Should the Officer Evaluation System be dumped and replaced with 360 Evaluation Process?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:31:33 -0500

Should the Officer Evaluation System be dumped and replaced with 360 Evaluation Process?

RP Members (Veterans, Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard, and other Service Branches) what are your thoughts on 360 Performance Appraisal System?

Should the Army do away with the OES and replace it with 360?

Businesses use the 360 degree feedback performance appraisal process to evaluate the individual managers. This comprehensive performance appraisal system provides feedback on a manager’s performance collected from a variety of people with whom he interacts regularly. Sources of feedback include the manager’s direct supervisor, peers, customers, vendors and a self-assessment.

Because feedback comes from all areas in which a manager interacts, the results are more reliable. When the same feedback come from several people and departments, it becomes difficult to ignore. In addition the process requires anonymity on the part of evaluators; this encourages them to answer honesty without fear of negative repercussions.

The 360 degree feedback process collects data from multiple perspectives rather than just the direct supervisor as with traditional methods. The process is customer focused and defines customers as outside the company and internal, such as a person in another department with whom the manager interacts frequently. When implemented properly, the process delivers direct, honest feedback to the manager. By reviewing the perceptions of others, he can see more clearly the effect his behaviors and attitudes have on others.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 8:51 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:51:12 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs This type of evaluation could identify interpersonal issues in specific areas giving a more even view/assessment of the individual. This would be helpful to the ratee. Sounds good to me.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 31 at 2015 8:52 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:52:00 -0500

There's no perfect Evaluation System.

Quite honestly, most Evaluation Systems are Bureaucratic in nature, and although a "Necessary Evil" should be ignored because it is attempting to make 900 different shapes of people all fit into the same sized shoebox.

We attempt to compare an entire produce aisle to oranges for the purposes of "fairness."

As an example, COL Mikel J. Burroughs shows as a Quartermaster Officer (Colonel). I would never be able to compare him directly to an Infantry Officer or an Armor Officer. Their day-to-day focus is just wildly different. Now I realize at "Command Level" it gets MUCH CLOSER, but even so, we look at things either Logistically (assumption on my part) or Operationally. Different unit sizes. An "accomplishment" for one would be commonplace for the other, and vice versa.

Shifting from the O6 level down to Sgt level for just a second here. Take myself and an Infantry Squad Leader as an example. Administratively I am just going to "smoke him." I just have years of practice, starting at E1. Likewise, he starts in the field at E1, and his fieldcraft is just going to be better than mine. Send us up before a board (Army is big on those I understand), and depending on who the members are, will determine who looks better. Completely Subjective assessment.

The idea of shifting from a "Singular" reviewing chain to a multi-direction one seems like a good idea on it's face, however what is going to happen is "averaging" and generally "averaging high." Most evaluation systems, when first implemented "re-baseline," and then Inflate until they are Reset (with a new system). Peer systems don't Inflate in the same way, but tend to sway high, but not perfect, as everyone has a vested interest in not looking bad. No one wants to be the "turd in the punchbowl" so to speak.

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Dec 31 at 2015 8:55 AM

LTC Jason Strickland — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:55:49 -0500

Interesting read, COL Mikel J. Burroughs. I actually wrote a paper advocating for the Army to transition to a 360-system when I was earning my Master of Public Administration. I believe this system can be of greater benefit than the current evaluation system.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Dec 31 at 2015 9:03 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:03:02 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs , I like the 360 degree process, especially for senior leaders or executives, where the subordinates are often also managers themselves. I can imagine problems in situations where the subordinates of the rater are less mature and have a very different role in the organization than the officer they are rating. For Junior officers, this would be a problem, especially amongst a generation accustomed to "rating" everything from restaurants to shoes online, often without much thought and sometimes with a good deal of retribution in mind. So just like online ratings, there would be a filtering issue...how to filter genuine negative feedback from immature rants?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 9:13 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:13:55 -0500

Sir-100% agree. I think the 500 lb gorilla in the room concerning evals/FITREPS, is that they are designed less to determine actual performance...and more to provide the legal basis for promotion and or separation. There's likely far more "must promotes" than the system can sustain, and so, rather than admit, "Hey, you've done a great job and all...but we really can't afford to keep you around", the services say, "Well, you did alright as a company/division officer...but you know, there's just not enough fives to get you past the board for command. Sorry-have a nice life."

