SFC Private RallyPoint Member 5022687 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I previously wrote a little piece about “Confidently wrong Non-Comissioned Officers” and how they are destroying the Army, in my view at least. Recently, one of the many people who prompted me to write that piece, was selected for promotion to the next grade. In my opinion, this person lacks the temperament to lead someone out of a wet paper bag, and lacks flexibility and adaptablility and even a basic understanding of human interaction. That said, this persons sphere of influence just got much larger, or will when they pin the next rank. <br /><br />Situations like this, where near unanimously the unit (to include officers) has a disdain for this person due to their treatment of the Soldiers in their charge, and people that have known this person in the past almost all have the same things to say as we did. It makes me think that we can identify toxic leadership starting at the PSG level by using 360 evals and making them a part of board files. This could help prevent the selection of individuals for the next rank who should not be in charge of anyone, ever. <br /><br />Understandably the goal is not to be liked by your platoon, but to be respected and looked up to as a leader people WANT to follow, not HAVE to listen to. I can understand some level of hesitation to doing these at the PSG level, but I think it may be necessary to start there in order to prevent these individuals who are toxic from becoming First Sergeants or CSM’s. Or, more accurately, to draw their attention to their deficiencies so they can correct them and improve themselves as a leader. What are your thoughts? 2019-09-14T10:37:37-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 5022687

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I previously wrote a little piece about “Confidently wrong Non-Comissioned Officers” and how they are destroying the Army, in my view at least. Recently, one of the many people who prompted me to write that piece, was selected for promotion to the next grade. In my opinion, this person lacks the temperament to lead someone out of a wet paper bag, and lacks flexibility and adaptablility and even a basic understanding of human interaction. That said, this persons sphere of influence just got much larger, or will when they pin the next rank. <br /><br />Situations like this, where near unanimously the unit (to include officers) has a disdain for this person due to their treatment of the Soldiers in their charge, and people that have known this person in the past almost all have the same things to say as we did. It makes me think that we can identify toxic leadership starting at the PSG level by using 360 evals and making them a part of board files. This could help prevent the selection of individuals for the next rank who should not be in charge of anyone, ever. <br /><br />Understandably the goal is not to be liked by your platoon, but to be respected and looked up to as a leader people WANT to follow, not HAVE to listen to. I can understand some level of hesitation to doing these at the PSG level, but I think it may be necessary to start there in order to prevent these individuals who are toxic from becoming First Sergeants or CSM’s. Or, more accurately, to draw their attention to their deficiencies so they can correct them and improve themselves as a leader. What are your thoughts?

2019-09-14T10:37:37-04:00 2019-09-14T10:37:37-04:00 Capt Private RallyPoint Member 5022943

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My former boss had a sign on his door that said:<br /><br />There are none so dangerous as those who do not know and do not know that they do not know.

2019-09-14T11:59:17-04:00 2019-09-14T11:59:17-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 5023059

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I absolutely feel we could find a way to incorporate this. So much of toxic leadership happens outside of the view of the rarer. And even if someone has an axe to grind, it averages out.

2019-09-14T12:48:06-04:00 2019-09-14T12:48:06-04:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 5023119

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I wouldn&#39;t suggest a 360 evaluation as part of the board process because not all NCOs all developed the same way. There&#39;s to many biases that a person has when determining &quot;likeable or good leadership&quot;. However, I believe it should be used as development tool during the counseling process, which rarely happens for some.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents.

2019-09-14T13:21:58-04:00 2019-09-14T13:21:58-04:00 SrA William Cassy 5023122

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My thoughts are since I eos&#39;d the promotion game has become more like a Jr high school popularity contest no skills needed

2019-09-14T13:22:26-04:00 2019-09-14T13:22:26-04:00 MAJ Ken Landgren 5023244

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Some leaders care about their soldiers. Some leaders care only about themselves. I was AD and worked with the NG. I met some fine some fine guardsmen, but I also worked with higher up NCOs who did little to earn their rank.

2019-09-14T14:46:31-04:00 2019-09-14T14:46:31-04:00 CSM Darieus ZaGara 5023337

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The Army’s selection system works great. It is the evaluation process that is flawed, and that flaw are the leaders that are afraid to be honest and gives everyone in their command stellar ratings. A 360 would not do any better. I have seen 360s in the Federal and Private’s sector, and it is much the same, everyone does exceedingly well on their 360. Bottom line, hinest and fair assessments. This e who get by will be caught up with. The beauty of the Army is there are enough leader in the chain that Sikdiers should not suffer. Thank you for your service v

2019-09-14T15:29:56-04:00 2019-09-14T15:29:56-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 5023387

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Well, it doesn&#39;t need to be said that we as leaders need to strive to be as unbiased as possible when rating our subordinates. I&#39;ve seen a few people get a great NCOER that seemed to merely be in the right click. But have no idea on how to treat their subordinates.

