We are not promoted by past performance, we are promoted by future potential?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:30:16 -0400

Over the past few days, I had the opportunity to hear a commander address the troops. During the comments, the commander said, we are not promoted based on past performance, we are promoted based upon our potential.

While that is nice to say, and could actually be true, it doesnt match my experience. So, I am giving this some thought and assessing if I need of a change of perspective. What are your thoughts?

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 8:33 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:33:47 -0400

I think you need an "other" category sir. We are promoted by both.

Our NCOERs/OERs are written by our raters on our past performance, we are then "rated" by our senior raters on our potential for greater responsibility or rank.

The centralized promotion board puts more weight on a senior raters comments as opposed to the raters.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 9:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 09:49:04 -0400

I think it is a little of both. While they, the board, is looking at our past experience based on evaluations, they are also looking to see if our raters think we can handle the next rank and the responsibility that goes alone with it.

This is a great example of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle is a management theory that states a person will be promoted to their level of incompetence. This does not mean that the person will fail but that the person will cease to perform competently when promoted higher.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 13 at 2015 11:19 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:19:11 -0400

It should be based on potential, however it is based on past performance.

There are several reasons for this:
1. Past performance is EASY(-ish). What do their evals say? (more on SR Rater shortly)
2. Future potential is HARD. You need to take a significant amount of time & effort to get to know and understand a person's strengths & weaknesses to really understand their potential for higher levels of responsibilities.
3. For the vast majority of Soldiers, the SR Rater ("who judges potential") does not have any significant (if any) direct daily interaction with the Soldier, meaning that they are relying on "suggested SR comments" from the rater. Especially as organizations disperse more and more.
4. The promotion boards that actually do the selecting don't know the Soldiers (except at the highest levels), aren't supposed to make assessments based on any personal knowledge they do have, and have only official personnel records and a photo to make their assessments based upon. AND they individually have only a few minutes to review those administrative records.
5. If the high potential person's records are jacked up, they will never make it past the pre-board screening.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 11:34 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:34:00 -0400

Because nobody has a crystal ball to look into the future and see what a service member is capable of, we have to promote on past achievements. We make the assumption that past achievements will translate to future achievements. Sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's not, but it's the best we've got. Potential is a very hard attribute to judge.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 1:38 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:38:42 -0400

Sir

Promotion has been in my experiene explained to me as being based on performance and potential. An example I would use to argue against the promotion being based off potential is.. a Soldier who receives a relief for cause can almost guarantee no promotion even though his potential may be outstanding. I have had NCOs who were amongst the best but made a bad decision. I take several steps when considering a soldier for promotion at any rank. First I assess their past performance. Have they demonstrated the ability to perform their current job? Next, do they posess the potential for promotion? This assessment is generally based on a personal impression combined with discussion of his first and possibly second line leaders of the soldiers performance in relation to his peers. These are not the only factors but a general rule that I use.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Apr 13 at 2015 2:50 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:50:09 -0400

You really cannot separate the two. An individual's past performance is an indicator of how he/she will do at the next level.

People are promoted for their potential to assume greater responsibility, which has been proven, at least in part, by their past performance.

A promotion should not be considered a reward for past performance, but an opportunity to serve at a higher level.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 13 at 2015 3:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:06:59 -0400

It appears that younger soldiers are promoted on past performance to a degree, and those with a lot rank get the benefit of who is on the promotion board.

Response by SGT Chris Reese made Apr 13 at 2015 3:09 PM

SGT Chris Reese — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:09:00 -0400

Sir I believe you should add a "both" option.

I am not voting because we are promoted on both past and future.

If you have a SM who had always been a scum bag would you necessarily want him/her promoted because of future potential? Everyone has potential but they must also exhibit the knowledge and want to. If that SM is not wanting to be anything other than a scum bag but has the same potential as everyone else you may be holding the perfect SM with the potential that keeps proving himself/herself back.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Apr 13 at 2015 3:11 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:11:08 -0400

Past performance provides insight into future potential.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 3:19 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:19:22 -0400

A person could promise many things but if he can't do it, that person probably won't.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 3:25 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:25:44 -0400

We are defined by what we have done, not by what we will do LTC Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 3:37 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:37:17 -0400

Miracles help some get promoted...Others crawl up the mountain, mid avalanche, while snowballs are being thrown.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 3:47 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:47:56 -0400

I think it can be both. We had a star who was picked to be promoted to manager at the next opening. Then we found him at a neighborhood bar when he was supposed t working. He couldn't grasp why he was taken off the list for the next opening.

