Posted on Dec 31, 2015
Should the Officer Evaluation System be dumped and replaced with 360 Evaluation Process?
23K
119
67
14
14
0
Should the Officer Evaluation System be dumped and replaced with 360 Evaluation Process?
RP Members (Veterans, Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, and other Service Branches) what are your thoughts on 360 Performance Appraisal System?
Should the Army do away with the OES and replace it with 360?
Businesses use the 360 degree feedback performance appraisal process to evaluate the individual managers. This comprehensive performance appraisal system provides feedback on a manager’s performance collected from a variety of people with whom he interacts regularly. Sources of feedback include the manager’s direct supervisor, peers, customers, vendors and a self-assessment.
Because feedback comes from all areas in which a manager interacts, the results are more reliable. When the same feedback come from several people and departments, it becomes difficult to ignore. In addition the process requires anonymity on the part of evaluators; this encourages them to answer honesty without fear of negative repercussions.
The 360 degree feedback process collects data from multiple perspectives rather than just the direct supervisor as with traditional methods. The process is customer focused and defines customers as outside the company and internal, such as a person in another department with whom the manager interacts frequently. When implemented properly, the process delivers direct, honest feedback to the manager. By reviewing the perceptions of others, he can see more clearly the effect his behaviors and attitudes have on others.
RP Members (Veterans, Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, and other Service Branches) what are your thoughts on 360 Performance Appraisal System?
Should the Army do away with the OES and replace it with 360?
Businesses use the 360 degree feedback performance appraisal process to evaluate the individual managers. This comprehensive performance appraisal system provides feedback on a manager’s performance collected from a variety of people with whom he interacts regularly. Sources of feedback include the manager’s direct supervisor, peers, customers, vendors and a self-assessment.
Because feedback comes from all areas in which a manager interacts, the results are more reliable. When the same feedback come from several people and departments, it becomes difficult to ignore. In addition the process requires anonymity on the part of evaluators; this encourages them to answer honesty without fear of negative repercussions.
The 360 degree feedback process collects data from multiple perspectives rather than just the direct supervisor as with traditional methods. The process is customer focused and defines customers as outside the company and internal, such as a person in another department with whom the manager interacts frequently. When implemented properly, the process delivers direct, honest feedback to the manager. By reviewing the perceptions of others, he can see more clearly the effect his behaviors and attitudes have on others.
Evaluations
Job Performance
Performance
Peers
Subordinates
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
10
10
0
The Army tried this with the Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback Program.
From where I sit, the fatal flaw in the MSAF was that the assessed person chose who they sent the survey to. Cherry-picking who renders your 360 degree assessment does not develop a complete picture. It just makes the popularity contest bigger.
From where I sit, the fatal flaw in the MSAF was that the assessed person chose who they sent the survey to. Cherry-picking who renders your 360 degree assessment does not develop a complete picture. It just makes the popularity contest bigger.
(10)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
That is one of my issues with this process. No one will pick someone who will give them a not so stellar assessment, especially if it is something that will go into an evaluation.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Instead of asking the individual for the names of others to provide feedback, we could use our current networking technology to identify the social and professional network of individuals. During the evaluation cycle, a query would go out to this network on their level of contact with the individual. If the level breaches a certain threshold (say weekly), then a sample of these individuals will receive follow-up questions. If they are leaders, then the questions would be those that I have provided in my own post. If they are not leaders but team members, then the team members would be sampled on teaming skills and attributes.
(3)
(0)
8
8
0
The 360 degree feedback should be used as a development tool and not as a rating system. Military leadership is not a popularity contest, it is about winning battles. What great business leader started out in system using the 360 degree evaluation? McClellan or Grant? McClellan was great for planning and training. Grant was great for winning. Who would receive the better evaluation?
(8)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
1SG Nick Baker well stated. What would recommend to replace the OES and NCOES current systems in place today or would you leave them?
(2)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
1SG Nick Baker Very well said. Using 360s for rating purposes would elevate likership over leadership.
(1)
(0)
1SG Nick Baker
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - We need to evaluate on performance. Captains train platoon leaders and battalion commanders evaluate platoon leaders. If the platoon leader is weak and I was a BN CDR; the PSG and company commander would answer. Senior raters need to hold the rater accountable and the NCO chain. Train one level down and evaluate two level down.
What officers stay in the battalion the longest? LTC and LTs.
What officers stay in the battalion the longest? LTC and LTs.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Unfortunately, our evaluation system, like our awards system can be as much a popularity contest as it is a rating system. Too often, those 'favorite sons' and 'favorite daughters' are elevated in their evaluations because they are favored. Too often, the skills of these individuals are more akin to magicians (smoke and mirrors) than actual achievement. They tend to be great influencers, getting others to do work for them as well as deflectors, capable of deflecting ownership of shortcomings to others as well. Ultimately, these leaders reach a point when they have to actually perform and fail. But, too often it is after several promotions and after less favored but more competent individuals were pushed to the side to make room for these individuals.
I have personally suffered through too many toy soldiers, who look great in uniform and max the APFT but couldn't lead or fight their way out of a paper bag. They usually had a chest full of achievement or service medals and a resume of service full of 'no risk' assignments. I prefer an individual who will take a tough assignment (Command, Senior Staff, General's Aide, etc.) and is evaluated as Center of Mass over someone who avoided career risk and was rated as Above Center of Mass. We should stop promoting people who excel in low to no risk positions.
I have personally suffered through too many toy soldiers, who look great in uniform and max the APFT but couldn't lead or fight their way out of a paper bag. They usually had a chest full of achievement or service medals and a resume of service full of 'no risk' assignments. I prefer an individual who will take a tough assignment (Command, Senior Staff, General's Aide, etc.) and is evaluated as Center of Mass over someone who avoided career risk and was rated as Above Center of Mass. We should stop promoting people who excel in low to no risk positions.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
My issue with 360 degree evaluations is the selection of who does the peer and subordinate assessments of the officer. In a competitive environment, I can see many peers not hesitating to give a "mild" or "lukewarm" assessment if they think it will make themselves more competitive. I saw several cases in my career where a fellow officer would make comments to the commander about another officer with the goal of making them look better. A 360 assessment would give them another tool to do this. As far as the subordinate part, there would have to be control measures. I would not want junior enlisted Soldiers doing this on a company grade officer. And by adding another requirement to Soldiers, I would question the quality of the reviews. I believe many would give honest feedback but others would get through it to check the block. Of course, if the officer selects who gets to do this, they will choose people they think will give them a favorable review. I do see the value and having had several of these completed while I was serving, I appreciated the feedback. But I question the appropriateness of using this as part of an evaluation. I think a larger issue is that as officers move up in rank and position, the senior rater gets less and less visibility on that officer. Yet, those are the evaluations that determine who will be commanders, senior field grades officers, and ultimately GOs.
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
COL Jon Thompson Thanks for your views and feedback - you make some very interesting points.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I agree. 360 should be feedback (confirming the leader's assessment) versus evaluation. For information that conflicts with the leader's assessment, the leader has the option to investigate or disregard.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I like the idea of the 360 feedback but when using it in addition to a rated evaluation. I'm not saying the OER is the answer but the flaw I see with it as a junior officer is that my rater is not around me all the time and does not see or hear everything that goes on. Doing the 360 feedback system would allow those who are around me a lot and see my leadership style/strategies could provide feedback to the rater who doesn't get the opportunity to witness the day-to-day tasks. I agree though that the person receiving the feedback should not be able to "hand pick" those evaluating him/her. There should be a protocol for the people who should give feedback.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google