PERs : All issues questions...2018-current

[Mediman14]

I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.

Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true!

I swear this stuff only happens in my trade!

 

[garb811]

I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.

Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true!

I swear this stuff only happens in my trade!

While theoretically it is possible to see a low performing/high potential PER, it is unlikely.  The whole point of the potential portion is to try to forecast if someone is able to effectively perform the duties of the next rank level.  If they are unable to perform at a level above most of their peers in their current rank, it is going to be almost impossible to substantiate a high score in potential.

 

[Halifax Tar]

While theoretically it is possible to see a low performing/high potential PER, it is unlikely.  The whole point of the potential portion is to try to forecast if someone is able to effectively perform the duties of the next rank level.  If they are unable to perform at a level above most of their peers in their current rank, it is going to be almost impossible to substantiate a high score in potential.

I think what you are really expressing is the current situation of abuse and misuse of our PER system and their scoring methods. 

Performance can hinge on many things.  And it is not indicative potential.  If you are writing a PER for a new MCpl, who was also accelerated to Cpl previously,  has performed excellently their whole career but know has only say 3 months in rank is it wrong to say they have a high potential to succeed at the next rank while still learning the ropes of their new rank ? 

That MCpl is not in EPZ and still has 2-3 years to express performance while still maintaining the potential to succeed at higher ranks. 

What about the reverse where performance is high, but the member lacks the potential to succeed at the next rank ?  This would fall in line with the technical Cpl who is great at their primary function but does not hold the qualities to lead people.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Performance can hinge on many things.  And it is not indicative potential.  If you are writing a PER for a new MCpl, who was also accelerated to Cpl previously,  has performed excellently their whole career but know has only say 3 months in rank is it wrong to say they have a high potential to succeed at the next rank while still learning the ropes of their new rank ? 

I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.  :2c:

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.  :2c:

Don't forget EPZ is going to hold people in rank for at the very least minimum time, then they join in competition with their peers where many many other factors come into play.  Could not their performance grow over the years to match a steady outstanding potential ?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".

Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.

Yes on the steady potential thing.  The problem I see, particularly in my trade at the MCpl level right now, is people are getting promoted faster than they should be or the wrong people are being promoted for the wrong reasons and then it becomes obvious the promotion was too early.

Overall, I see a NCM/NCO corps who is weak in things like admin, GSK, the 3 Ds, etc ; if we promote these people too fast without time to grow, we will only suck that lack of knowledge into the Sgt and WOs/Petty Officer world as well (actually it has already happened...but we can mitigate it some...I hope).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".

Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.

Yes on the steady potential thing.  The problem I see, particularly in my trade at the MCpl level right now, is people are getting promoted faster than they should be or the wrong people are being promoted for the wrong reasons and then it becomes obvious the promotion was too early.

Overall, I see a NCM/NCO corps who is weak in things like admin, GSK, the 3 Ds, etc ; if we promote these people too fast without time to grow, we will only suck that lack of knowledge into the Sgt and WOs/Petty Officer world as well (actually it has already happened...but we can mitigate it some...I hope).

Ya I am not arguing that this is correct COA more that it can happen and it is reasonable to expect such.

Nothing guarantees ones performance in the future, having said that past performance is generally what we base our expectations of the future expectations on.

 

[Mediman14]

I know on countless times, I have had Jnr NCO's ask "How come my performance is less this year than last year, that's not right!" I always end up trying to explain to them that their performance can change year from year for whatever reason and they should never based their previous PER with the current one.

I wouldn't use the word wrong, but I would use the word premature in that statement and then I'd say, yes.  If someone is still learning the ropes of their new rank (meaning they are not proficient and/or comfortable yet), IMO I am not doing them a favour by saying "hey, I think you're ready for the Snr NCO/WO and Sgts Mess world" that early in their development as a Jr NCO.  :2c:

I have to agree with Eye in the Sky saying that if you are still learning the ropes in a new Rank, then you are not ready for the next. Unfortunately most people in my neck of the woods doesn't believe in that! If you didn't give them a good first PER then you are in their "bad books". They think you are hindering their career instead of helping them in the long run. Thank God for the EPZ! I honestly feel that knowledge is a powerful thing a person could have, you would be more respected than the person in the leadership position with little or no knowledge!

 

[TCM621]

I am just curious if anyone ever seen a PER with very low performance with high potential? I guess anything is possible, but just wondering.
I know personnally I have many people have great or even mastered performance with normal to low potential.

Then I have seen "NO" right across the board and sent to senior leadership in Ottawa for signature. I think it was harder to proof that particular PER than it was for a 1st year Cpl and WO to have an MOI. Yes that is true!

I swear this stuff only happens in my trade!

