Posted on Dec 21, 2013
Should NCOERs and OERs contain more feedback from the troops?
17.3K
62
50
6
5
1
NCOs
NCOER
OER
Officers
Responses: 27
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.
(6)
(0)
1SG Michael Minton
current system allows it by the troops performance and mission accomplishments. Fail a mission and see how much input they have on your evaluation!
(0)
(3)
CW2 (Join to see)
1SG Minton, I don't believe it's in a Soldier's "blood" to fail a mission just to burn an officer or NCO in order for that individual to get a bad rating on their evaluation. There are too many senior enlisted personnel to make the mission a success who are concerned for their own careers to allow something like that to happen.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
Touche' SFC Jones...Touche'!!!! When I was a Company 1SG, most of my troops thought I was the "anti-Christ" because I enforced standards aka "has to be the bad guy!" Now those same guys/gals that wanted to "put a brick in my windshied" back then send me emails or call me thanking me till this day because they didn't have a clue of what was going on outside of their left/right limits and now they're the ones who have to make decisions that Soldiers think may seem harsh presently but strategically it will set the conditions for years to come for a promising future!
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
1SG Steven Stankovich
Tracking now SGT Maxwell. You are talking about the leadership assessment tool. That can be a useful tool if the people take the time and answer honestly. If not, it turns into just another check the block deal. With that being said, I do see some merit with regards to Raters or even Senior Raters soliciting feedback from the Rated NCOs subordinates. It would give them more of the total Soldier. With regards to NCOs knowing about their shortcomings, that can go either way. I believe that the most professional of the crop will accept the constructive criticism and do what they need to do to adapt, improve and drive on. Some will just give the "north and south" and continue doing things the way they do...
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MSG Stankovich,
What about those counselings and annuals where information that SHOULD be annotated isnt? Example: when I was an instuctor we had another cadre member (SNCO) who's attitude was lack luster at best. I've witnessed myself the disregard for authority, lack of respect for the other cadre members and back-dooring the CoC. All of which was not annotated on said NCO's NCOER.
(1)
(0)
1SG Steven Stankovich
SGT(P) Jones - I don't have an answer for that. The BLUF is that at the end of the day we have an evaluation process. That process is governed by an AR and a DA-PAM. There are procedures that are supposed to be followed during the evaluation process. Reflection of performance during the rating period should be annotated. Does "pencil-whipping" occur? Absolutely. Should it? Absolutely not.
(1)
(0)
SFC Alfonso Triana
Stop the madness officers get to Major automatically you know this please I hate a 2nd LT trying to write an NCOER on me please. STOP THE MADNESS
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Are you saying superiors are not capable of truthfully observing and evaluating their junior nco/officers?
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Yes first Sergeant that is exactly what we are saying. This is not always the case but it is happening everyday
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
I agree. Sometimes being a leader isn't too friendly. I do point out though that there ARE toxic leaders in the services and we need to find a process to weed them out fairly and efficiently. Evals, however, are not the place. They are subjective enough as it is and already prone to taint. Furthermore, I don't think E5 and below generally have a firm enough grasp on what leadership really is to have an impact on someone who has been in 10+ years.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir you just hit on the head why I feel NCOERS should not bear as much weight on our promotions. They are subjective, in most cases more personal that professional and then you have the dimension of undue command effluence.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google