Posted on Oct 4, 2021
Should we add an essay requirement for centralized boards?
9.44K
43
21
13
13
0
It sounds silly, but hear me out.
Senior NCOs and Officers absolutely make or break a junior NCO's or Officer's career based on the strength of their writing. We have all seen and/or lamented the complete lack of writing skill showcased by some senior leaders. And these leaders are writing NCOERs and OERs, harming the career of countless young troops.
It has been said multiple times in multiple forums by countless Senior Officers: Effective written communication skills are an absolute MUST for senior Army leaders. But we don't really evaluate it on NCOERs or OERs. (Imagine reading a bullet that said "consistently writes professional memos and creates top-notch bullets for evaluations" or something similar. You would think you were being pranked.) We just assume senior leaders are good writers - all evidence to the contrary.
Before we promote someone to the levels where their writing skills (or lack thereof) will directly impact their subordinate's ability to be promoted, should we first make sure they have the necessary ability to accurately, concisely, and professionally write?
My thoughts are that the more senior you are, the more critical this becomes - therefore the longer and deeper your essay.
SFC / MSG boards: 2-3 pages
CSM / MAJ / LTC boards: 3-5
Nominative CSM / COL board: 5-7
GEN: 10+
At each level, the essay would be on something relevant to that level of leadership, require a level of research (Army regs for MAJ and below; joint regs for LTC; strategic planning for a current conflict / hot spot for Nominative CSM / COL; Allied planning, incorporation, and coalition-building for GEN... Or similar), and be required to follow a specified formatting (MLA, APA, Chicago, other chosen by the board).
I think adding this requirement will do a few things:
1) Provide a good view of writing ability.
2) Provide a measure of "give a fuck."
3) Give insight into the leader's thought process and leadership style.
Of course, it would be ripe for cheating or corruption - I can very easily see NCOs running to that one guy who everyone knows writes well and begging for that person to write their essay.
It would also add a TON of time to the board. So I am thinking that it is the last thing viewed. Once the board has their number, plus 10%, THEN they open the essays, and use them as a sort of "final qualifier." It will STILL add a lot of time to the board, but less than reviweing essays from the start.
There is also an argument regarding subjectivity, but IMHO that argument is largely moot as the entire board process is subjective.
It will never happen, if for no other reason than the time involved. But if it *could* happen, what do all y'all think?
Senior NCOs and Officers absolutely make or break a junior NCO's or Officer's career based on the strength of their writing. We have all seen and/or lamented the complete lack of writing skill showcased by some senior leaders. And these leaders are writing NCOERs and OERs, harming the career of countless young troops.
It has been said multiple times in multiple forums by countless Senior Officers: Effective written communication skills are an absolute MUST for senior Army leaders. But we don't really evaluate it on NCOERs or OERs. (Imagine reading a bullet that said "consistently writes professional memos and creates top-notch bullets for evaluations" or something similar. You would think you were being pranked.) We just assume senior leaders are good writers - all evidence to the contrary.
Before we promote someone to the levels where their writing skills (or lack thereof) will directly impact their subordinate's ability to be promoted, should we first make sure they have the necessary ability to accurately, concisely, and professionally write?
My thoughts are that the more senior you are, the more critical this becomes - therefore the longer and deeper your essay.
SFC / MSG boards: 2-3 pages
CSM / MAJ / LTC boards: 3-5
Nominative CSM / COL board: 5-7
GEN: 10+
At each level, the essay would be on something relevant to that level of leadership, require a level of research (Army regs for MAJ and below; joint regs for LTC; strategic planning for a current conflict / hot spot for Nominative CSM / COL; Allied planning, incorporation, and coalition-building for GEN... Or similar), and be required to follow a specified formatting (MLA, APA, Chicago, other chosen by the board).
I think adding this requirement will do a few things:
1) Provide a good view of writing ability.
2) Provide a measure of "give a fuck."
3) Give insight into the leader's thought process and leadership style.
Of course, it would be ripe for cheating or corruption - I can very easily see NCOs running to that one guy who everyone knows writes well and begging for that person to write their essay.