Worse still, no senior rater wants to be the guy or gal who ended someone's career by under-rating them...or comparatively, put someone in position for command who would fail. I think this creates "extreme" views one way or the other, and dilutes the actual value of records. Reading back through all of my FITREPS, an untrained eye would think I was Steven Decatur and Halsey all rolled into one. Neither that, nor the perception that no Academy officer that "good" would be subject to IRAD at O-3, is actually true...is it?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 31 at 2015 10:38 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:38:08 -0500

Interesting concept, but will be just as misused as the current process IMO, based on my experience.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 31 at 2015 11:00 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:00:20 -0500

The principal difficulty with significant changes to the OER system is that they directly impact the promotion system since all officer promotions are centrally managed COL Mikel J. Burroughs.
For the 360 degree feedback performance appraisal process to work well it would need to be applied relatively uniformly throughout the military service. That has been the downfall of all previous OER systems from the 1970's on up as results were inflated to ridiculous levels. Individuals could recover from bad OERs by receiving good OERs in later more significant positions - the exception to the rule is where a general officer provided a "good" rating. Bad ratings can be challenged. Good ratings can not. I learned that in 1984 when I received a good rating as a brand new Captain.

Response by SPC David S. made Dec 31 at 2015 11:07 AM

SPC David S. — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:07:48 -0500

Civilian world has been using it for some time with great results - People change when they know their subordinates write part of their review. Additionally you will also have the negative Nancy's that never have anything good to say but they are quickly identified. Overall a good system.

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Dec 31 at 2015 11:16 AM

1SG Nick Baker — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:16:35 -0500

The 360 degree feedback should be used as a development tool and not as a rating system. Military leadership is not a popularity contest, it is about winning battles. What great business leader started out in system using the 360 degree evaluation? McClellan or Grant? McClellan was great for planning and training. Grant was great for winning. Who would receive the better evaluation?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 11:21 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:21:57 -0500

No. When I receive 'feedback' from my 360 evals they are always glowing reports. I guess people don't understand the idea of how they are anonymous in nature and they are free to point out my flaws and suggest improvement. It could also be that I actually have to enter in the names of people I invite to review me and subconsciously only invite those who are 'on my side' so to speak.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 31 at 2015 11:25 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:25:37 -0500

My issue with 360 degree evaluations is the selection of who does the peer and subordinate assessments of the officer. In a competitive environment, I can see many peers not hesitating to give a "mild" or "lukewarm" assessment if they think it will make themselves more competitive. I saw several cases in my career where a fellow officer would make comments to the commander about another officer with the goal of making them look better. A 360 assessment would give them another tool to do this. As far as the subordinate part, there would have to be control measures. I would not want junior enlisted Soldiers doing this on a company grade officer. And by adding another requirement to Soldiers, I would question the quality of the reviews. I believe many would give honest feedback but others would get through it to check the block. Of course, if the officer selects who gets to do this, they will choose people they think will give them a favorable review. I do see the value and having had several of these completed while I was serving, I appreciated the feedback. But I question the appropriateness of using this as part of an evaluation. I think a larger issue is that as officers move up in rank and position, the senior rater gets less and less visibility on that officer. Yet, those are the evaluations that determine who will be commanders, senior field grades officers, and ultimately GOs.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 11:31 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:31:29 -0500

The Army tried this with the Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback Program.
From where I sit, the fatal flaw in the MSAF was that the assessed person chose who they sent the survey to. Cherry-picking who renders your 360 degree assessment does not develop a complete picture. It just makes the popularity contest bigger.

Response by SSG Bielomawicz Wilkes made Dec 31 at 2015 12:23 PM

SSG Bielomawicz Wilkes — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:23:12 -0500

Maybe test it in a central location with a small population of officers. I think the current OES model is broken and too easily inflates the officer's true skills and abilities. I say this after 10 years of processing OER's in the Army.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 31 at 2015 12:33 PM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:33:56 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I am out of date, but we are (the Army) is the 67-10... and we already use the 360 evaluation. The issue with the 360 is we select who fills them out...

