Should NCOERs and OERs contain more feedback from the troops?

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:37:11 -0500

I think that it would make more sense for the Army to attempt to rid itself of 'toxic' leadership, by allowing the soldiers to have some type of input into the NCOER and OER.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Dec 21 at 2013 5:46 AM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:46:32 -0500

SGT Maxwell - What specific input are you talking about? I make it a point to go over NCOERs that I write with the Rated NCO, along with their counseling, to ensure that we capture everything that occurred over the rating period.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 21 at 2013 8:52 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:52:17 -0500

SGT Maxwell,

Are you suggesting that a rated NCO's subordinates should be apart of the rating process?

Example: As a rater/senior rater is counseling/rating a rated NCO, the team/platoon/company or unit of led Soldiers should all be in a room determining the NCO's rating?

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 21 at 2013 9:01 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:01:10 -0500

As far as OERs go, I believe they should contain some form of feedback from their subordinates. I've seen many officers get promoted into positions of great responsibility, and they were little more than schoolyard bullies who treated their subordinates horribly. However, because they were evaluated based on a) results flowing from those very soldiers and b) their relationship with their bosses, they continued to move up the ladder. The manner in which they climbed the ladder on the backs (and fingers, since I'm talking metaphorically) of their subordinates was completely missing on paper. I think that a valid performance appraisal system could easily be developed that incorporates some form of feedback from the troops, without providing them with an opportunity to completely undermine the evaluation process. The troops should have a say, and I don't think the current system allows that.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 9:10 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:10:07 -0500

I'm spreading RUMINT here, but I thought the Army was trying to push their new "360" evaluation method into new OER's/NCOER's that included some level of feedback of not just superiors but peers and subordinates as well.

If not, I could agree some level of feedback from the soldiers you lead should be incorporated into this process(A lot of this feedback IS included, though it's not formalized into the actual document itself). However, the way they do this needs to be very specific. If you leave an open ended bloc that reads "What do you think of SFC So and So" you could get any number of information ranging from a gripe session, legitimate feedback, and over glorification of the individual.

On the Devils Advocate side of the house: How are subordinates able to 'rate' a leader if they themselves do not know the responsibilities of that leader? You could also argue that it is the rater's responsibility to be making sure he's taking the time to know that leaders soldiers and getting a sense of what the leader is doing/not doing for them.

What I found most important, Sergeant Maxwell, is that the Army seems to have a great tool (You mentioned your PSG took a 360 evaluation test prior to attending WOCS) which appeared to WORK with opening this NCO's eyes about some of his leadership style. So I pull a few problems out of this;

Why do we not offer this feedback more regularly earlier in Soldiers careers ?
Are we failing to counsel our soldiers properly and are we failing to demand counseling for ourselves?
Why do we accept a practice of NCOERS/OERS that are not as honest with the soldier as they should be?

I don't have answers, but I'm curious what some of the membership might have to say - and I hope it leads to an answer for your question, Sergeant.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 9:52 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:52:33 -0500

This is an excellent question and I believe the answer is yes. It is impossible to truly evaluate a leader without gathering the reflections from the field. The question becomes how best to do that. On the one hand, 360 degree evaluations would provide an excellent insight into a leaders progress but it shouldn't be done specifically for the evaluation report. If they are done every 6 months or so as a rule then the progress could be incorporated into all kinds of personal and professional growth including the evaluation. As for whether or not a subordinate can "evaluate" a leader or not, they don't have to. All they have to do is reflect what the leader is back to him or her. A subordinate can tell a leader how they are perceived. That is valuable in and of itself.

Response by CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. made Dec 21 at 2013 11:40 AM

CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:40:43 -0500

Frankly, this capability already exists. Sensing sessions, for example, can provide the chain of command with information related to the climate and morale of a subordinate organization. The problem you face is the inclusion of humans in any system. If the Battalion Commander knows that a company's morale is incredibly low, the BC can choose to use that information in counselings and the OER, or the BC can choose to ignore it.

The Air Force tried this years ago with Air Force 360 and it flopped. The Army's current plan, the Multi-source Assessment and Feedback System, provides the leader with 360 degree feedback. The leader can choose what to do with the information. Leaders who do not seek or use subordinate feedback as part of training will not seek or use subordinate feedback as part of evaluations.

The bottom line is you can try implementing anything you want. At the point that humans become involved, there will always be some level of inconsistency. You can design the most effective system in the world, but if raters and senior raters only half-a&& it, then it becomes ineffective.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 12:20 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:20:03 -0500

I think that's a dangerous idea, i'd hate for my NCOER to look like a google review.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 4:35 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:35:59 -0500

No, that's what 360-degree assessments are for.  Just b/c someone is a dick to work for doesn't necessarily mean he/she is a bad leader.  It could also be that the very unfair things he/she made his Soldiers do were coming from higher anyway.  The lower-level folks don't always have the full picture available to them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 5:26 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:26:33 -0500

I think that if your looking for feedback for your own leadership style, maybe a monthly AAR with your squad every month in a relaxed environment or something might help.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 7:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:21:52 -0500

SGT Maxwell, it's a double-edged sword. The majority of your "problem-children" see nothing wrong with their own actions, and the Chain of Command is "out to get them" in their eyes.

