Will 360 Degree Evaluations Help Army Leadership?

SSG Christopher Peckham — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:28:10 -0500

I have heard talk about the army doing 360 degree evaluations, whats your opinion? Do you think it will help out army leadership and the draw down? <br>I had wrote a paper on this for my soldier of the quarter board, my  CSM
asked me why i felt the way i did about soldiers having a say in their
leaders NCOERs and OERs, i said CSM i have had a few cases of where my
NCO wasnt good at all to me or other soldiers but nobody that saw it said anything and when i said something they didnt want to believe me and laughed it off. When he did get in trouble nothing happened to him. <br>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 5:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:24:29 -0500

I believe the MSAF360 will be a great initiative as long as everyone provides accurate and unbiased assessments of Leaders, Peers and Subordinates. I personally done a few of these assessments for some of my Senior Leaders.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 5:32 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:32:28 -0500

I think the 360 evals are a pretty good tool for leaders to get feedback from thier Soldiers and for Rater to get a feel of how the Ratee is viewed by thier Subordinates.....IF the eval is done honestly and with integrity! However I do not feel that those Evals should have and true weight when it comes to NCOERS and OERS because most of the Soldiers that are going to be conducting these assessments have no clue what an NCOER or OER is or the importance of it. I just feel it owuld be to easy for a good leader to get screwed because his or her soldiers do not agree with their leadership style or didn't "like" them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 5:39 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:39:38 -0500

Not for NCOERs and OERs. If done team/co/bn wide anonymously so leaders can see how they are viewed then thats up to them, but not soldiers officially rating NCOs and Officers.

If you have good leaders there is no need for this anonymous rating either. (not sure if the MSAF360 is anonymous anyway) There should always be an open line of communication where soldiers can professionally let an NCO know that they are uncomfortable with this or that. Monthly counselings are a great time to talk as humans, doing away with senior to subordinate for a moment as long as it is professional and tactful.

I have been where you are SPC Peckham and felt the same way at times, however, you have to take into account that looking up you have a very small idea of what goes on. Rating "down" you have been in that position you understand why that NCO does what he does and you understand the effects. You understand what he was asked to do and what he actually did. As a soldier you dont really know why your NCO does what he does on a daily basis unless it pertains directly to you and your mission. So where you think your NCO is shaming he is really performing an additional duty or escorting a soldier to ASAP or some other tasks unbeknownst to you.

The other thing is lower enlisted soldiers would hold grudges, make false reports (which already happens) imagine the man hours spent investigating all the simple reports just to get a valid NCOER (SGT Snuffy comes in late everyday[maybe he has a valid reason, still have to investigate]). Imagine how pissed you would be if they didnt investigate and still closed out the NCOER ignoring your claim(or taking your word for it without investigating, equally as wrong). How would you validate these claims? Do we give soldiers the power to counsel NCOs when they do something the soldier deems unsatisfactory and then transfer it to their NCOER when its due?

Soldiers have a hard time separating correction from hazing/being picked on. Sometimes they dont understand the workload. Soldiers become angry for working late not realizing that four day the week before was in jeopardy and now you have to work 2 HOURS over to make up for 2 DAYS off. Maybe the NCO doesnt even know that so he cant tell you, but you think its his fault and rate him badly?

Its best to leave the ratings to the highers, they know the full picture, because they are usually the ones who issue the order and intent, so they know if it was conducted properly and since the decisions of their subordinates are not directly physically and mentally effecting them they can be fair and impartial as opposed to a soldier who is being directly effected by that NCO and may allow emotion to play a part in rating.

***To the point of an NCO treating you badly. There are already systems in place to counter such ill treatment.(COC, Open Door policy, IG, Sensing sessions and more) If it is brought forth and nothing is done then there are systems in place to address that also. If you feel you are being ignored exercise the right steps in order to have the problem addressed.

I will say that I witnessed an event take place(when i was there) where I thought an NCO went unpunished only to find out later that he lost pay and did extra duty. Sometimes punishment is kept out of sight, but it still happens. Sometimes unfortunately some go unpunished, but usually that is because the soldier took the wrong avenues of approach or had no backing to the claims.***

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 5:47 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:47:14 -0500

Funny this should come up. I just
got done doing the unit climate survey for a new commander. He has been in the
job less than a month and wants to be critiqued / evaluated by the unit
already. There is some pressure from above to try and get in front of the new politically
correct machine that will be driving to your unit soon. Not sure if this is
looked at as not being a toxic leader or for downsizing issues or just punching
the block.