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Dec 31 at 2015 1:12 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:12:38 -0500

I participated in the 360 process as the customer of a Government contractor. It allowed me to provide direct feedback to the supervisor of the contractor project manager. Fortunately, I had mostly good things to say about the project manager because he was doing a very good job. Our project was on time, on budget, and within quality standards. As a Project Management Professional, I was happy to have a well run contracted project under my management and said so.

The problem with the 360 evaluation system in the military, IMO, is defining the customer. My training in Lean Six Sigma tells me that managers and organizations have both internal and external customers. Perhaps a fellow platoon leader or flight commander is an internal customer. Feedback there may be easy to get. But what external customer of an infantry platoon commander is going to provide feedback; the job of the infantry platoon is to "break things and kill people"; not a good source for feedback. Humor aside, some military leaders do have external customers who can provide valid feedback. A transport aircraft squadron commander can be evaluated by the customers to whom they deliver personnel and cargo.

Agree with those who commented that the 360 evaluation system is only valid if the supervisor (rater) selects the subordinate, peers, seniors, and customers who provide feedback. The peer and subordinate feedback must be kept anonymous. Customer and senior feedback need not be anonymous, but keeping it so wouldn't hurt.

All this might help leaders with self improvement, but the ultimate goal of a military evaluation system is Human Resource Management.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Dec 31 at 2015 1:26 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:26:53 -0500

TL/DR: Absolutely not.

I have nothing against 360s and have done many, both in the military and civilian employment context. I've learned a lot from them and changed my leadership & management styles based on some specific and relevant feedback. They are a phenomenal developmental and feedback tool. I highly encourage them. (and I made a point of including people I knew to be detractors of mine in the sample.)

As an EVALUATION tool, they suck. The reasons are many, but I'll just list a few, and then the big one.
1. Selection bias. WHO is selected to do the evaluations has a big part in WHAT the evaluations say. If the ratee selects the 360 participants, and it impacts their career, who are they going to chose? I mentioned above that I have purposely included detractors in my 360 evals. Would I do that if it would affect my retention or promotion? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. If someone OTHER than the ratee selects the participants, that opens other cans of worms. If the rater does, do the get a true sample, or a sample that will reflect the rater's views? If so we have both selection and confirmation bias. If someone other than the rater or the ratee (or a computer to make it "random") then the question is why should we believe that this sample is truly random AND in a position to make an assessment?

2. Likership. Both leaders and managers are put in the positions that that are in in order to advance the goals of the organization. This doesn't mean that they can't benefit from 360 feedback or that they need be in opposition to those who are above/below/peers to them. Or that they need to be jerks. HOWEVER, it does mean that they will sometimes have to do things that are (at least initially, and maybe forever) unpopular. Will that person in that position make the same call if it will lead to a bad 360 eval to could impact or end their career? Do we think that peers and subordinates will be rigidly fair and objective in the face of things that they DISLIKE, but are in the best interests of the organization? I think the answer to both questions is "no." Using 360s for evaluation purposes sets up a conflict between doing what is right and what is popular. We can talk about "the hard right over the easy wrong", but when the "hard right" may very well cost someone their livelihood, we are asking for perverse results.

A story to illuminate. In my civilian job, all the project managers (usually 9-10) reported to the CIO. He didn't really have the bandwidth to deal with them in addition to all his other duties. They did random stuff and got random results. I campaigned to create a Project Management Office (and appoint me as its manager). I got my wish. I implemented regular update meetings, standards of performance ,and administrative controls and oversight. This greatly annoyed 8 of the 9 project managers (former peers, now subordinates) for the first 6 months (and irritated them to the day I went on my current ADOS orders). At about the 6 month point, I had a 360 for a professional development purposes. It would be fair to say that the subordinate ratings were "not kind." (I had another one about a year later, and it was positive - though not gushing, with no changes in those particular areas.) HOWEVER, projects were being done in a predictable, repeatable, and SUCCESSFUL manner. And, despite grumbling, great morale in the unit - success does that.