IAW FM 6-22 (and I quote)

7-58. Taking care of Soldiers also means demanding that Soldiers do their duty—even at risk to their lives. Preparing Soldiers for the brutal realities of actual combat is a direct leader’s most important duty. It does not mean coddling or making training easy or comfortable. Training neglect of that kind can get Soldiers killed. Training must be rigorous and simulate combat as much as possible, while keeping safety in mind. Leaders use risk management to ensure safety standards are appropriate. During wartime operations, unit leaders must also recognize the need to provide Soldiers with reasonable comforts to bolster morale and maintain long-term combat effectiveness. Comfort always takes second seat to the mission.

7-59. Taking care of others means finding out a Soldier’s personal state on a particular day or their attitude about a particular task. The three attributes of a leader—character, presence, and intellectual capacity—can be applied as a leader’s mental checklist to check on the welfare and readiness of Soldiers and civilians alike. It is up to the leader to provide the encouragement to push through to task completion or, when relief is required, to prevent unacceptable risk or harm and find other means to accomplish the task.

On the other hand, the true warfighter, the Soldiers we need to focus on developing into our strongest future leaders, will appreciate a tough leader that refuses to accept sub-standard performance.

There are tools that can be used to assist in influencing an NCOER/OER. Officers, in various positions, are required to complete an MSAF 360 assessment prior to their annual OER. This tool is then used to help asses their performance during that period. The MSAF is an anonymous survey of individual leadership attributes. The evaluated leader chooses a number of members of their unit (by AKO account) to participate. These individuals will fall into a category of senior, peer or subordinate. There are recommended minimum numbers from each categories, and the leader can add more to get a better picture of their performance. Honestly, I would recommend that we all do one, at least every two years, just to get a clear picture for ourselves, of what we need to develop leadership-wise.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 7:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:34:22 -0500

While thats a good idea it can play one of a few ways:

A.) You dont get much from it because you'll get the same information.

B.) You'll get bad information from soldiers who are out to 'get' said NCO/Officer.

The only other caveat is that younger soldiers are known to say whats on their mind....its just finding which soldiers that it applies to.

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Dec 21 at 2013 9:10 PM

1SG Michael Minton — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:10:12 -0500

I'm not going to say thats dumb! Evaluations are results oriented reports, the troops performance is their best input to their leaders report! Leaders are not there to be our friend or let you do what you want, they are there to accomplish their mission and take care of their troops (good or bad). otherwise you end up with leaders wanting to be friends, hangout and not making the hard decisions because they want goodinput from their troops. Just because you dont like how a leader does something, should not affect his evaluations. that leaders superior is capable of evaluating a subordinate through observation and mission results. who ever heard of a floor worker deciding a CEO performance bonus? because it makes no sense in developing a well run company!

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Dec 21 at 2013 9:31 PM

1SG Michael Minton — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:31:56 -0500

Are you saying superiors are not capable of truthfully observing and evaluating their junior nco/officers?

Response by 1SG Michael Minton made Dec 21 at 2013 9:43 PM

1SG Michael Minton — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:43:19 -0500

if it is legitimate complaints about a leaders actions, there is open door policy in the evaluation chain.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2013 6:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 18:50:31 -0500

Yes becuz when you get the meat of it. Some ratings are personal in nature. For instance you have a stellar performer and the he gets to a new place bump his head an do a complete 180.

Or you have those who give moment in time ratings...the minute you're upset with a person it reflects.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2013 5:21 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:21:43 -0500

Junior soldiers know the difference between right and wrong, we were all either junior enlisted or junior officersofficers at one point in our careers and we knee when we had bad leadership. I'm not going to say that we should take the word of every soldier as gospel but at least listen. As was said there are some that aren't said during a sending session or on a counseling. I have seen that 360 eval and I think that that would be very beneficial to leaders and their soldiers.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2013 6:39 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 18:39:51 -0500

Not a chance. 99% of the time Soldiers don't know what the hell is going on. Honestly, I was the "cat's meow" when I was the PSG in my company, all the Soldiers thought I was the best NCO to ever walk the planet.

Took over as 1SG for 16 months and people have NO IDEA what goes on at that level. They made some comments about how I "was never around" yet the job description had me in meetings like eight hours a day. They said "I don't fight for them" when in fact I had drop down blow out arguments with the BN and BDE CSM and CDRs standing up for them.

