Posted on Jan 19, 2014
NCOERS, a possible Fix. No numbers, no scores, just bullets.
12.2K
15
19
6
6
0
Here's my thoughts on how to fix the NCOER. No more ratings, no more 1's. 2's, 3's, etc... Just bullets. Your actions will have to speak for themselves. And I know what you're thinking, "but then we'll be forced to read every bullet!". You know what? EXACTLY!<div><br></div><div>NCOER's only work if you actually take the time to consider their overall behaviors and actions, and meaningfully quantify them, and they are only useful to leaders and promotion boards if they actually read them, and don't just rely on numbers. Actions are what will tell you what a Soldier is like, and how much potential they have, not arbitrarily and inconsistently assigned numbers.</div>
Posted in these groups: 
NCOER
NCOER
Edited 12 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
you mean, you don't write your own NCOER? ;) just kidding...but not really.<div><br></div><div>I think it's time that Soldiers start using the support forms. There is one for NCOERs. I live and die by mine, and that way I can make sure that pertinent information gets into my OER.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that professional writing should be included in NCOES. It is touched on a little bit for officers, but not as much as I would prefer. We had a very short block on it at BOLC, and I don't believe it was enough for most people. </div>
(3)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Sorry, I was only addressing the writing quality with that comment....control what you can, I suppose.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
its all about the quarterly counseling. if its done correctly and when its suppose to be done then the NCOER writes itself
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
I agree if the support forms are used correctly you can build a great NCOER. Instead of worrying about generic bullets put actual expectations and don't be afraid to put numbers or goals there.
I spoke to my PLT LDRs the other day and said don't put "Get involved in the unit's maintenance" instead put "Lead unit maintenance from the front by maintaining a 85% OR rate, attending all PC meetings and decreasing maintenance down time and tasks". That breaks it down and gives the PLT SGTs actual goals to obtain.
(1)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
1SG, I totally agree!! I know it's not the same exact thing, but I generally approach it as I do award writing. Quantifiable always goes over better and is easier to measure.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Another fix would be to add in a senior rater profile, just like with OERs.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I can remember when the NCOER contained scores in the different rated categories. The maximum amount of points one could receive were 125. This NCOER just plained sucked because no comments were required to justify low scores or high scores. I'm glad they did away with that one.
I would oppose any NCOER that was like the OER as it all comes down to how it is written. If you have a rater that can't write worth a damn, you're screwed.
(0)
(0)
SSG Lisa Rendina
Agreed SFC Fox! There are ways to write things, and then there are better ways to write things! Example: "Increased PT score by 20 points", or "Increased PT score and exceeded Battalion standard of 270". In the first blurb the NCO could have increased from a score of 180 to a score of 197. Just as an example.
(0)
(0)
SSG William Patton
Too often. some raters will just plug in the number without an explanation because that is the easiest and quickest way to accomplish the task. But, numbers alone do not provide an illustration of what the soldier has accomplished. I always provided an explanation so the person behind me would not have to hunt for information. If the CO read my rating and had to look for more information to see if the soldier improved or decreased on a particular rating, that reflected poorly on my performance as a manager. When a manager does any type of evaluation, they should be thorough to give the rate and those who read the report as much information as possible so they know where the stand and what they need to do to improve.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have to say that I agree with this. Everytime we write an evaluation of a Soldier, we preach quanitfy and qualify, but why? Why not let the bullets speak for themselves and let the board decide (Since they are going to anyways) what they think of the NCOs performance. My rater, and the board might look at my performance differently, so why not remove that from the equation. Fluff bullets will stand out regardless.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I for one hate the bureaucratic nightmare that is the military's way of doing business on everything paperwork and admin related. So you would think that I'd be all on board with this and forcing people to actually do some thinking and try to judge based on words who's worthwhile and whose eval us full of fluff.
However, I do get it in this case. When promotion boards for the higher ranks meet and have to go through thousands of files in a matter of weeks, there's got to be some fast, efficient system to separate people into the definite no column and a possible-dig in more column. The only way around it would be to have people whose sole job in the military is processing and evaluating personnel files for promotion boards, retention boards, etc. If we did that and had the same personnel doing it permanently I think too much networking and "good ol' boy" systems would come into play and skew the results.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
I agree that the system needs to be efficient, but don't agree with fast. If the concern is that there are too many records to go through once a year, my suggestion would be to hold the promotion boards twice a year. It will make the whole thing more manageable, and they'll be able to spend more time reviewing records.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I always thought that the opposite would be best for effective evaluations.
Less narrative more quantified numbers.
Example
The rater and Sr rater would each have a small space for a narrative bullets about achievements and potential but the most important part would be maybe the whole back page of the rater and Sr Rater rating the individual from 1-10 on several attributes. When the form was complete it would display how the individual was rated compared to all past ratings from the evaluator in each attribute and overall. (if you were rated a 5 and the evaluators average was 3.5 you would be a +1.5)
The issue I have with narrative is it's all subjective. What makes one phrase better than another? It depends who is writing and who is reading. What if your rater is a bad writer or if the guy on the board thinks the narrative that your rater thought was the best ever wasn't so great? It's hard to challenge or even set out guidance for the board.
Just my $0.02
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Hasbun - flaw in your system - "facts", aka "numbers" lie.<div><br></div><div>So, which is better</div><div> - increased APFT score by 50%</div><div> - increased APFT score by 20%</div><div><br></div><div>Possible data</div><div> - 60/60/60 to 100/100/70</div><div> - 80/80/80 to 96/96/96</div><div><br></div><div>So which is really better?</div><div><br></div><div>you would have to have so many rules about what is a fact and what is a statistic that it would drive folks crazy.<br></div>
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
what about the daily duties and scope? straight from manuals, or word for word what they actually do? Which is best?
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Garland - the purpose of that section is to describe what a person actually does so that they understand the scope/responsibilities of what you expect from them.
.
Not necessarily how well you expect them to perform, but what to perform.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
