CANFORGEN on Pay and PIL

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Oh I get the way it should work,.......but it's just "hinky" to me that someone was impressive enough to promote even before being loaded on a course but because they fail that course they are "undeserving".

Didn't mean to derail this thread though.........

 

[TwoTonShackle]

Interesting way of thought..............so the qualifications of leadership are far more important then actual leadership??    What a course staff of 5/6 people think is more important then what the individual units know?

It is not what the staff thinks, it is the QS they are held to.  If there is any leeway or wiggle room that the staff can use, 9 times out of 10 the decision goes in benefit of the student, and that 1 out of 10 usually has good reason behind it.

 

[392]

It doesn't happen a lot but some of these A/L MCpls fail PLQ.  You then have to reload them as soon as possible so they can keep the rank and do the job they are posted into. This pushes more people back. Occasionally a mbr fails two or three times and losses the rank.

This is an interesting comment. Failure of a career course should be triggering an AR, so how are these individuals being reloaded added ASAP? And failure two or three times? Huh?

Every PY in the CAF has competencies, language profile and minimum ranks attached to them. If a member doesn't have the courses that are a requirement of that position, they should not be posted into it.

 

[armyvern]

In my trade, those who wear the Cdn Army uniform are constantly waiting up to 18 months just to get loaded onto the DL portion of their PLQ.  Meanwhile, my new MCpls who wear the RCN and RCAF uniform have usually completed both the DL and Attendance portions by 18 months post-promotion date.

So, it ain't a careers problem.  Seems to be an Army problem to me and, it seems, they are who need to sort their shit out.  Pretty hard for our career managers to make it a pre-req to be required PRIOR to putting up the rank when most of those Cdn Army uniform wearing guys of mine are actual higher on the ML and due for promotion ahead of those RCAF and RCN wearing uniform troops.  Do the RCAF and RCN get promoted ahead of guys higher on the list (because they get their courses loaded quicker) because the Army can't sort it's shit out?

How is that fair to the one's whose potential and performance was actually higher? 

 

[PMedMoe]

Thinking this thread needs a split....

 

[ballz]

Interesting way of thought..............so the qualifications of leadership are far more important then actual leadership??    What a course staff of 5/6 people think is more important then what the individual units know?

I just got back from Petawawa as a Course O for a PLQ-A. Over half of my course was an A/MCpl.

Overall, I'll say the CSS pers on my course earned a healthy dose of respect from me. The new command team at Leadership Coy is willing to hold the bar high and we ran a tough course. I thought we would end up seeing a lot more RTUs than we did just from the stress we put on the candidates, and by the the end of the course they were in a lot rougher shape than I would have guessed because I thought a lot of them would have quit before getting to that point. Some weren't all that strong with the course material but they did show a lot of drive and stepped up to the plate in their leadership tasks, so we could look past the fact that they couldn't plan the perfect recce patrol or what have you.

But, with some of the candidates we saw, it showed me that there is certainly merit in having a third-party mentor, develop, and evaluate the leadership abilities of these folks, and that the units can't be 100% relied upon to do this themselves. Some of the candidates could be great at their trade, whether its fixing vehicles or what have you, but shouldn't ever be put in a leadership position...

It would have been nice if the units took care of that part and ensured they weren't loaded on the course, maybe those with leadership potential who are in the queue could have been loaded instead if the units did that part of their job. So I guess the question is, what measures are in place for a unit to do this? Other than the PER system which we've completely ruined (at least in my trade)? To me the only thing available is administrative action, which really can't be justified if the person is doing a good job as a follower.

It is not what the staff thinks, it is the QS they are held to.  If there is any leeway or wiggle room that the staff can use, 9 times out of 10 the decision goes in benefit of the student, and that 1 out of 10 usually has good reason behind it.

Pretty accurate assessment from the one experience I had running this course.

Thinking this thread needs a split....

Agreed, and it is a topic worth discussing...

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I just got back from Petawawa as a Course O for a PLQ-A. Over half of my course was an A/MCpl.

Overall, I'll say the CSS pers on my course earned a healthy dose of respect from me. The new command team at Leadership Coy is willing to hold the bar high and we ran a tough course. I thought we would end up seeing a lot more RTUs than we did just from the stress we put on the candidates, and by the the end of the course they were in a lot rougher shape than I would have guessed because I thought a lot of them would have quit before getting to that point. Some weren't all that strong with the course material but they did show a lot of drive and stepped up to the plate in their leadership tasks, so we could look past the fact that they couldn't plan the perfect recce patrol or what have you.

But, with some of the candidates we saw, it showed me that there is certainly merit in having a third-party mentor, develop, and evaluate the leadership abilities of these folks, and that the units can't be 100% relied upon to do this themselves. Some of the candidates could be great at their trade, whether its fixing vehicles or what have you, but shouldn't ever be put in a leadership position...

It would have been nice if the units took care of that part and ensured they weren't loaded on the course, maybe those with leadership potential who are in the queue could have been loaded instead if the units did that part of their job. So I guess the question is, what measures are in place for a unit to do this? Other than the PER system which we've completely ruined (at least in my trade)? To me the only thing available is administrative action, which really can't be justified if the person is doing a good job as a follower.

