How do you evaluate Potential?

Sir, you asked...How do you evaluate Potential? My wife likes this subject and refers the oldest child. When he was in school his grades would falter midway and at the last minute he was able to dig in and bring the grade up. He has potential and it can be seen when you see his digging in. He chooses not to do the best he has potential for. He has potential to do better. Potential is something you see in someone and when we see it we must water it.

Potential is a hard thing to gauge. It's like a crap shoot, you throw the dice sometimes you win sometimes you lose. And I hate losing. But I feel like if you get to know your Soldiers, know what their habits are, how they react to different circumstances, keep them motivated and headed in the right direction and most importantly in my mind setting the right example for them to follow. Then you will be able to gauge what their potential is.
I also agree with some of the other comments posted about the NCOER not being a very good leadership tool. Me personally I think we need to get back to the "job books" we used to have for the job performance section and use the NCOER just for leadership skills.

If you are promoting on potential alone, you are making a terrible mistake. There is no substitute for results and performance. The best indicator of future performance or behavior is past performance or behavior. As Churchill said "No matter how grand the strategy you must occasionally look at the results".

People that exhibit solid results in a job/position over time may have a "stretch" role identified for them to see if they have the ability to make that jump. Assessing potential and promoting on it, if done incorrectly is simply promoting people that are not ready and do not demonstrate skills required for the job. It is promotion based more on feeling than results. Potential is a very speculative game and some use it to avoid doing the hard work of serious evaluation and coaching/development of people. In the business world can have very negative outcomes on revenues, profitability, performance, morale etc. In the armed forces it could cost people their lives.

The problem is that the new system limits you on your ratings (of NCOs). If, by regulation, the evaluation is supposed to stand on its own, be an evaluation of the rated Soldier only and only during the rating period, why are we then comparing them with their peers when assigning block checks?

The answer, to make it easier for the board to evaluate people without having to read the evals. If we had better promotion board and evaluation process, I believe we could give our leaders better tools to define potential. It is hard to describe that in the old form using bullets (unlimited potential, yeah, ok) and even harder in the new form when they gave us tiny spaces to write in.

Evaluations are no longer (and maybe never were) an effective leader developmental tool, IMO.

When I was a S. Rater, I would evaluate a person on how they failed, picked themselves up and continued on. Not totally, but by evaluating the failure and success I could see what potential they had. Did they over come the set back? Were they able to achieve the goal? Potential is a tough nut to crack. I've seen soldiers with great potential at the Jr. NCO level, and then fall/almost fail at the Sr. NCO level. Not many, but a few, and they were rated high on potential. Sometimes I wonder if some failure is needed to help a soldier find their "potential"?
No, failure wasn't the only thing I rated potential on , but it was an insight I thought was important.
Thoughts??

CPT (Join to see) ,
I simply look in the mirror and determine that to be the standard bearer for the next Soldier to emulate.

This IS a tough one. Your Service is asking you to make a judgement call that effects the life of other people. Here's some of the things I consider in evaluating leadership potential:
1. Past performance. Has the person demonstrated continued performance above the minimum standard? Do they show a level of expertise in their technical field expected for their current rank/grade?
2. Self improvement. Do they consistently strive to improve their technical and leadership capabilities? Have they taken opportunities to gain additional education? Have they completed both required and desired training?
3. Leading. Do they naturally seek opportunities to lead? Have they demonstrated leadership when the opportunities are available? Are the results of their leadership equal to or better than the required standard? Do they generate an unusually high number of complaints to EO/EEO/IG about their leadership style, techniques, practices?
4. Communication. Do they write well? Do they speak well? Are their presentations, written or oral, well organized and based on logical development from the presented facts. Do they communicate effectively and with respect to persons of both higher and lower rank/grade.
5. Handling stress. Do they handle stressful situations with an appropriate level of action and emotion?
6. Milestones. Have they successfully met all the Service mandated or recommended milestones for promotion (years in grade and service, completion of PME, diverse assignments, deployments, positions of authority and responsibility)?

All of these tests apply at various levels of importance depending on the rank or grade of the person you are evaluating. It's up to you to rank-order the things I listed. For example, technical capability, self improvement, and communication my be more important than meeting milestones or handling stress for a person advancing from E-4 to E-5. Communication, Leading, and Handling Stress may be most important for a person advancing from E-7 to E8.

Honestly. That is it be as hard core honest as you can, it is the only way someone will improve.

I witnessed MANY Reservists get promoted that had NO business being NCO's. TIG & TIS had to factor in just to keep a warm body in the system. More often than not, if you just show up sober and not hungover, you are already better than many of your peers.

CPT (Join to see) ,
I kid, I kid. Great thought provoking question. It is rather difficult to determine such factors as there is no standard delineation or fine line in what constitutes potential, as actions vary in which evaluators will base their evaluations on what aligns within the arena of demonstrated potential through their perspectives. It could range from starting up programs within the organization, to exceptional duty performance.