In my absence, I elevated one of my PMs, much more of a "people person" to be my acting replacement. He is much more popular than I am/was. He has relaxed those standards. Project performance has taken a significant hit, as has "unit" morale. But he's really well liked and would get glowing 360 ratings. (I can't complain too much, I selected him for specific reasons - which had to do with interpersonal, not organizational, strengths. I knew of his weaknesses. In retrospect, I think I underestimated the impact. But that's my fault.)

I can guarantee that when I come back, my 360 evals would be in the toilet for the first 12 months....

3. Context. This is a issue, and will play into the the "big issue". I will just ask all the O's (same for E's, I'm sure, but we're talking about OERS) out there: Looking back on your career, did you really understand what was actually involved in jobs that were one and two levels above yours AT THE TIME? Did you find yourself in new positions and quickly determine that reality was nothing like it had looked like at a distance? Did you suffer from "those bastards up at _____" syndrome until you got up to ____ ? How about if you were in one S shop looking at the soup sandwich that was the OTHER S shops - until you got moved to that other S and found out what they actually did? With that in mind, would you want your performance to be evaluated by people who don't know what your job actually is? And I don't mean "feedback" (the RIGHT reason for 360s), but make or break evaluations.

and the BIG one:
4. Performance calibration.
Under the current system (as designed, if not as always implemented...), how do you know what "right looks like?" That's easy. You talk to your rater and senior rater and either negotiate or or told what the performance expectations of that position are. Or, bowing to reality, you ask your peers/mentors who have filled a similar position before.

Under a 360 eval system, how do you know what "right looks like?" Not so easy. You probably still want to meet the expectations of your rater and senior rater (as I see no scenario in which they would be done away with, if for no reason other than organizational context). But you also need to meet the stated or unstated (and perhaps unformed at the time) expectations of either a self-selected or random collection of individuals who may or may not understand your job and may or may not care.

Keep 360s as they are - for leader feedback, where they serve a great purpose. Don't slam the square peg into a round hole.

A final note, while I think that the military can stand to learn a lot from the civilian world (I don't necessarily think adopting "corporate" ideas is a bad thing), the distinctions need to be kept in mind. An important one here is that a civilian will often hold the same or similar position for years, and even decades. In my civilian job as a PMO manager, were we to move to 360 evals, it would likely not have an impact on either my retention or promotability. It could impact pay raise consideration, but in most enterprises wouldn't make any other real difference. This is one reason why performance evals are mostly pencil-whipped and ignored in most civilian enterprises. If they are going to get rid of you for poor performance, they aren't going to wait for an annual eval to do it. In the military, you are doing new things every year or two (three at the outside), and negative evals can END your career. Performance evals MATTER in the military, especially as the draw-down heats up, with 15K more needing to be cut in 2016.

I'm at the point where I have no personal skin in the game. I might get one more promotion, maybe. But probably not. And my MRD is approaching faster than I like to think about, but it's a bad idea.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 31 at 2015 1:43 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:43:58 -0500

I think it would help with giving the SNCO's the ability to weigh in on fitness for command and to give teeth to our experienced guidance we give our JO's. That being said, it might be good for SNCO's. Look at all those getting command or the top enlisted spots who make the "Times" each week. Most of these O'a and E's had reps going up in rank but were sharp and hit professional milestones. It wasn't their prodessional savvy getting them fired - it was their personal demeanor. I know many will disagree but it's my two cents.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 2:09 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:09:09 -0500

I don't know how this system compares with the 360 MSAF that all leaders are expected to do before NCOES (and I assume OES), but the problem I had with that system was the number of participants was not in line with the reality of how many peers, subs and superiors I had being in a low density field.

Would a 360 evaluation for officers only include other officers, or command team, or a sample of all soldiers within the command, at all rank levels under influence?

