PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[George Wallace]

Haven't seen the email on the changes but the fact that they are proposing changes to the process this late in the reporting period is disconcerting.  I've already participated in unit ranking board discussions and drafted draft PERs already. May or Jun would have been a better time... unless these changes won't go into effect until the FY 14/15 PER season. Anyone know the answer to that?

Doesn't sound like a problem to me.  You have merited your people and drafted their PERs.  So what if the scoring 'table' has changed.  Use the new format to score to match your written assessments.  Too easy.  A new form or format is not going to change your Merit List nor demand major changes to your wording of the PER.

It sounds like you are ahead of the game, just waiting for the right form to fill in.

 

[DAA]

Never saw any emails on the topic yet but I did receive a quasi brief from some guy with Maple Leafs on the epilette and this is what spewed forth:

a.  Lt and below will no longer get PERs, as promotion to Capt is pretty much a "time in thing" much like going from Pte to Cpl is.  So it's a waste of resources managing these;
b.  Narratives will be allowed in "point form" as opposed to using proper gramatical sentence structure;
c.  CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;
d.  For PERs that are staffed, Merit Boards will now be conducted/managed by Environmental Commands based on occupations.  If your occupation is considered to be a "purple" trade, it will then still be managed by DGMC based on the current process.

Never got any info on implementation timings but I would think that we are too far into it to make the change now, so expect it to come for next years reporting cycle.

This sounds oh so similar to the Civilian Performance assessments of the 80's-90's.  Would you like a "Short Form Assesssment or a Long Form Assessment, Mrs Smith?"

 

[Transporter]

Doesn't sound like a problem to me.  You have merited your people and drafted their PERs.  So what if the scoring 'table' has changed.  Use the new format to score to match your written assessments.  Too easy.  A new form or format is not going to change your Merit List nor demand major changes to your wording of the PER.

It sounds like you are ahead of the game, just waiting for the right form to fill in.

I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out and make it all work... I've only written about 6000 PERs in my career. However, my point is if you're going to make changes to something (and I'm all for streamlining the PER process), the proper way to do it would be at the beginning of the reporting period, not the end. But that's just my opinion I guess.

 

[Jarnhamar]

What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?

 

[Transporter]

Never saw any emails on the topic yet but I did receive a quasi brief from some guy with Maple Leafs on the epilette and this is what spewed forth:

a.  Lt and below will no longer get PERs, as promotion to Capt is pretty much a "time in thing" much like going from Pte to Cpl is.  So it's a waste of resources managing these;
b.  Narratives will be allowed in "point form" as opposed to using proper gramatical sentence structure;
c.  CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;
d.  For PERs that are staffed, Merit Boards will now be conducted/managed by Environmental Commands based on occupations.  If your occupation is considered to be a "purple" trade, it will then still be managed by DGMC based on the current process.

Never got any info on implementation timings but I would think that we are too far into it to make the change now, so expect it to come for next years reporting cycle.

This sounds oh so similar to the Civilian Performance assessments of the 80's-90's.  Would you like a "Short Form Assesssment or a Long Form Assessment, Mrs Smith?"

I was thinking the same... sounds something like the Civilian Performance assessment process... can probably only opt out if performance has been satisfactory though... also, what if your rock star decides he/she doesn't want a PER?

Looking forward to seeing the email/CANFORGEN.

 

[DAA]

What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?

What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?

First thing, is "informal resolution".  It's all spelled out in black and white in the CFPAS Manual and it is available online.  ---> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp

I was thinking the same... sounds something like the Civilian Performance assessment process... can probably only opt out if performance has been satisfactory though... also, what if your rock star decides he/she doesn't want a PER?

Looking forward to seeing the email/CANFORGEN.

I too would like to see the "official notice" but until then, we all wait and carry on as per normal. 

From what I understand, "anyone" will be able to opt out.  So if you, as a supervisor, identify someone with "rockstar" potenttial for advancement, then it will most likely be incumbent upon you to convince them to "opt in", time will tell.