Pretty accurate assessment from the one experience I had running this course.

Agreed, and it is a topic worth discussing...

The units can develop, mentor, coddle and evaluate leadership potential all we want, but at the end of the day, it's the career manager's call who gets put on career courses.

It's really a problem with the system. I have to honestly evaluate someone on performance, and there are many people who perform incredibly at their rank, but likely won't make good leaders.
The potential side of the PER becomes the issue, and if someone shows up to your unit with a high immediate PER, there's not a whole lot you can do. If you disagree with the leadership potential and try to correct the score downwards they will argue that potential shouldn't change downwards year to year (an argument that has definite merit, if they had potential last year they have the same potential this year, barring anything extraordinary). They can grieve it, and they'd likely win, but the grievence will likely be stopped at the OC/CO level and the potential changed back, especially if the person had decent performance.

Long story short, the PER system, despite all the cosmetic changes, hasn't changed. People will see their points gradually move right year to year and eventually the career manager will promote and load them on a PLQ, regardless.

 

[George Wallace]

The units can develop, mentor, coddle and evaluate leadership potential all we want, but at the end of the day, it's the career manager's call who gets put on career courses.

It's really a problem with the system. I have to honestly evaluate someone on performance, and there are many people who perform incredibly at their rank, but likely won't make good leaders.
The potential side of the PER becomes the issue, and if someone shows up to your unit with a high immediate PER, there's not a whole lot you can do. If you disagree with the leadership potential and try to correct the score downwards they will argue that potential shouldn't change downwards year to year (an argument that has definite merit, if they had potential last year they have the same potential this year, barring anything extraordinary). They can grieve it, and they'd likely win, but the grievence will likely be stopped at the OC/CO level and the potential changed back, especially if the person had decent performance.

Long story short, the PER system, despite all the cosmetic changes, hasn't changed. People will see their points gradually move right year to year and eventually the career manager will promote and load them on a PLQ, regardless.

In a way I agree with you.  However, it still is up to you to evaluate your pers as you see fit (being honest and truthful in doing so).  Although the person in your example may have had a glowing PER in their last Posting, when matched up with their current peers under you, they may not shine so well.  It is up to you to be fair to all your subordinates and rank them fairly.  There should therefore be no potential of someone grieving a PER if it is well documented through the PDRs leading up to it.  Unit Merit Boards should also be a means to control pers without the leadership qualities desired from progressing and being promoted ahead of their more deserving peers; and a means to stop inflated PERs for pers simply for the reason that their previous PER was higher.  There is nothing stating that a person's PER MUST BE higher than their last one.   

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I agree that there is a belief (within the army at least) that PER scores have to always improve. But, as you stated, the PER process is a yearly evaluation, and past PERs are to have no bearing on the current years scores. I've seen cases where people came in over-inflated (an example being a unit that had almost all their captains, including those not DP 2 qualified as MOI) and had to be busted down afterwards to a level more fitting their abilities at that moment in time. As noted, it's the supervisors reponsibility to put out PDRs that justify WHY the member is decreasing in their meriting for that year.

[/quote]

The potential side of the PER becomes the issue, and if someone shows up to your unit with a high immediate PER, there's not a whole lot you can do. If you disagree with the leadership potential and try to correct the score downwards they will argue that potential shouldn't change downwards year to year (an argument that has definite merit, if they had potential last year they have the same potential this year, barring anything extraordinary). They can grieve it, and they'd likely win, but the grievence will likely be stopped at the OC/CO level and the potential changed back, especially if the person had decent performance.

[/quote]

People's potential changes all the time. Sometimes the progress they made in the past plateau's, sometimes they degress, and sometimes the potential of their peers grows at a faster rate than their own, pushing the individual down. Same goes for their performance. That's why this is a yearly evaluation.

 

[ballz]

The units can develop, mentor, coddle and evaluate leadership potential all we want, but at the end of the day, it's the career manager's call who gets put on career courses.

But based on what? The PERs? The units have control of the PER system. The PDR/PER system is not as much broken as the leaders who are supposed to use it. All the tools are there to ensure that junk pers do not get promoted, but requires the leadership to have some spine.

I have an example coming up this year. I have a person who is about to receive their first PER in their current rank. They haven't been pure junk, but they sure have proven that they shouldn't be in the rank they are in and they must never, EVER, be promoted again. They have 3 PDRs now, first was "good" and the last two "standard" with a 5b section that was stronger than the 5a section. Given that they are not responding at all feedback from all sources (subordinates, peers, and superiors) and have decided that the problem is really their superiors (me), I'll be surprised if they aren't on IC for performance by the time 31 March rolls around.

Their PER score just came back as an ESAAR because of the pure weakness that exists outside of my control. I can quite confidently assure you that they will get an SND. Not because I've got it out for them, but because their shortcomings have been documented and the direct and honest feedback they have received has been documented. Although my OC is tracking his shortcomings, when I go to him to get the score changed, he will want to see what we've got, and it will be provided to him.

