Promotion and PRF Information

[Skitzo]

I knew a guy who refused to sign his opr because he never received feedback. Yeah didn't end well for him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest ThatGuy]

I knew a guy who refused to sign his opr because he never received feedback. Yeah didn't end well for him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, it's because it's an officers responsibility to request feedback if it has not taken place. Someone pull out the AFI because I don't have it memorized.

[SurelySerious]

We DO have such a system. Our system requires documented feedback, and multiple levels of EPR/OPR review for truth before signing.

yeah...no

We may have a system designed like that, but the whole of it is not applied as designed.

[Learjetter]

yeah...no

We may have a system designed like that, but the whole of it is not applied as designed.

And whose fault is that?

[Herk Driver]

I'm not even sure if we're having the same conversation anymore. I think we are mostly in agreement, but I'm in violent disagreement with this quote. "It depends" is not a shitty answer. It's the right and best answer and it's actually quite helpful if you really understand it. Champ laid out his wisdom on tiers of stratifications. I pointed out that, while his decision tree might work sometimes, there are a million individual situations where it would not. Each case is separate, and the exceptions are not limited to lieutenants getting CGO starts or majors getting FGO strats. "Padding the denominator" as he put it, is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends both on what the denominator is and what the respective numerator would be in each pool. I can tell several different stories with the same person. A guy who is #2/4 captains might be a super strong swimmer in a pool of all-stars or he might be a clown in a pool of 4 clowns and there are just 2 guys with floppier shoes. So I can adjust the overall picture accordingly by changing the pool to tell the story I"m trying to tell. #2/4 captains does not read strong, even thought the guy in question might be great. #2/10 CGOs reads pretty strong. See what I mean? It does depend on the total picture of each individual circumstance and therefore trying to mentor guys by saying there is a (mostly) black and white tier structure within numerical strats like Champ did is a disservice. There are subtleties and nuances that can be used to make a guy seem stronger or less strong on paper to match what his performance is in reality.

So "it depends" is the right answer and for guys who are trying to learn how to do this well, guys should understand that.

I'm out

I would argue that Champ laid out a solid way to look at "Tiers" of stratification. Yes, it depends and each case is different, but if you look at what he said, you are not that far off from his base argument. You add a few caveats and say that there can and should be exceptions to the "rules" that he laid out, but your overall premise is not much different from what he originally wrote.

I follow the general "rules" that Champ put out and apply to each and every OPR/EPR I write on a case by case basis. It is a pretty good rule of thumb. In most flying squadrons, we don't have the problem of #2/4 Capts versus the #2/10 CGOs since we typically have many more than that. I would agree that small groups of Capts or CGOs (lie your examples) may force you to take a look at this from a different perspective. However, too much "freedom and flexibility" may cause a board member to miss what you are trying to say.

[Dupe]

We DO have such a system. Our system requires documented feedback, and multiple levels of EPR/OPR review for truth before signing.

If you don't know where you stand, it's not the system's fault. It's your rater's...and yours.

Other services stratify everyone. The problem is that our idea of "truth" has become departed from reality.

If you were to hand an OPR to anyone outside the AF where the push line read "A strong officer. Consider for IDE in-res and place in ADO position," they might actually believe the rated individual was shit hot... vice someone in the top 70%.

The system needs actual honesty. Not Air Force honesty. There's sadly a difference.

[Liquid]

The other services stratify everyone, but there are problems with their promotion systems as well. No system is perfect. Ours works.

Feedback is for the ratee. Too many raters do a shitty job giving real feedback. Chickenshits I guess. OPRs and PRFs are for the boards, not for those outside the AF. The OPR isn't really written for the ratee, so it isn't the most appropriate place to put real, useful feedback like "your interpersonal skills suck and people think you are an arrogant, self-serving jackass" or "you will never be an effective leader because people can't stand being around you and they won't follow you anywhere". Ratees are confused by the unwritten but broadly understood words in the push lines and on the reports because their raters and/or senior raters don't want to explain them or the ratees don't care. There are plenty of people who can look at an OPR, PRF or record and give you an idea of how strong it is. The key is teaching those who write performance reports how to describe a strong performer and what to avoid saying with a strong performer (potential, MAJCOM, ADO next, continue to challenge, etc). There are plenty of writing guides, and there is good, accurate advice on this forum.