He really did have potential, but he decided he was working beneath where he should be.

The end result - he wound up looking for any job he could get.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 3:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 03:30:34 -0400

It should be a combination of both but unfortunately I know for a fact that some people get promoted purely off of statistics.

case in point; at my last duty station the Department SGM advised an individual that they would make the E-7 as they were the only available person to promote.

Therefore, in certain cases it is possibly neither. This is what can potentially weaken our Military.

I believe the War has promoted many who were not ready and have no clue. Of course I am speaking from a support stand point. Since I have returned to Active Duty there have been many that disappointed e with their lack of knowledge. Many times it seems like a popularity game which I am not into. I did not do that stuf in school and surely will not play that silliness in my career.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 9:57 AM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:57:46 -0400

On the Navy enlisted promotion process, you get promoted based off of what you have done, not what you might do. Sure, I might identify a hard charger and give that person the opportunity to break out of the pack. But at promotion time it is based on what that person did with the opportunity, not what they might do in the future if promoted.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Apr 16 at 2015 10:13 AM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:13:10 -0400

Let's take Chris Johnson who used to play for the Tennessee Titans. He ran for 2000 yards and was making the NFL minimum when he did so out of Eastern Carolina. He got his multimillion dollar deal and didn't put up in the next three seasons before being cut. When interviewed about the lack of performance with such a large contract, he simply said, they owed me for what I had done, not what I am going to do.

Vince Young was promoted to the starting QB out of things he did in college, how did that work out? Yes I am a football fan and leadership on the field of pigskin may not be in comparison to military service, but humans are humans.

Past performance is something we always consider in the human dimension. We honestly believe it to be an indicator of potential. What I find lacking in those particular players is the continuing education, community involvement and commitment to the organization. They were, for a lack of better words, of the me, myself and I generation.

We as raters, leaders and counsel to those around us, must be able to recognize potential, but then it is usually bias to a experience or mentor we had as to what is the desired potential for the future of our service. Past performance MUST be a consideration and then the attributes and indicators for increased performance are also present. A continued hunger and motivation to solve complex issues, reading doctrine, getting to task, end state and participation in the profession of arms are all in my opinion good potential indicators.

Am I wrong? Could be, but much like many leaders, I cannot attempt to make mini me replica's, but rather try to objectively see who it taking their position and responsibilities to the next level regardless of where they are in their career today.

I have been rewarded with promotion by past performance, but I also would like to think that staying engaged in "what's next" for my unit, branch, service and cohort helps my rater identify my potential.

No Vince Young or Chris Johnson here and I frankly think we all know a few of them, let's just not be them. Mentor forward.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Apr 16 at 2015 10:50 AM

BG David Fleming III — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:50:36 -0400

Past performance is the best gage for someone's future potential. Why else do promotion boards review your file? It is nothing but a collection of past performance thru and thru!

Response by SGT Richard H. made Apr 16 at 2015 9:58 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:58:32 -0400

While I would love to see an "All of the above" choice, I'd have to say "future potential" is the right choice for me. If it was based purely on past performance, I would have made SSG (I went to the board, made the points, didn't have enough remaining TIS to get promoted) and who knows? That may have been the thing that put me over the edge and got me to raise my hand again (in spite of the reason that many here probably know that swayed me the other direction).

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 16 at 2015 10:38 PM

SGT Michael Touchet — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:38:53 -0400

I think that it has to be based on a little of both, meaning your past performance demonstrates how capable you are and lends to the prospect of what you have the potential to be. If you demonstrate that you can't handle the position that you are in, then you surely will not be selected for higher responsibility.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 3:18 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:18:53 -0400

You should be promoted off of your past performance in my opinion, but the promotion system in flawed and are promoted off of our ability to answer a question. I feel that I should be promoted on my performance and ability to do my job, not off of the ability to spit out regulations.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 1:14 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 May 2016 13:14:01 -0400

but, doesn't your past performance indicate your future potential?