Posted on Dec 21, 2013
What are your main criticisms of the current OER process and will the new system fix/address them?
17.5K
23
22
4
4
0
The new OER process (now delayed to 1 APR 14), is supposed to modernize the process (there were other goals of improving fairness and discouraging "pooling", but I notice that language has basically disappeared from more recent briefs). All Soldiers should take a look at this, not just officers. Do you feel that the new rating system is capturing what you think officers should be rated on?
The planned Dec. 1 launch of a new Officer Evaluation Reporting System has been pushed to April 1 to accommodate changes to the rating form for colonels, and to introduce a new support form that wil...
If you are Guard or Reserves, make sure to read questions 9 and 10 of this FAQ: https://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/FAQs%20-%20Draft%20OER%20Support%20Form
For me the new system is just re-wrapping the same fruit cake (holiday theme). My current gripes do not seem to be improved by the new system:
1. Everyone is top blocked. True, raters can only top block 49% of rated officers, but first of all, there are ways to game that. For example, you get 3 freebie "Proficient" ratings no matter the rank or how many officers of that rank are under you according to TDA/MTOE. In the example on HRC's site, this person is rating 20 LTCs so 3 Proficient freebies make little difference. But my senior rater only rates 4 CPTs so all but 1 of us will be top blocked. Is that an accurate reflection of our section?
2. I love my fellow officers, but in truth, 50%+ of us are not "Excels." Let's hear it from some NCOs, because I get the sense that there is a lot more mediocrity out there. Either that, or our bar for what we define as excellent performance is too low.
3. Having only 4 choices makes a "proficient" rating seem like a huge slap in the face. Flat out you are saying this person is not in the top 50% - in school, that's an "F." Wow! Doesn't that really mean that a "proficient" rating is really saying this officer is not proficient? As in the current system, the new system means B+ to C officers get "Excels" right next to your A+ superstars and C- to D officers get "Proficient" marks, almost no one gets "Capable" and "Unsat" will be relief for cause types (how can you mark "Capable" on a relief for cause, really?). In academics there used to be only 5 grades (A, B, C, D, and F), but now you have 12 or 13 with plus/minus. We have 4 grades where the top grade represents 50% of the population, and one of the mid-grades, "Capable," will get very light use. Are you giving valuable feedback if 85-95% of officers are getting one of two scores? (either "Excels" or "Proficient")
4. Related to point 3, being an "Excels" kind of officer and ending up with the same grade as a pretty mediocre officer makes you feel like a chump and hurts morale.
5. Being a pretty mediocre officer and getting an "Excels" says, "hey, you stay you." That's the wrong message. Plus it doesn't help them improve because you have basically said they don't have to, even if you made suggestions for improvement during the counseling process.
6. If you want to stick to a more realistic standard where maybe only the top 15-25% get "Excels" ratings, you will torpedo careers. My branch flat out said in their FY13 annual brief that officers looking to promote will need 100% "left justified" OERs (translation: top blocked by rater and senior rater). Maybe every branch isn't like that, but mine is.
7. If you try to hand-pick the-best-of-the-best for your unit, aren't you putting those officers at a disadvantage? You are rated against your rank peers within the unit. It may be that all 9 or 10 CPTs in a BN would be "Excels" if they were separated, but together only 7 can be (confused? see point #1).
8. I don't see where they have resolved the foolishness of an "Excels" officer knocking themselves out of the top block. I had a CoR OER that was super late. My senior rater only rates 4 CPTs and two of us were affected by this. If he gave us top blocks now, he would be forced to give us "Proficient" marks for our more important annual OERs. And by giving us both "Proficient" he has set the conditions to give all four of us "Excels" annuals. This is game-ism. It does not have a single thing to do with evaluating performance.
Alright, let me get off the soapbox. I am so glad they are automating this process and bringing it into the 2000's. My last OER was lost in various people's email in-boxes 3 or 4 times - and it was already late. At least this piece should improve.
The planned Dec. 1 launch of a new Officer Evaluation Reporting System has been pushed to April 1 to accommodate changes to the rating form for colonels, and to introduce a new support form that wil...
OER
Officers
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
They should do away with all the box checks and let the comments tell the story about that rating period. There could be a superstar at one base, but the senior rater doesn't have room in their profile to grant a top block. Meanwhile at another base, someone not quite as stellar has a senior rater with room in their profile for an ACOM rating. I see an imbalance in this scenario. I think removing the box checks would better ensure fairness across the Army. Either that or promotions need to be localized by population - maybe still from a centralized board. Officers would be grouped by base and MOS, then placed into an order of merit for promotion.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I also believe that all personal information should be stripped out. No photo, no name, no gender-specific pronouns. Use the DoD ID number as the placeholder. That way there could be no discrimination, real or imagined, with any board.
(2)
(0)
Thanks for posting this and for your insights. It seems that the only way to create a system that isn't "gamed" is to continuously evolve it in reaction to people finding ways to get around it. When a system is revamped once a decade or multiple decades, it seems almost impossible for it to be a full proof solution. On the other hand, there are people who would argue that too much change is not a good environment either. For the latter, I would say most complaints are about change for change's sake, and not because the changes were obviously needed. Organizations shouldn't be afraid to change and evolve as often as it's actually needed.
By the way, I've noticed that your contributions to our forums has been consistently helpful. Thanks for supporting the broader community.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sir, I agree that constant change would be bad; how would you compare OERs when they are on different scales and systems?
As far as gaming, I think the solution is to reduce the motivation to game. For example, if an A+, A, A-, and B+ were all equivalent to an "Excels," you would have no problem giving out that any mark in that range, and you would create a valuable distinction (not that we should use letter grades like school, but I wanted to give an example that wouldn't need explanation).
If you get a B+, you know you need to step it up; you're on the bubble. If you get a "B", so that's "Proficient," but you could see how close you were. My suggestion would be to manage the overall category (Excels, Proficient, etc) and not individual marks.
Thank you for saying I'm helpful, sir. It seems impossible to be heard in the military. This forum is great because you can feel heard even if it's not by people who can implement your ideas; it still feels better than keeping them to yourself.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'm two years late to this discussion, but would just note that in grad school a B+ was considered just barely passing, so really equivalent to a D-. Using the rubric above, we wouldn't want D- officers to get a proficient.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Another issue I have with both systems is if the SR raters don't "game" the system they are setting the rated population up for failure because files are reviewed based on their "heartbeat", how often they get a top block.
If SR raters don't consider the heartbeat of a rated officer they could be dooming all of their officers in the bottom half if other SR raters spread their top blocks around.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google