- Reaction score
SupersonicMax said:CANFORGEN 010/17.
SCORE CONTROLS AND THE PRACTICE OF USING UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP RANKING BOARDS TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PER SCORING IN ANY FORM IS TO CEASE. PER SCORES ARE TO BE DERIVED BY HONEST AND PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEMBER S PERFORMANCE BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND NOT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT TO MEET BOARD RANKINGS.
Through the formal review process, absolutely. To meet a ranking established by a board? No.
Thanks for the ref.
What I've seen is the supervisors adjusting the score in the ranking board when it was justified by their performance after some discussion, and the overall unit ranking falling out from that. That makes sense to me. Are they trying to prevent rankings coming down from on high, and scores being adjusted to suit? Makes sense, but I've never seen anything other then a bottom up system (with PERMON oversight for transparency). That's when things shake out like Bloggins being hard right for PD for a few four hour, throw away online courses, when compared against someone doing some real, actual PD (for example.
Maybe things were happening differently at army/air force unit? :dunno:
Ships are maybe a bit easier, as the MOCs normally are all contained with one department, so normally when you get to the unit rankings, the MOC ranking has been already done by the department with the supervisors arguing it out directly. At the unit ranking, the departments will send a rep (at the supervisor level) with draft PERs and notes from everyone else, with a PERMON there to make sure the process is fair. So for example, for PO2s, the dept chief & PO1s would figure out their comparative ranking, with the divisional officer doing the oversight. Then the PERMON would organize a time for each department to send a rep to get the overall ship rankings for PO2s, which would mean a rep from each department (ie PO1 or the Chief), using the dept list as a reference. PERMON would be there, and usually Coxn was also there to direct traffic and act as a tie breaker between depts. But everyone would start with their list, and compare the top ranked ones that were left, until you had figured out however many were needed for that rank (based on the cutoff for mention in part 5).
Anyway, I've seen at that point someone get underscored by the supervisor and overlooked, so others would bring forward things they were aware of that should have been considered for the PER rankings. Was more typical in the LS ranking, where there was a huge pool, but that was were interdepartmental things (like duty watch performance) got raised, and was almost universally for the benefit of the member. Was stuff like someone forgetting to pass on something good that happened on duty, or something that had happened ages ago and forgotten about, so was more of an honest mistake (vice incompetence or whatever). Did see in one case where it was a blatant screw job, which got fixed at that point, and also ended up resulting in the supervisor/divO dropping down in their assessment.
Personal experience may vary I guess, but at the unit level I think it makes sense to adjust the scores if needed to make sure the sections/departments are consistent, but that's why PERMON is involved.
Group/formation is totally different though; those should have gone through the full PERMON and CO review. The scores and narrative should be basically locked, with the only thing changing at that point is the section 6 narrative (based on the ranking). The rule makes sense at that point, but seems like an unnecessary over-reach, rather then taking action to sort out individual units that are foxed.