This will be and is part of the 360
evaluations that will help shape our army in the future and hopefully develop
better leaders as well but I had to think to myself "man work yourself
into the job first" then ask your subordinates what they think is working and
what is not.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 5:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:50:37 -0500

I actually agree with MSAF360. I think it forces the leadership to be more involved with the rated NCO. For those that feel like your subordinates could potentially give bad feedback, if you are a good NCO you shouldn't have to worry about that 1 soldier that has a bias towards you. You will be able to determine what is bias and what is not. The fact that every NCO will now be weighed will actually set the outstanding from the satisfactory, and from the mediocre NCOs. I believe now the Senior rater will actually have to more involved with the rated NCO's duties and responsibilities and not just weigh his remarks from hear-say of the rater. It will now allow the NCO to be rated accordingly and we won't see all NCOs receiving a 1/1 from the senior rater. It will also teach the NCO about the true value of the senior rater's weighted ranking, and let NCOs understand that 2/2, 2/1, or 1/2 are not bad NCOERs. Not every NCO can be a 1/1, and that's the issue we have come across through the years with the NCOER. It allows more insight on the NCO being evaluated overall, and all soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership. Therefore, they should be allowed to weigh in on how good an NCO's leadership is. the morale and welfare of that soldier starts with the leadership if the NCO in charge of them.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2014 11:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:17:54 -0400

I believe it shall be a good start but the promotion system needs a change. I only wish I could think of something that would be totally fair all around.
Many do not like the idea of a written type test.
I believe to be a well rounded Soldier and Leader there should be all three. Written Evaluation, Hands On, and Written Test pertaining to your Grade.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Oct 23 at 2014 1:16 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:16:11 -0400

I have been utilizing it since 2005 and it is a very good tool. I have completed 4 of them and actually pick all forms of supervisors, peers and subordinates to assess my actions, even folks I know disagree with everything I do or say. I like the fact GEN Dempsey enacted it across the formation and when giving the WOPD/OPD on the MSAF360, most of the people who were nervous were Captains. It was advertised NOT to be a considered faction on the OER/NCOER and I doubted it then and still do. I looked up the self-counseling for the lowest responded scores I received, and guess what? The stuff I read made sense!

The nervousness of the Captains was displaced in that they seriously did not believe the system was discrete in identity of respondents. I can tell you that there is no way to know unless respondents write a specific comment at the end, and it doesn't usually ID who, but where they stand in your pool of respondents. An example for me would be someone referring to my flight skills versus leadership.

The last 360 I completed had a very disturbing result. The result was that I initiated it with 12 superiors (of the last 3 years, rating chain and staff), 12 peers (of rank or position) and 24 subordinates (flight crew or rank). After the initial period I had completed the peer and subordinate sections with responses. I had sent reminders and personal emails to get superior/supervisor responses to no avail. I added two superior position warrant officers and got immediate responses. After an extension, I finally persuaded some senior feedback in order to close the assessment.

If leadership wishes to utilize the tool, it needs to be exercised and disciplined for the future of the Army. Leaders cannot change when they do not receive honest feedback. Some may not, and most may. I know that of each of mine I have found ways to improve my interaction and style of leadership in the quest of not changing attitudes about me, but rather how I treat and respond to others, regardless of rank.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Oct 23 at 2014 1:23 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:23:52 -0400

The short answer is that I think 360 degree evaluations can be a valuable tool both organizationally for the Army and individually for each leader. The long answer is that a lot will depend upon how 360 degree evaluations are implemented across the force and if/how the evaluations are used organizationally and individually. Organizationally, 360 evals are not much different from the peer evals that a Soldier receives in Ranger School. There are things that a spot light Ranger can hide from an RI that can not be hidden from fellow Rangers which is what makes peer evals effective. Individually, a person that does not normally solicit, listen to, and/or apply feedback from others will not do so with a 360 eval either but a person who normally does will with a 360 eval and it therefore becomes that much more effective. At the end of the day, individuals will have to make 360 evals work by providing quality feedback as a contributor and by assessing and using the evals as a receiver.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 9:01 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:01:36 -0500

NO. Outside of Customer Service Ratings, it takes a skillful leader to make it work. Even CSRatings can be skewed by one negative experience in a sea of positive experiences by one person that still shapes a negative rating. As a result it does not always work in the ways normally intended. While the so-called 360 or 360 Peer Reviews can provide useful feedback, some of that feedback reveals the true nature of humans and politics with little bearing on a true measure of competence and effectiveness. Rather, it too easily becomes a measure of relationships, alliances, and allegiances. There is also the "herd" mentality to consider. Herd ratings often means that the most popular person, rather than the most effective "wins" a higher rating. It also means the if a person or office is not well liked or understood, the "rating" can be used to send an undermining message. In such cases, the work environment can become more hostile, less stable, because the situation encourages mistrust when it should encourage better staff relationships. A reason that occurs is because there is no accountability for the negative or positive comments--no one has to defend them. And when anonymous they carry equal weight.