I have never actually seen one before but I have seen a lot of times it could be used. A good example would be a Sgt remustering as a Cpl, he clearly would (should) have the leadership potential despite not having the performance in this new job.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have never actually seen one before but I have seen a lot of times it could be used. A good example would be a Sgt remustering as a Cpl, he clearly would (should) have the leadership potential despite not having the performance in this new job.

A great example.  I wish I had thought of it.

I know on countless times, I have had Jnr NCO's ask "How come my performance is less this year than last year, that's not right!" I always end up trying to explain to them that their performance can change year from year for whatever reason and they should never based their previous PER with the current one.

I have to agree with Eye in the Sky saying that if you are still learning the ropes in a new Rank, then you are not ready for the next. Unfortunately most people in my neck of the woods doesn't believe in that! If you didn't give them a good first PER then you are in their "bad books". They think you are hindering their career instead of helping them in the long run. Thank God for the EPZ! I honestly feel that knowledge is a powerful thing a person could have, you would be more respected than the person in the leadership position with little or no knowledge!

I think you equating potential with immediately ready for promotion.  One can show great potential but not be ready at this time.  My Cpl in my last unit is an excellent example.  Almost limitless potential; but hes not ready yet.  But there is a high degree of potentiality that he will be soon.

 

[garb811]

On pondering this discussion for a bit...

Like it or not, given the current state of affairs, people are, and will continue to be, promoted too quickly compared to what many of us experienced simply because of the gaping holes that are littered throughout the rank structures of various trades due to attrocious human resource management and attrition forecasting.

At this point I kind of look at things as taking a risk on those who I do see potential in vice simply accepting the fact that someone who isn't ready, at all, and who has demonstrated little to no real potential in the big scheme of things is going to get promoted via the numbers game.

Not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination but that isn't the fault of CFPAS or even, in many cases, supervisors who are just trying to make the best of a terrible situation.  End of the day when the vast majority of your personnel in a trade are spending minimum amount of time in rank before being promoted anyway, maybe being a bit generous with a subordinate with visible potential isn't as bad as it looks. 

 

[TCM621]

Yup,  I know that.  I also consider that their performance "now" isn't a guarantee of their performance "tomorrow".

Not many MCpl/MS's are going to demonstrate they are an Immediate for the Snr NCO/Petty Officer world in 3 months, IMO.  As  you said, they're not even comfortable with the Leaf in most cases.

Yes on the steady potential thing.  The problem I see, particularly in my trade at the MCpl level right now, is people are getting promoted faster than they should be or the wrong people are being promoted for the wrong reasons and then it becomes obvious the promotion was too early.

Overall, I see a NCM/NCO corps who is weak in things like admin, GSK, the 3 Ds, etc ; if we promote these people too fast without time to grow, we will only suck that lack of knowledge into the Sgt and WOs/Petty Officer world as well (actually it has already happened...but we can mitigate it some...I hope).

One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.

I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On pondering this discussion for a bit...

Like it or not, given the current state of affairs, people are, and will continue to be, promoted too quickly compared to what many of us experienced simply because of the gaping holes that are littered throughout the rank structures of various trades due to attrocious human resource management and attrition forecasting.

At this point I kind of look at things as taking a risk on those who I do see potential in vice simply accepting the fact that someone who isn't ready, at all, and who has demonstrated little to no real potential in the big scheme of things is going to get promoted via the numbers game.

Not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination but that isn't the fault of CFPAS or even, in many cases, supervisors who are just trying to make the best of a terrible situation.  End of the day when the vast majority of your personnel in a trade are spending minimum amount of time in rank before being promoted anyway, maybe being a bit generous with a subordinate with visible potential isn't as bad as it looks.

I think you are right.  And CFPAS is not the problem, we are as the users.  We have abused it and caused massive over inflation.  Who hasn't been in a bun toss where they see unit/sect/sqn cluster f**k getting immediate PERs ?  When I was a LS I had Sgt explain to me that the knock on effect from that Cpl Cluster f**k getting over inflated PERs is now all the other folks have to inflate theirs higher to try and keep garbage from rising to the top. 

One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.

I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.

This isn't just the RCAF its pretty much SOP for all Log Trades and has been for the entirety of my 19 years and counting.  First you get promoted then you gain the pre-requisite quals. 

 

[Furniture]

One of the things I have noticed in the Airforce is they seem to promote NCMs acting lacking a lot. They haven't been taught how to perform at the next level. PLQ is a great place to teach all the things I see NCOs lacking. Now from what I can tell Airforce PLQ is seen as a waste of time, it is virtually unfailable and most of it is done in the DLN. Most of the people I have seen promoted to Sgt and even WO are taking their pre-requiste courses after promotion, as well.