2019-09-14T15:59:47-04:00 2019-09-14T15:59:47-04:00 CAPT Kevin B. 5023401

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Besides being an engineer, I also have a grad MS rug in Systems. The 360 is a process where people are asked questions about someone else. You would never, never build a factory, create a product, etc. if your &quot;accuracy&quot; was like that of what people think. But we tend to react as if a 360 is accurate. The responses can give you a hint on areas you might want to dig deeper on, like the Climate Survey. I&#39;ve watched both assessments over a number of years and bottom line, I don&#39;t believe they&#39;re much good. The reason is lack of follow up. You know, that verify thing? Then when you do know, is it worth doing anything about? What you essentially have is no standard yardstick, muddied further by people&#39;s&#39; perceptions (or lack of), tallied by mid NCOs and OFFs who don&#39;t understand the interrelationships (or lack of), and typically used for decisions by those who have no personal knowledge (Boards). These things tend to be crutches that are substituted for effective perceptual, Eval Writing, and decision skills. The reason we create these crutches is we refuse to invest in creating the aforementioned talent. We want something that isn&#39;t ours to make up our minds for us. I sat many boards and my experience is obviously dated. Back then we didn&#39;t need no stinking 360 badge to see what we needed to see with sufficient accuracy. Has this stuff gone that far down the toilet such that a 360 tool would help? As Mr. T said, &quot;I pity the fool.&quot;

2019-09-14T16:06:55-04:00 2019-09-14T16:06:55-04:00 SSG George Holtje 5023634

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My opinion as it was for a long time is to not allow anyone to sit in one spot for longer than a year. Stagnation and GOB is what ruins the NCOs at that level. The selection board doesn’t see the same name on all the NCOERs and realize this individual has really done nothing extraordinary besides playing golf with the rafters.

2019-09-14T17:52:03-04:00 2019-09-14T17:52:03-04:00 MSG Gary Eaker 5023989

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As acting CSM I had an NCO who had been relieved from PSG duties 2ce get promoted to MSG under my watch. How? He never got a relief for cause NCOER from the CSMs that had him relieved. A 360 degree evaluation wasn&#39;t what he needed. What he needed was a leader who wasn&#39;t afraid to do the right thing for fear of damaging his career.<br /><br />We need an evaluation system that allows you to give honest feedback and allow for change and improvement over time. It shouldn&#39;t start at the PSG level, it should start at SGT. People are afraid to give out an RFC at the SGT or SSG level so these guys coast by on their evals. In the current system, an RFC NCOER at that level will keep someone from making PSG for a long time. There is no allowance for making a mistake, learning from it and moving on. Since you have that attitude in the promotion system, it makes it hard to do what needs to be done on the evaluations.

2019-09-14T20:06:04-04:00 2019-09-14T20:06:04-04:00 SPC Nancy Greene 5024175

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I find this disturbing as I worked Enlisted Promotions my entire career in the Army. I worked the E7/SFC board at Ft Ben and they had an extremely intense screening process! If this SM is as you stated, I’m stunned! I cannot conceive HOW and by what standards was he even considered, much less selected!!!