It would also add a TON of time to the board. So I am thinking that it is the last thing viewed. Once the board has their number, plus 10%, THEN they open the essays, and use them as a sort of "final qualifier." It will STILL add a lot of time to the board, but less than reviweing essays from the start.
There is also an argument regarding subjectivity, but IMHO that argument is largely moot as the entire board process is subjective.
It will never happen, if for no other reason than the time involved. But if it *could* happen, what do all y'all think?
Professional Development
Promotions
Promotion Board
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
1
1
0
SFC Casey O'Mally Writing has become a very large part of the development process. I agree that it needs to be critical in the development of NCOs and Officers, but I worry about the person rating the writing. For example, in my recent BLC course we where told to use APA format. However, the format they were suggesting we use was outdated and there had been several updates to it. I did ask about the specific updates and was told to use the level of APA I was familiar with, which I did, and did well over all. I am not sure that having an essay for the boards makes sense, if they must pass the writing portion of their respective development courses to move on in career
progression. I am happy that is has been added, though.
progression. I am happy that is has been added, though.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
My concern is the differentiation between "good"and "good enough." Unless PME has changed a LOT, the assumption of the academy is that everyone selected for the course already meets requirements. After all, you were all selected for promotion prior to attending, right? (Yes, there may be rare exceptions, but they are rare.)
With this in mind, the criteria is more or less go/no go for everything, unless competing for CL or HG. There is zero differentiation between an excellent communicator who is only an average leader (and therefore not on CL), an excellent leader who can BARELY communicate (and therefore not on CL) and an average leader who communicates averagely (and therefore not on CL).
The folks who barely scraped by PME because they are crap at leadership or PT or MOS skills will be reflected on their NCOERs and weed themselves out. The folks who are crap at writing? They get passed on up to the next level. Where they go to NCOA and the SGLs assume they are competent - after all, they got selected, didn't they?
PME *does* evaluate written communication. But it does little (not nothing, but little) to TEACH written communication. And the evaluation it does conduct is not looking for GOOD communicators, merely those that communicate good ENOUGH.
And, honestly, for PME, that SHOULD be the focus - can you communicate effectively enough to do the j-o-b. But when looking at PROMOTIONS, it is a different story. IMHO.
With this in mind, the criteria is more or less go/no go for everything, unless competing for CL or HG. There is zero differentiation between an excellent communicator who is only an average leader (and therefore not on CL), an excellent leader who can BARELY communicate (and therefore not on CL) and an average leader who communicates averagely (and therefore not on CL).
The folks who barely scraped by PME because they are crap at leadership or PT or MOS skills will be reflected on their NCOERs and weed themselves out. The folks who are crap at writing? They get passed on up to the next level. Where they go to NCOA and the SGLs assume they are competent - after all, they got selected, didn't they?
PME *does* evaluate written communication. But it does little (not nothing, but little) to TEACH written communication. And the evaluation it does conduct is not looking for GOOD communicators, merely those that communicate good ENOUGH.
And, honestly, for PME, that SHOULD be the focus - can you communicate effectively enough to do the j-o-b. But when looking at PROMOTIONS, it is a different story. IMHO.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
Here is something that will blow you out of the water, none of my OERs ever gave shits about my ability in being an RN. I stopped doing ILE and subsequently was passed over for O-5 because I was not interested in learning how to write turabian when my profession uses APA. Pretty much since the day the Army hired me to be a nurse they stopped caring if I was good as a nurse and the focus was on being an Army officer. The Army and I started parting ways the day as a 2LT I discovered putting rank on a nurse is about as worthless as tits on a bull and I focused on being a good nurse. This was Landstuhl 2005 and I was taking care of blown up kids, being a good nurse seemed pretty important. Now a good 75% of your senior nurse leaders are good at writing in turabian and pretty shitty at providing quality care.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MAJ Byron Oyler - Sir, I think it is a pretty sad failure of leadership if the ability to do the actual job is not even addressed in your OERs. I will 100% grant that this is only *part* of being an Army Officer - even a nurse - but it is still MOST DEFINITELY part of the job, and should be addressed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google