Do you feel evaluations should change in the Army?

2015-02-06T10:50:12-05:00

How raters rate their Soldiers seems like they rate them based on a personal preference they have with their Soldiers as supposed to how the Soldiers overall job performance actually was throughout the entire rating period. This process to me needs to change because those rating others don't seem to realize just how much these evaluations impact our jobs and how they can affect our careers. I feel the system needs to change, and all evaluations should not be submitteed without all counseling's annotated on the evaluation and should be attached as proof that the Soldiers were actually counseled on the dates that are listed on the evaluations. It's a start for improvement. All raters should attend training on how to properly rate others. If Soldiers have not gone through training to be certified to rate others, then they should not be allowed to rate anyone. What are your thoughts on this?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-02-06T11:24:51-05:00

I especially like your suggestion about the counselings, SFC Private RallyPoint Member. In my 30 years of active duty and now nine years as a DA civilian, I have seen those counseling dates get pencil whipped - routinely. I attribute it to laziness and a blatant disregard for the Soldier and the standards.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Feb 6 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-02-06T12:01:55-05:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member I am with concurrence with the latest change in the New Evaluation (NCOER), I feel it will give a more realistic approach to quality/quantity in respects to the new NCOER:
Background
•Key Focus of the Evaluation Reporting System Review:
Reflect current leadership doctrine (ADP 6-22)
Establish and enforce rating official accountability
Address the “one size may not fit all” assessment of different skills and competencies at different grades Encourage counseling through improvement of the support form
Query reports to identify talents
•Development Process Current NCOER (DA Form 2166-8) implemented in 1987
Proposed changes based on the following:
38th CSA Strategic Priorities
DA Centralized Selection Board comments noting the difficulty in identifying the very best
Field input Lessons learned during fielding of OER
Mirrors development of OER with modification by SMA
•Delineation of Rating Official Roles/Responsibilities
Rater assesses performance
Senior Rater assesses potential Eliminates inconsistent ratings and supports rating chain accountability
•Assessment Format
Rater
Bullet comments (SGT-1SG/MSG)
Narrative comments (CSM/SGM)
Senior Rater – narrative comments for all NCOs
•Senior Rater counsels, at a minimum, twice during rating period
•Supplementary Reviewer required in certain situations (i.e., no uniformed Army-designated rating officials, Senior Rater or someone outside the rating chain directs relief)
Approved Changes (cont.)
SECARMY approved revisions on 1 Aug 14.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 12:23 PM

2015-02-06T12:23:19-05:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member, in my career, I have written perhaps 300 evaluations, and processed somewhere in the vicinity on 4000. Let me tell you how I think - perhaps it will help.
1. Assign duties according to your Soldiers' gifts. You want to challenge them so they can grow, but in order to make a team that works, aces need to be in their places. This gives them the opportunity to excel.
2. Close cousin to (1) above, if they haven't developed skills necessary for the duties they will be assigned, you have to get them to school or hook them up with a mentor. How they apply it to the job afterwards tells me a lot about the Soldiers' potential for tougher assignments in the future.
3. All things being equal, grade on a curve. There can only be one "best" Platoon Sergeant, Squad Leader, etc. It has been my observation that they tend to fall into sets of fives.
A. The over-achiever
B. The B plus player
C and D. The "Average" OR "good enough"
E. The under-achiever.
If you have five of something, they self-organize something like this. Knowing that, you work your development plan as a leader to bring the grades higher, and assign personnel in the next layer below to learn from the star and buttress the weak player. When time comes for evaluations, how they handle the hand they are dealt weighs heavily on my box check decisions.
4. Be specific in duties and goals. Give them the resources and time to accomplish them. Mentor them if they fall behind, and reward them when they excel. If they get the resources and the time and the mentoring and still don't accomplish the mission, well, they earn what they get.

One final thought. A couple of years back I had an exceptional NCO that rocked individually at everything he did. Until I gave him subordinates. His team could not keep up with him, so he ended up doing much of the work. He was a 300 PT guy, all three of his troops BOLOed. At the six month mark, I counseled him that while his personal performance was excellent, he was not getting results within his team. I advised him specifically that his training and leadership portions were going to be weighted towards the results he could get from his troops, and failing that, what efforts he took to get there. He didn't agree then, but I know he sees why now. As you get more senior, it becomes less about what YOU can do, and more about what you TEAM has done. Getting results is the single item I weight the most when writing evaluations, and I think that is about as fair as it gets.
Great question.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-02-06T12:39:28-05:00

These are all great responses and I love the remarks as that is something I will instill when I go up in the ranks. One of the bggest pet peeves of mine is that the Army is still allowing civilians to rate Soldiers. The one evaluation I received from a civilian was a huge slap in the face and never should have been accepted by HRC. I am gathering my paperwork to write up a sustantive appeal as this individual ranked me as a 4 and did up a relief for cause on me just because of the personal vandetta she has with me. I filed an IG complaint and everything, and thank god she is no longer my rater, but wouldn't you being on a QMP board at HRC think there is a red flag to this seeing is both my ratings before and after this on nasty evaluation had me ranked as a 2 "Superior"? Because of that unfortunate evaluation, the places I can PCS to are slim to none. I was told I can only go to Iowa which I am fine with that, but it's sad that our careers lie in the hands of what those around us rate us as and how they write the evaluations. Not to mention the fact I had a SSG and a SFC in my section and on this particular rating no one within my section rated me. Just horrible. I love my job and want to be a great NCO, that is why I feel so strongly about this topic.

Response by MSG Darren Wiggins made Feb 18 at 2015 7:44 PM

2015-02-18T19:44:39-05:00

The leaders who do evaluations need to be held to the responsibility level that comes with completing an evaluation, and ensure it is done correctly and with professionalism. Not only should the quarterly counselings be verified, but coaching sessions should be supported and done regularly. It is too important of a tool for proper leader development and mentorship. Over the next few years the Army will have a huge downsizing, and proper development will become even more critical.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 18 at 2015 7:47 PM

2015-02-18T19:47:16-05:00

I would change only two things, but they are important.

1) No opinions
2) No ratings

Only fact based bullets. For each category, just illustrate what that SM did or did not do. No opinions, just factual bullets.

Let the board decide who the best of the best is by reading what people actually did/didn't do, not just looking at arbitrary numbers.