2019-09-14T22:12:33-04:00 2019-09-14T22:12:33-04:00 SPC Kurtis Bower 5026207

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I have a slightly different view of how promotions should be handled in the Army. You see, when you come from the Army National Guard, things are even a bit more &quot;buddy-buddy&quot; in my opinion. It&#39;s the &quot;good &#39;ol boys&quot; club. People need to be able to do two things in the Army to be successful and that is physical training (PT) and &quot;kissing butts.&quot; You see, I see MSGs and CSMs commenting on this thread. My initial thought is they may think that a Specialist doesn&#39;t know &quot;jack&quot; about leading. You see, I have been the Victim of the Promotion system.The National Guard used to award a possible 400 points for promotion every year. Until they standardized it in 2010, people who had done very well on their PT Tests and &quot;kissing butts&quot; of their leaders who would blindly award them 350-400 out of a possible 400 points. I have a set of seven Army Values that I have to follow as a soldier. I&#39;m also sworn to uphold the principles and virtues of the Constitution. I am oobligated to follow lawful orders. So, when I question the order a Sergeant or Staff Sergeant just issued that is contradictory to the orders the SFC (PSG) just issued, I inherently rub them the wrong way. I get punished because I have a brain. So on my &quot;unregulated&quot; promotion evaluation, I used to be awarded 0 to 150 points out of a possible 400. So I went all the way to the BN CSM and the BCT CSM and make my concerns known after I have been through my entire NCO Support Channel. The State CSM and the CSMs in the State sit down and standardized the Specialist Evaluation. They standardized it really well and it fairly evaluated the soldier by examining their additional duties, leadership roles, attendance and graduation to BLC, awards and decorations, presentation of their uniform, evaluations on a number of other things. Those soldiers that were toxic and kissing ass really not performing were the ones with 0 to 150 points on their evaluation. If you had not been to BLC, then you weren&#39;t able to score 300 or above. Evaluations need to follow the Army Values. Emotions and personal feelings need to go out the door. I think an honest reformed NCOER may be necessary for leaders to use. You need to evaluate at least every 3 months and I think that the Counseling Statements should be allowed to be considered for the NCOER. After they&#39;ve been considered once, they&#39;re no longer allowed unless they show an established pattern of behavior noncongruent with the Army Values.

2019-09-15T14:21:47-04:00 2019-09-15T14:21:47-04:00 SGM (R) Antonio Brown 5026483

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the persons responsible for writing the evaluations were honest and did the needed counseling to support the evaluations then these substandard individuals would not be selected for the rank/grade. I have written many middle of the road evaluations and below standard evaluations with supporting documentation. Leaders have to keep it strictly business and not personal. One of the best ways to take care of someone is to hold them accountable for their actions.

2019-09-15T16:17:55-04:00 2019-09-15T16:17:55-04:00 SFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM 5026907

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This provides food for much thought! All leaders need the fortitude to tell it like it is!

2019-09-15T17:51:13-04:00 2019-09-15T17:51:13-04:00 SPC Erich Guenther 5027479

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Well back when I was in the Army (mid-1980&#39;s) I saw the NCO&#39;s and PL turn on the PSG with suspicion and prompt a BN Records Check. Turns out the PSG was a not a tabbed Ranger as the patches on his uniform indicated (which at the time I was astounded at how that could happen at that high a level in a Infantry unit in the Regular Army.........he was PSG for a good 2-3 months) and he went AWOL as soon as he heard his records were being checked at BN. My question is though...... Can&#39;t a PSG be removed under &quot;lack of confidence&quot; if the NCO&#39;s and PL working with him/her say in the majority he probably shouldn&#39;t be in the position?

2019-09-15T20:52:27-04:00 2019-09-15T20:52:27-04:00 SFC Barbara Layman 5058238

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is an interesting question that I have considered many times over the years both during my military and civilian careers. Somehow, we have ingrained in our society that it is important to be &#39;liked,&#39; while I have always believed it is much better to be respected. They can be mutually exclusive.<br />With that in mind, I have always held that evaluations should be done by both superiors AND subordinates. How would you expect to get a better picture of an individual&#39;s leadership abilities and potential than to know how they stack up in both directions.<br />I made it a practice that at least every six months I would leave an evaluation form out for my subordinates to use - totally anonymous - to evaluate me and my performance. It was amazing how much I learned from them and how much I was better able to understand their perception of my own leadership skills. After all, when a leader evaluates one, they only see that you are following their direction - the subordinate reveals just how well those directions are followed/transferred.<br />Having done this in several venues, I was able to reconsider and revise my skills and abilities for the better.

2019-09-25T08:26:08-04:00 2019-09-25T08:26:08-04:00 LCDR Mike Morrissey 5060689

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Think not that this is exclusive to the Army. One of the major differences between the military and sea services is command at sea. Too many ship C.O.s are relieved each year for loss of confidence or improper conduct. One of the contributing issues is that a ship c.o. is out from under direct oversight during deployment. This is where the halo effect for an up and coming but poor leader disappears. Sadly, every officer who served under those disasters is tainted as well. It’s been said the Navy has never had a mutiny...only because they were caught just in time. See USS Vance, there was another of the same class which nearly happened at the same time in the same port. The USS Alamo had its CO relieved for cause as a result of crew rebellion while deployed in the mid-70s.

2019-09-25T23:07:30-04:00 2019-09-25T23:07:30-04:00 2019-09-14T10:37:37-04:00