My first thoughts when I heard all of this, where.........    Wait a second, PERs are or were linked to TOS (Terms of Service) offers, wait a second, PERs are linked to predicted advancement and loading on Career Courses (QL 6, PLQ, ILQ, etc).  Where the heck are we heading with this?

 

[Jarnhamar]

First thing, is "informal resolution".  It's all spelled out in black and white in the CFPAS Manual and it is available online.  ---> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp

Thank you very much.

 

[PuckChaser]

But how are people refusing cost moves? I've gotten my share of posting messages that I didn't want, each time I told my career manager I wasn't happy, and I went anyway, because I was ordered to. My only other option was release.

Or I you just implying that people are playing the "if you post me I'll release" card? And that that move actually still works? That's not entirely on the member -- that's the decision of the career manager. And you can't AR someone for refusing a posting message that wasn't cut.

The one big example I know of is SigOp (ACISS now) trade going through an entire succession planning list of CWOs to post to 1 HQ&Sigs as the RSM only to get "No" all the way down the line. Eventually a Cbt Engineer CWO was posted into the position (seemed like a real nice guy when I met him), and all those CWOs in Sigs presumably stayed in the succession plan list.

I don't think cost-move refusal is something thats happening at the lower rank levels.

 

[McG]

CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;

So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?

 

[MJP]

So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opcan't t-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?

It doesn't seem so.  Everyone still gets a per, only MOI & Adverse get a potential rating.  Pers only opt out of being considered for promotion. 

 

[AmmoTech90]

The information I received on the opt-out option was that both parties will have to agree to opting out.  Therefore Cpl Bag O'hammers cannot opt out of getting a PER the year they were on C&P and charged and was a general screw up.  Personally I would write the regulations so that if someone has admin or disciplinary action against them a PER would be required.  My view of this option is that it is for the person with 25+ years in who is not getting promoted or sincerely doesn't want progression, or they have six months on their contract and a civvie job waiting.  It reduces the work load on supervisors and hopefully allows for more effort to be put into the PERs that are written.

This is not happening this year, it has received support at high levels, but the exact details are still to be worked out.  Everyone will still get PDRs, the PER is what can be omitted, MJP's process may be the way forward but it is different from what I was told.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The information I received on the opt-out option was that both parties will have to agree to opting out.  Therefore Cpl Bag O'hammers cannot opt out of getting a PER the year they were on C&P and charged and was a general screw up.  Personally I would write the regulations so that if someone has admin or disciplinary action against them a PER would be required.

Why?  For performance/conduct deficiencies, the mbr would have applic paperwork on file if they were on RMs, and their Conduct Sheet would reflect the disciplinary side.  IIRC, RM documents are scanned into PERMIS no?

Sure, a PER would be a nice 'tie up' but could be duplication of paperwork that isn't required.

This is not happening this year

That's not what my WCWO said.  I guess time will tell.  Or, perhaps it will be done in the manner the FORCE test replaced EXRPES; instructions out now, but come into play after this PER season (which would make sense).

 

[AmmoTech90]

By not this year I meant this FY (13/14).

 

[PuckChaser]

So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?

The email stated the CO would have to sign off an exemption PER which would cue the "opt out". I would hope the CoC would notify the CO that said member should not be allowed to Opt Out due to poor performance.

 

[McG]

Why?  For performance/conduct deficiencies, the mbr would have applic paperwork on file if they were on RMs, and their Conduct Sheet would reflect the disciplinary side.  IIRC, RM documents are scanned into PERMIS no?

Sure, a PER would be a nice 'tie up' but could be duplication of paperwork that isn't required.

Merit boards see neither admin measures from the pers file nor conduct sheets.  Therefore, a year of spectacular failure could be hidden if a PER is not written.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Seen.  Didn't realize that.

 

[GnyHwy]

From my understanding, opting out is much the same as tapping out.  You are essentially recognizing that you will not or do not desire to go any higher in rank, and are relieving the CoC of the burden of doing your PER. 

I do agree with this, as this should reduce a tonne of unnecessary administration.  Only persons in promotion zone or with the potential to enter the promotion zone need to be written.

For poor performers, there are plenty of other measures to deal with that, other than a crappy PER.