I didn't enjoy issuing those PDRs, I didn't enjoy the tough conversations, and I didn't enjoy having to look another person in the face and tell him he's not performing very well. It was even less enjoyable because I didn't feel like he *could* improve, because he never should be at the rank level he is at.

But I did all of those things, because it's the tough part of being a leader and I knew it was the right thing to do. The fact that all those before me passed the buck meant they put him in this position where he is in way over his head. The buck they passed landed on my desk and at some point someone has to grow a set or this person will end up as RSM of the CAF.

Having failed to do this properly last year, I've been a little wiser this year. I learned from my failure and forced myself to have the tough conversations and issue the tough PDRs. For some reason, too many people find it easier to sleep at night knowing they are passing the buck on this responsibility.

Unit Merit Boards should also be a means to control pers without the leadership qualities desired from progressing and being promoted ahead of their more deserving peers; and a means to stop inflated PERs for pers simply for the reason that their previous PER was higher.  There is nothing stating that a person's PER MUST BE higher than their last one. 

In my unit, its the unit merit board that causes the most problems from what I've seen... We have the scores *dictated* to us by the Bn. Last year one of my corporals was ranked #1 in the company and no one disagreed. The OC/CSM went to the unit merit board and were happy with where he placed Bn-wide. Then the scores got sent back and our #1 Corporal was now #7 within our own company!  :clubinhand:

 

[kratz]

As an LS, I had to fail MCpl(MedAs), PO1s, CPO2(Divers) and LCdrs in my role as a First Aid Instructor-Trainer.
Nobody ever enjoyed hearing they did not pass the standard. As a junior rank, if I was ensuring the safety and standards are met, why can't the annual assesment at least do it job?

 

[sidemount]

In my unit, its the unit merit board that causes the most problems from what I've seen... We have the scores *dictated* to us by the Bn. Last year one of my corporals was ranked #1 in the company and no one disagreed. The OC/CSM went to the unit merit board and were happy with where he placed Bn-wide. Then the scores got sent back and our #1 Corporal was now #7 within our own company!  :clubinhand:

I ran into the same problem, I had a top Cpl but during boards some of the junk leadership played other people way up.....with absolute BS. and my arguments were tossed aside as I was younger and fairly new to the unit. My member was put down. I had a WTF moment with my bosses....didn't get anywhere.
Because my PDRs were very detailed, and showed the areas where the member should have been M and O, I encouraged the member to grieve it.....the member put in their NOI to grieve.....and sure enough, didn't even have to grieve it, the NOI was enough to get the CoC sorted and get the member the points they deserve.

 

[upandatom]

In my trade, those who wear the Cdn Army uniform are constantly waiting up to 18 months just to get loaded onto the DL portion of their PLQ.  Meanwhile, my new MCpls who wear the RCN and RCAF uniform have usually completed both the DL and Attendance portions by 18 months post-promotion date.

So, it ain't a careers problem.  Seems to be an Army problem to me and, it seems, they are who need to sort their crap out.  Pretty hard for our career managers to make it a pre-req to be required PRIOR to putting up the rank when most of those Cdn Army uniform wearing guys of mine are actual higher on the ML and due for promotion ahead of those RCAF and RCN wearing uniform troops.  Do the RCAF and RCN get promoted ahead of guys higher on the list (because they get their courses loaded quicker) because the Army can't sort it's crap out?

How is that fair to the one's whose potential and performance was actually higher?

It took me 18 Months to complete All Portions, and while on the MOD 3/4 we had 8 Reg Force of 48 Candidates. (Army PLQ.) There are more army reserve units, they take up a large amount of course spots available to candidates.

 

[BinRat55]

As an LS, I had to fail MCpl(MedAs), PO1s, CPO2(Divers) and LCdrs in my role as a First Aid Instructor-Trainer.
Nobody ever enjoyed hearing they did not pass the standard. As a junior rank, if I was ensuring the safety and standards are met, why can't the annual assesment at least do it job?

Interesting. In my 10+ years of teaching First Aid I have taught children (cadets) Ground Search and Rescue to groups over 60 years old, nurses and doctors... I could go on... I have never failed anyone. Let alone a LCdr!! Sometimes if you have to fail people, you need only look as far as the instructor. SOMETIMES...

 

[CountDC]

nice hijacking  ;D

Just recieved an email from an associate that was questioning a rumoured pay increase for civilians.  Of course I have to check.  Has anyone heard anything?

 

[BinRat55]

You like that? 

I have heard rumours of a slightly possible strike... only rumours tho...

 

[jollyjacktar]

No whispers in my place of work in that regard.  The ratio of civ/mil is high.  I'll keep my ears cocked.

 

[dapaterson]

Under the Caretaker Convention, it;s unlikely that any agreement with any PS union would be signed during an election period.

 

[Old EO Tech]

I'd just be happy if we got any sort of moderate cost of living increase for the past two years....I don't think the TB would be injuring it's fight with the PS over sick days by doing this...

 

[BinRat55]

I'd just be happy if we got any sort of moderate cost of living increase for the past two years....

I know, isn't it terrible!! I can barely afford my BMW payments and we have been reduced to one trip to Mexico now  . I may have to get a real job...