The thing is, I didn't feel the need to "brag" or boast about how much I was "doing" for them on a day to day basis so they took what they saw in face value and had no clue what was really going on.

At my Change of Responsibility my commander told everyone - "you have no idea the amount of effort that 1SG put in to every day at work and how much he cared for every single one of you...and some of you don't even realize how much he impacted your career." And that sums it up really.

My point here is, I busted my ass for my company...I did what I, two commanders, and my CSM/LTC thought was an awesome job.

Yet input from my NCOER might include those types of comments from people that have no clue what's going on at the 1SG/CDR level.

That isn't a comment to be condescending to you, but a SGT, SPC, even a SSG/SFC/LT PSG/PL has no idea (I didn't either until I got into the position) what it's like at that level and to expect someone to be able to accurately portray how you do your job is unreasonable.

Now if we are talking about sexual harassment, EO, etc...sure, yeah, but that kind of stuff should already be reflected on an NCOER anyhow.

Not to mention, someone like a 1SG who "has to be the bad guy" and do things like deny leave or tell people no to certain thing, which makes them "not like you" and make stupid comments...

360 assessments, command climate, sensing sessions, all of which could lead to a formal or informal investigation which eventually ends up on the NCOER...etc. Sure, use to take an inward look at your skills, but I'll be damned if some SGT out of my 178 man company that has no clue what I'm doing daily is going to have direct input on my NCOER as a 1SG.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2014 10:25 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:25:39 -0400

A simple fix would be to have your sunordinates counsel you monthly when you do their monthly counseling. Save all those counselings on yourself from your subordinates and give them to your rater come NCOER time. They can then incorporate the points they feel necessary. It will also give you an opportunity to gain feedback in a formal setting from your Soldiers on how you are doing.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Apr 24 at 2014 9:15 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:15:50 -0400

That is an interesting question. I think that for a platoon commander or Commanding Officer it might be ok. But in the case of a staff officer probably not.

Response by MAJ Steve Sheridan made Apr 24 at 2014 9:35 PM

MAJ Steve Sheridan — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:35:45 -0400

I think so, but it would only be a small impact. It would be a good tool for Sr Leaders to compare two identical records helping as a tie breaker.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2014 8:06 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:06:45 -0400

It is an interesting question and the concept has merit. The concern would be the potential for officers to try harder to be popular. And we all know, "what popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." That being said, 360 Feedback Programs look for feedback from all people that someone comes in contact with, up, down, and across the organization to fully assess someone. We all know the type does well managing up, with the bosses, but is a tyrant managing down. Programs like this weed people like that out and I am in favor of them for this reason. Like everything else, formal NCO input on Officer performance would just need to be managed well.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 25 at 2014 8:25 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:25:40 -0400

It's in the works.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131228/CAREERS03/312230028/360-degree-evals-commanders-start-Oct-1

Adding the results of a 'Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback 360' (MSAF) could be a valuable tool.

Battalion and brigade commanders across the Army likely will be required to undergo 360-degree assessments beginning in October.

The Commander 360 is part of the Army’s continuing push to rid the ranks of toxic leaders and help commanders further develop their skills and abilities. The effort is the result of a plan spearheaded by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.

The Army also just approved a 360-degree assessment for general officers that will begin in the next few months, and a similar assessment for senior noncommissioned officers is expected to follow in another year or so, Odierno said.

But unlike the MSAF, the assessment for battalion and brigade commanders will not allow the officer to choose who participates and provides feedback.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 22 at 2014 8:44 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 22 May 2014 08:44:34 -0400

Gods no. Any Leader who had the gall to enforce a standard would be labeled "toxic" in a heartbeat...

Response by SGT Alfred Cox made May 28 at 2014 2:13 AM

SGT Alfred Cox — Wed, 28 May 2014 02:13:14 -0400

wth?? its called an NCOER for a reason.... why would you want a soldier who hates you to have feedback on your career.

Response by SGT Alfred Cox made May 28 at 2014 2:16 AM

SGT Alfred Cox — Wed, 28 May 2014 02:16:25 -0400

No ..period... end of discussion .. That's just setting you up for failure in your career. Get some years up under your belt young one.

Response by MSG Martinis Butler made Jun 4 at 2014 4:54 AM

MSG Martinis Butler — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 04:54:58 -0400

That sounds like a recipe for disaster. If we allow feedback from Soldiers then next thing would be let them sit on promotion boards and decide who they deserve to be promoted.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 19 at 2015 4:54 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:54:52 -0400

Yes absolutely, but I don't think Army culture is ready for this quite yet.

My only worry with this is that lower enlisted would use this as a way to punish firm but fair leaders. Younger troopers tend not to know the difference between a toxic manager and a manager that holds high standards until its too late.