For Lts and below and Cpl and below, I am understanding that the eventual intent is for the Unit COs to promote their own.

The part that gets me is point form format.  I can't understand why it is necessary. Is this a way to level the playing field, whereas exceptional writers don't have an advantage in writing their own persons? Or where poor writer's aren't disadvantaged in writing their own persons?  Or perhaps, letting supervisors off the hook for bad grammar; and their supervisors not having to correct them?

I never understood why it would be so difficult to fill a few paragraphs about a person's entire year long performance.  If you can't fill that little block with things that person has done in an entire year, then they haven't done much!

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I admit, I am still digesting these potential changes but I do see some good here. Let's face it; the bulk of the trades are up-or-out. What if a technician just wants to get dirty turning wrenches all day or a cook wants to learn a million and one ways to flip omelettes every day - We don't have a system to accommodate these people on a pan-CF basis. I will use an example I am VERY familiar with at the FMF here in Halifax for the Navy. If your ship is entering a SWP and your are an HR Unit, when you request support for diesel work you just might luck out and get the "A-team" (Also known as the two Ronnies and those in the know on here, will indeed KNOW who I mean). These are two of the head guys and are both ex MS/PO2 who did not want to advance up the food chain any higher so here they are now and we are paying them a 40% pension and a salary around $50+K a year (I am estimating these numbers admittedly) when we could have retained them and had them "opt out" and remain as maintainers/maintenance supervisors. Too often, I am sure, people joining to make a career of it see the recruiting video which really only encompasses your job to the MS/MCpl level at which point you start assuming managerial roles of sorts. I know we have a few career LS/Cpls and I dare say, the corporate knowledge they have is invaluable in most cases.
This is my perception only of this "opt out" possibility. Will it create nightmares for CMs and Occ Mgrs? - You bet it will but I daresay, we have tried for years to sustain some of the trades using 'conventional' methods. Maybe we need to start thinking WAY outside the box.
...Again, the two cents worth from a long in the tooth stoker seeing WAY TOO many good people (Many of you on these forums) move to private industry because all they want to do is fix diesels, or gas turbines, or hydraulic systems or...I think you get it.

Pat

 

[armyvern]

I admit, I am still digesting these potential changes but I do see some good here. Let's face it; the bulk of the trades are up-or-out. What if a technician just wants to get dirty turning wrenches all day or a cook wants to learn a million and one ways to flip omelettes every day - We don't have a system to accommodate these people on a pan-CF basis. ...
Pat

Sure we do; I have a couple of stars who've essentially "opted out" of career progression.  All it takes is a memorandum stating that you do not wish to progress up in rank which I then send to careers.  AR is done, and message is cut to member acknowledging their desire.  Message placed on pers file and file in Ottawa.  Now, in the "potential" block of their PER, I write only "Although XXXX shows outstanding potential for promotion, member does not wish to progress further IAW message DMILC XXXX XX".  The same process is applicable for all members of the CF - thus it is "pan-CF".

Members are also advised that if they wish to "opt back in" that all they need is a memo stating such sent back up to careers.  The first troop that I ever had who did this was ~2001ish and I currently have two more who've done same (we're a Pri 2 HR Deployable Unit).  Both Loggies, neither Sup Techs.

 

[Ostrozac]

ArmyVern,

That's an interesting, and more formal, way to stop career advancement than what I'm familiar with.

What's I've seen happen currently is less formal -- when CFR'd Captains don't bother doing AJOSQ or CAFJOD, or when experienced Majors or MWOs don't speak a word of French, that results in the member not getting ranked anywhere near the top of the unit merit list. And therefore their PER never has scores good enough to make it to promotion board. So the member never gets a promotion offer that they would refuse.

Now, in these examples, I expect the member would already be on IPS, and would be quite happy to serve in their current rank until a retirement date of their choosing. But the elephant in the room is probably how do you go about doing IPS offers for a member who has opted out of career progression earlier in their career? Is an official opt-out message on their file the kiss of death for them when their file gets looked at in their 22nd and 23rd year of service?