I would love to see a pre-requiste actually be required for promotion and in the rare case of a shortage AWSE could be used instead. I would also like to see any leadership courses aim for about a 70% pass rate. Some people should fail leadership courses. Maybe the guy is drinking buddies with his chain of command so he gets written up well but can't lead his way out of a paper bag. Once he gets away from his buddies, that would show. If he failed his buddies would be forced to assess him properly, if for no other reason than to help him pass the next time.

The problem with making a course an absolute requirement before promotion is that many times a member isn't able to go on course due to lack of training space, or operational requirements. So people that should advance would be held back, and members who are less "operational" would advance. Or by posting message a career would be held back because their unit isn't able to spare them when another unit can easily absorb the loss of a member for a month or two.

An example of that is my trade, where one unit has around 80 positions assigned to staff a 24/7 office with multiple(4-5) pers on a shift. My office has at best seven people to maintain a 24/7 office with one person on shift. As soon as MELs, leave, and personnel shortages are added, sending people on course is almost impossible. Now include the 5 1/2 month career course required to be a substantive MCpl and it is impossible to send troops on training.

Should troops be denied the chance at promotion because their unit can't let them attend a PLQ/ILP?

 

[dapaterson]

Should troops be denied the chance at promotion because their unit can't let them attend a PLQ/ILP?

Should troops be denied the chance at training because their higher CoC won't resource level to permit their absence?

 

[SupersonicMax]

If it will bring operational capacity to an unacceptable level?  Absolutely.

 

[TCM621]

Furnitures argument is the most common one I hear but I have to agree with you. It's a career course, make it work. If you can't afford to send a guy on a 6 week course, you are past failure point.

Should troops be denied the chance at training because their higher CoC won't resource level to permit their absence?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If it will bring operational capacity to an unacceptable level?  Absolutely.

There has to be a trade-off.  My trade and unit, if you don't come into the Sqn having PLQ as a remuster, and you merit, you will be an A/L MCpl.  Then, they have what...2 years max? to get the full qual or they revert.

We don't have that many flying positions, really, in the big scheme of things.  If we never sent people on PLQ because of "op tempo/requirements", we'd never send anybody.  Of the 5 MCpl's I have right now, all of them are A/L.  Our unit won't sign off their Lead appointment (required CO appointment IAW the FOM) unless they have PLQ (even though FIC would be the better required qual...that's a different story...).  If we don't send them, we don't produce Leads.  If we don't produce Leads, we don't put crews out the door and we don't create space for new B cats to move onto crews...so sometimes you have to "go slow now" so you can "go fast later"... :2c:

I don't remember a single person from our Sqn going on PLQ during Oct 2014 - present (the busy IMPACT times and immediate time following).  We're feeling that now with 5 A/Ls who have to go soon.

Heck, do they even load Cpl's on PLQ anymore, or is the A/L backlog not taking over the loading priority?

 

[Furniture]

Furnitures argument is the most common one I hear but I have to agree with you. It's a career course, make it work. If you can't afford to send a guy on a 6 week course, you are past failure point.

What do you do when a trade is at or past the failure point in several locations? Stop promotions and make a bad retention problem even worse? Easy to say it's the way it should be when you aren't the one being held back compared to your peers by virtue of a posting message and not your performance.

Having A/L ranks are not ideal, but with mentorship and guidance from their supervisors a Jr. leader should be able to pick up 99.99% of what the CF PLQ teaches. If you are learning anything shocking or new on PLQ your leadership up to that point has failed miserably in my opinion.

CFPAS is imperfect, but at least the PER process is slowly improving by getting away from being a writing competition between bosses in different units. I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.

 

[TCM621]

What do you do when a trade is at or past the failure point in several locations? Stop promotions and make a bad retention problem even worse? Easy to say it's the way it should be when you aren't the one being held back compared to your peers by virtue of a posting message and not your performance.

Having A/L ranks are not ideal, but with mentorship and guidance from their supervisors a Jr. leader should be able to pick up 99.99% of what the CF PLQ teaches. If you are learning anything shocking or new on PLQ your leadership up to that point has failed miserably in my opinion.

CFPAS is imperfect, but at least the PER process is slowly improving by getting away from being a writing competition between bosses in different units. I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.

If you are at a failure point, promoting unqualified people won't help. They still need to take the course and then you lose an even more important person because you tend to have less people at each rank level. I totally agree that PLQ is a bit of a waste but it has been watered down to virtually a guaranteed pass course. Make PLQ difficult and make people actually go on course and be put in charge every day with immediately feedback as to their shortcomings. Use that time to properly teach the CFPAS system, administration, the importance of dress and deportment, etc.

Part of the problem is that leadership often have no idea how this stuff works because they were never taught. I can't tell you how many Senior NCOs I know who don't actually know how CFPAS works or who to properly staff memos or grievances.