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Dec 31 at 2015 3:21 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:21:19 -0500

You know, I've lived under just about every evaluation system HR wizards can come up with. The 360 is probably about as good as any. The real issue is establishing an effective measurement of each persons contribution to 'success' - defining 'success' is the problem....both in and out of the military, if you can't measure 'it' how can you place value on it? If the leader is truly involved in 'mentoring' (for lack of a more defined term for real professional development) of the subordinate being evaluated - she/he will already be able to provide a comprehensive view of the person, I liked having a anonymous comment form being available for my staff's and to those we supported to comment on my, and the department/division performance - taken seriously, those provided me with an excellent organizational climate and perceived performance measurement for myself and 'my' folks....I think that whenever you must take such a huge organization as DoD, or the Army and 'standardize' a method or means to obtain measurements - it turns into a inflated, obtuse and abused system.....so, change the OES - sure, change will improve the process for a time....then change it again to induce that improvement all over again.....

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 31 at 2015 9:52 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 21:52:35 -0500

Not sure what I think of the 360 model. I've heard tell of it but not sure I would embrace it thoroughly. It does seem to be the Current In-Thing in Evaluations.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 1 at 2016 2:10 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:10:39 -0500

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how it would work Navy wise. I've sat a number of boards at Millington and worked hard with my peers sorting through FITREPS and Evals, juggling reporting senior averages, etc. because we know the application of that yardstick varies greatly along with early/must/regular ratios, etc. I think I'd need a supercomputer assist on a pile of 360s and be spending all our time trying to sharpen a marshmallow.
Agree 360s are best applied for personal development WITH A MENTOR. I don't have any experience with the Army use of them so defer to others better able to speak to it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 2:23 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 02:23:49 -0500

Yes sir,

I always felt that my subordinates had a better idea of how I performed as a leader than my senior rater two levels up.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 5:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:06:40 -0500

Certainly not. COL Vincent Stoneking explains why quite well in his post below. But as Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS explains, no evaluation system is without issue. In the Army, the new evaluation systems for officers and NCOs are resetting evaluation inflation; in a few years, they'll need to be reset again for the same reasons.

But the bigger question, as Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS notes, relates more to the objectives of personnel management than to evaluation systems. If we continue with an up-or-out system designed to make one four-star out of every two or three year group cohorts, the current evaluation system is adequate. If we want to ensure the best folks are promoted, that we reward, retain, and promote talent, then we'll need to change the HR paradigm (maybe through SECDEF's Force of the Future initiative).

The most substantial flaw I see with the current evaluation system is that timing is more important than performance or potential. Senior rater newly arrived? No top block for you, regardless of your performance or potential. Don't worry, though, they'll surely take care of you next time.

The most substantial issue I see with 360 assessments in the current system is that they are not mandatory. Only initiating an assessment is mandatory----a nice, easy check the block. Not being mandatory, the folks people self-select to conduct the evaluation aren't required to actually do so.

The most substantial issue I see with making a 360 a formal evaluation is that the pool of people that actually possess a basis for understanding the job someone actually does is quite small, especially for the subordinate category. A PL or PSG or, really, a 1SG have very little clue about what a company or battalion commander really does, and aren't well placed to evaluate their performance or potential. Secondly, while a 360 might just possibly work in a normal MTOE unit like an infantry battalion, it would fail completely as a total Army system. For example, to be useful, a 360 needs a large number of evaluators to be statistically or practically useful. For the majority of low density jobs, the n just isn't large enough. And for the normal jobs, the n might be large enough, but the time required for the large n to fill out large numbers of 360s required just wouldn't exist.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jan 1 at 2016 8:38 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:38:46 -0500

I've used the 360 process in corporate America for many years. It is not all it is cracked up to be either. It is one tool in the tool kit. I have had those that work for me perform them and I have done so. While there are always some nuggets to pull out of almost any feedback there is a lot of noise, personal bias, pet peeves etc that come through in a 360 process. Who selects the respondents and why. No one will naturally pick someone that doesn't like them or that they have had conflict with as they will get negative feedback that may hurt them.

