PER system.

Offline Recce41

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 817
  • Yes, I'm a prick! What about it!
MDg
 The trades that go right to Sgt after their 5s are concidered Professionals. This is to keep them. I have a friend that is a Dental  equipmant tech. He had to complete his 5s before the cash flowed. Also the promotion is very slow.
 Yes in the combat arms are slow also. But that is the person. Not because the trade is sooooo small. there is only 16 in the trade. As I am told. 1 MWO, 2 WOs, 5 sgts and 8 or so Cpls. You cannot have all of them MWOs? They are posted across Canada and 1 or 2 on tour.
Canadian Decoration,Chief of Defence Staff Commandation.Bold and Swift/Airborne

Offline DaveK

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
I feel that mentioning points for improvement on the PER is quite useless.  The PDR covers improvement points. 

Unfortunately as pbi and others have alluded, the PER is not perfect and does need some improvement.  As for writing ability and PER's are concerned, I know some people that have sat on actual merit/promotion/CFR selection, etc boards in Ottawa and they rarely have time to read the entire narrative portion.  If your SLR score combined with the other 40% of points for items such as education, second language etc. is unique or tied with two or three others, the narrative is rarely read. 

I think we do a disservice to subordinates who have aspirations for advancement when we write an 'honest' PER when we know that unit'X' is inflating scores for promotion of certain individuals.

The PER is truly the instrument for promotion, as we don't have exams or other criteria for promotion other than prerequisites.  If you want your subordinate promoted, a firewall PER will do it most of the time.  If you want an excellent soldier to become bitter with the system give him a few of those "I'm building you up year by year" numbers.  Troops love those. ;)


Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Quote
Not as long as other PER authors are honest with the ones they write.

There's the kicker--right there. Honesty by ALL PER writers.

Quote
I think we do a disservice to subordinates who have aspirations for advancement when we write an 'honest' PER when we know that unit'X' is inflating scores for promotion of certain individuals.

The PER is truly the instrument for promotion, as we don't have exams or other criteria for promotion other than prerequisites.  If you want your subordinate promoted, a firewall PER will do it most of the time.  If you want an excellent soldier to become bitter with the system give him a few of those "I'm building you up year by year" numbers.  Troops love those.


And here's an example of the effects of that lack of universal honesty: writing an "honest" PER is seen as a disservice to the individual who gets it, because some other bugger with no scruples is writing all his people "hard right" (and believe me we have organizations that are notorious for this practice...). The effect is the insidious and rapid ruination of the value of the rating system. A couple of years ago, our Comd LFWA (then BGen Ivan Fenton, a very fine officer) issued direction to all his subordinate commanders that we were to be honest and accurate in our assessments of people, particularly officers. He stated that we were not helping the Army by letting undeserving people slide through. (I once worked for a commander who seriously believed that everybody should get a good PER: IMHO if everybody is "good" then the term is debased and becomes meaningless. Everybody is not good, and both we and those individuals must realize it.) Have I been guilty of helping out my "dog in the fight"? Yes: sad to say, I have. Mea culpa, but that doesn't fix anything.

I have been on the receiving end of several complaints and grievances because of the PERs I have written, attempting to follow the Gen's guidance in being honest, fair and accurate. This experience has led me to believe that, yet again, lack of moral courage has put our rating system into the ditch. If people are weak: TELL THEM THEY ARE WEAK.  Then tell them what they need to do to get better, and help them to do it. If they pick up: great. If they don't..well--I already gave my course of action for that outcome. Sometimes I almost think we should go back to the days when we had a "ration" of score ratings per battalion, and every score had to be accounted for by the CO on a record sheet. It was an accounting nightmare, but maybe it had some restraining value on our natural inflationary tendencies.

Cheers
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline DaveK

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
pbi

Maybe some of the problem could stem from the fact that promotion or the recommendation thereof comes from some level bloody well next to Her Majesty.  What do you think if a Bde Comd had the authority to promote to Sgt or WO?

Cheers

Dave

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
pbi

Maybe some of the problem could stem from the fact that promotion or the recommendation thereof comes from some level bloody well next to Her Majesty. What do you think if a Bde Comd had the authority to promote to Sgt or WO?

Cheers

Dave

In the Army Reserve, the authority does reside with the Bde Comd. This works well: it polices the units (the Bde G1 staff must vet the promotion documentation for correctness and completeness before he Bde Comd signs it off), yet it speeds things up.In a number of cases the Bde Comd may know the indiv in question.

This is a not a system that developed rationally: it is rather a fortunate legacy of the fact that neither the Army Res nor NDHQ ever really wanted Res pers matters to go through NDHQ. The end result has been that the Army Res is able to resolve most of its pers issues within the Army chain of command, while us poor RegF guys are caught in the Purple People Eater. (You're talking to an undying foe of Unification-don't look to me for objective discourse on THAT subject!!!)

Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline NMPeters

  • Member
  • ****
  • 975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 247
  • Old Soldier
Whatever happened to the 6 month Personnel Development Review (PDR) which everyone is suppose to get in order to review their performance and improve in areas that may need improving before the PER is written? Has it gone by the wayside? And if it has, why am I staring at mine right now? (albeit a little late since we've been without a Project Director for the better part of this fiscal year). Aren't you all receiving yours? Now to answer some of those questions myself, I have been in this position for almost 4 years and this is only the 2nd PDR that I have seen/read/discussed/signed. I think if more effort was put into this document and interview, the ability to express less than stellar performance on the PER will be easier and it will also be justified thus stemming the fear of repercussions and/or grievances by those who have been rated low. It's very difficult to accept criticism from someone if they've never told you in the past that you are doing something wrong. I feel that the PDR should be mandatory (although it is suppose to be), even to the point of reprogramming the software to not allow a superior to write a PER on someone if the PDR hasn't been completed and registered...or something along those lines.

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
Quote
Whatever happened to the 6 month Personnel Development Review (PDR) which everyone is suppose to get in order to review their performance and improve in areas that may need improving before the PER is written? Has it gone by the wayside?

I can't speak for other units but I know we adhere to the 2-3 PDRs per year before giving a PER.  Even when we send personnel on task to a training center they arrive back with a PDR, heck I've gotten PDR for soldiers that were on task for less than a week.  So I like to think the rest of the army is pretty much in tune with this...but who knows? 

Quote
It's very difficult to accept criticism from someone if they've never told you in the past that you are doing something wrong.

Plus makes it easy for them to redress the PER and get it changed.  Not to mention it's hard to give a soldier a RW or put them on CP if they haven't been informed of their shortcomings and counselled.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,335
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Really Mike - you sure...

 Please locate mine for the past year  ;D


I've seen them (not mine others) and keep wondering where mine have gone...

Of course I alway found it funny that the sum (PER) did not add up to its parts (PDR's).  Come to think of it I always found it odd that a Cpl in a 2i/c position getting superior PDR's coudl get a lower PER than a non leadership positioned Cpl working in Coy HQ...





Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline 2023

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 645
Sorry boys, messed this one up!
"Even if you control the physical, you do not control the man. If you control his mind.........then you have him."

Offline garb811

  • Done like Dinner
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 35,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .

Directly from the CFPAS Help File:
Quote
Member's Responsibilities
To prepare for the discussion with the supervisor, members are asked to think of their strengths and weaknesses. The member also reviews Section 1 of the PDR Form in preparation for discussing the Critical Tasks and whether he/she has successfully met the Expected Results. In addition, the member completes Section 3 of the PDR Form by writing a list of accomplishments, which includes work-related and extracurricular activities the supervisor may or may not have observed. The member also completes Section 4, Member's Career Goals, by listing any career goals he/she has in terms of jobs, postings, courses, or other aspirations the member is striving for.

So for what it's worth at this point, you are now responsible for letting your supervisors know what your career goals are, short and long term, and this includes aspirations for promotion in my book, even if it isn't mentioned specifically.   In spite of this, I never fail to be amazed at the number of subordinates who will arrive at a PDR session with Section 3 and Section 4 either not filled out or done so poorly they shouldn't have bothered.   If they can't be bothered to put any effort into preparing for a critical element of their personal and professional development, it tells me a lot.

One place where you may be able to get a gold mine of information on "how to be promoted" is via the presentation the Career Managers give when they come for a visit.   I'm not sure how it is for other trades but our Career Manager always explains in detail how the points were allocated at the last merit board in Ottawa.   Although each board is different, in my Branch for the last "x" number of years there have always been the same items appearing, so if you pay attention you may find out what you need to do to get ahead of, or at least compete with, your peers.   If the Career Manager doesn't come to visit this year, go to their website, the presenation should be posted there for anyone to view.   Despite having this information, constant prompting during PDR sessions and general "harassment" from me to start implementing their action plan which generally includes the "must have" items from the CMs briefings, there are still those who are gobsmacked that Bloggins got promoted ahead of them even though they know Bloggins was taking night classes, coaching minor hockey and had gone on tour while they had been sitting at home watching Paris Hilton and eating Doritos because they had come up with yet another reason not to deploy, the only reason they send their kid to hockey is to get him out of their hair for a few hours a week and "they don't play that game because what should only count is what they do at work", never mind the skills they gain which are directly transferable to the CF by doing these "non-work" activities.

It's true that many still have difficulty in understanding the importance of the PDR cycle and implementing it, and like others have said, I have had maybe two PDRs since the system was introduced. The problem here is, as pbi pointed out, people writing PERs which are, when viewed critically, dishonest.   By the book, if you fail to follow the PDR cycle you should receive an Unacceptable score in "Evaluating and Developing Subordinates", which should pretty much rule out any thought of promotion for the next three years, yet we see those people being promoted the next year because their superiors overlook that "small" shortcoming as it's only the "PDR", he did get the PERs done on time...mostly".   After being burnt with a redress once, I now enforce the cycle on my subordinate leaders by setting a due date for them to complete the PDRs for their subordinates which, conviniently just before their PDR interview with me.   Fail to complete the cycle, guess what the first lines on "Areas for Development" and "Action Plan" are?   At that point I would have everything I would need to write an "honest" PER although thankfully it hasn't come to that...yet.

Finally, the best advice I ever received from my first Shift IC was "You're your own Career Manager, if you don't make things happen for yourself, no-one else will." and this has served me well throughout my career.

Edited to fix errors introduced by the Spell Checker...go figure.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2005, 08:29:31 by garb811 »