I would not suggest 360's replace any formal evaluation process (even if not perfect). I think too much peer evaluation can turn people into popularity contestants too worried about what others think and not enough about getting the job done. It can be a good tool to get feedback from those around you.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 11:22 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:22:12 -0500

I have experienced the 360-degree in the private sector as well as the MSAF in the military. Neither really addresses the issue. The issue is that our evaluation system is top down and left very little for top up feedback. Granted, top up can include a certain level of whining but we have witnessed an explosion in toxic, unethical and immoral leaders continuing to fill our ranks. The toxic and unethical leaders are result oriented (do anything to succeed), which tends to be anything but selfless service. For the most part, these leaders continue to get promoted, despite the wave of problems they leave behind in their wake. The immoral leaders (affairs, DUIs, etc.) are character flaws that are often apparent but never if it doesn't impact unit or individual success, gets pushed to the side.

Now, I'm not saying that our force is comprised of a huge number of these leaders but that they continue to serve and get promoted while better/more capable leaders are passed over, leave of their own accord or perceive an organization that is promoting values they refuse to enforce.

With a 360-degree assessment, the rated individual should be able to provide information as follows:
1. First line supervisor/leader evaluation on4Cs of leadership (Competence, Character, Compassion and Courage), mentorship, Army values and
2. Second line supervisor/leader evaluation on 4Cs of leadership (Competence, Character, Compassion and Courage), mentorship, Army values

One a scale of 1 to 5 rate the following:
Competence questions:
1. My leader has the required knowledge and required skills
2. My leader has the ability and takes actions that inspire trust and confidence
Character questions:
1. My leader's values are clear to others
2. My leader lives the values they espouse
3. My leader stands on principles
Compassion questions:
1. My leader shows concern for those they lead
2. My leader practices inclusive leadership
Courage questions:
1. My leader will speak up to their leaders about the mission, men and unit morale
2. My leader will stand alone in their position
3. My leader will do what is right, rather than what is easy or what is in the leader's best interest

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jan 1 at 2016 12:41 PM

COL Ted Mc — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:41:51 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Just what the military needs - another system of evaluation which will require increased personnel time, additional training, more staff and equipment resources, and have bugs which have yet to be discovered because "this system is better than the old one".

I MIGHT go along with new process that was an "up / down / across" assessment program where everyone assesses everyone who is both __[fill in the blank]__ level(s) up and __[fill in the blank]__ level(s) down in their direct chain (as well as assessing themselves [and the assesse's peers]) PROVIDED that the assessment process was simple, anonymous, and numerical - PROVIDED that it didn't take more than one hour to instruct people how to fill in the assessment forms (an explanation that DID NOT use "PowerPoint").

Response by LTC Matthew Robinson made Jan 8 at 2016 2:35 PM

LTC Matthew Robinson — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:35:30 -0500

I would not recommend adopting the 360 model for evaluations. The 360 model may function well in certain business environment; however, in the military we do not manage, we lead. While management and leadership may seem interchangeable, they remain fundamentally different, requiring different skill-sets. As a leader with over ten years of green-tab time, I continually faced challenges necessitating decisions and courses of action quite unpopular with subordinates. Mission requirements often place the leader in a very tenuous position vis-a-vis subordinates. As a rater and senior rater, I listened carefully to subordinate talk about leaders. Senior noncommissioned officers provided invaluable insight regarding junior officers. One of my greatest personal failures as a junior officer came when I unwittingly gave an anemic rating to one of the best soldiers I ever served with, possibly ruining his chances for advancement. Had I listened more carefully to subordinates I would have written my evaluation much differently. I learned my lesson, paying more careful attention to subordinate talk. That is a key part of the complex role of rater and mentor. The 360 plan attempts to codify something complex and nuanced in a way fraught with traps and difficulties.

Response by PO2 Christina "Jian" Phillips made May 20 at 2019 6:56 PM

PO2 Christina "Jian" Phillips — Mon, 20 May 2019 18:56:41 -0400

This system would take too long and create office politics and brown nosing which happens in a corporate setting all the time. It sounds great on paper but as I've seen in my commands that used this for their civilian employees it can create internal strife, popularity wars, and cliques. The military is a chain of command for a reason. Evaluation as a step ladder is much faster. May not be better but it is faster.