The promotion boards get it right most of the time. The top 15-20% is sharp, and most of those passed over have the worst records of all those scored. There are a few outliers, there always will be. Boards look at job performance, breadth, depth, stratification, distinction (DG, awards), deployments and ability to lead at next grade. Strats are important, but virtually non-existent in the records of the bottom 50%. There is not much difference between writing "#10/20 Capts" and "Top Tier" in the push line. Raters are better off just explaining the ratees best character traits and performance. Describe what they do really well, in plain language. If you want them promoted, include a school push and good staff job. If you want them to command or be promoted BPZ, you'll need a great strat, a school push, a joint job push and a command push to go along with the demonstrated job performance, depth, breadth, distinction, deployments and ability to lead at the next grade.

Most of the commonly recommended changes to the performance report and promotion board processes have been tried and don't really work. The current one may suck, but it sucks less than all of the others. There are very few truly merit based, perfect promotion systems in our world. Some people will always bitch, even about your version of the "perfect" promotion system.

The one change I would make is splitting the LAF boards into rated and support. I would also adjust promotion quotas to requirements in each AFSC, not chance. But nobody has asked me and I doubt anything will change in the near future. And we are still waiting for CSAF to give guidance on AADs (not required before O-6) and not double tapping PME (no practice bleeding). Lawyers recommended he rewrite the draft guidance, not sure why. Hopefully the guidance will come out soon.

[Toro]

Too many raters do a shitty job giving real don't give feedback.

FIFY. The first time I get a rater feedback was after 16 years of active duty.

[RASH]

I had 3 formal feedback sessions in my entire career, and none in my last 6 years in service, FWIW.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Liquid]

FIFY. The first time I get a rater feedback was after 16 years of active duty.

I agree it is a problem. I required raters to submit a copy of the signed feedback form with the OPR. If a subordinate rater didn't do feedback, it was reflected in their feedback and performance report. Raters were also given feedback on the quality of their written feedback. Set clear standards and expectations, then enforce them. It isn't rocket science.

[Bender]

Set clear standards and expectations, then enforce them. It isn't rocket science.

If only you were right. Accountability, much like leadership, has had a lot of research done. Probably so much that the chaff throws us off the practical application. I'd be interested to know how much study of accountability leaders have really done...often doesn't seem like much. Most seem content to use it as a buzz word.

This involves people, thus it's actually a lot harder than rocket science.

Bendy

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bender

[Azimuth]

I agree it is a problem. I required raters to submit a copy of the signed feedback form with the OPR. If a subordinate rater didn't do feedback, it was reflected in their feedback and performance report. Raters were also given feedback on the quality of their written feedback. Set clear standards and expectations, then enforce them. It isn't rocket science.

Isn't a feedback form between the rater and the ratee? You'd give "feedback" on the quality of how a feedback form was written? That's micromanaging IMHO. If you don't think I give clear feedback i.e. do my job, then don't make me a rater.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Azimuth

[MSCguy]

Disclaimer-I'm a direct appt medical dude and don't know much about you line guys; but out of curiousity what happens when you have to rack and stack guys across career fields? Does #4/20 pilots take precedence over #1/10 FSS because a pilot can fly and shuffle papers and the FSS guy can only shuffle papers?

[Liquid]

If only you were right. Accountability, much like leadership, has had a lot of research done. Probably so much that the chaff throws us off the practical application. I'd be interested to know how much study of accountability leaders have really done...often doesn't seem like much. Most seem content to use it as a buzz word.

This involves people, thus it's actually a lot harder than rocket science.

Bendy

Good point Bendy. I told the raters I expected them to do and document feedback because I thought it was important. Making the raters provide the feedback form ensured compliance. It wasn't difficult to do. Not nearly as difficult as building rockets.

Edit for *ing iPhone keypad and bad eyes.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Liquid

[Bender]

...what happens when you have to rack and stack guys across career fields? Does #4/20 pilots take precedence over #1/10 FSS because a pilot can fly and shuffle papers and the FSS guy can only shuffle papers?

That's a good question. I don't think anyone is going to agree with your suggested explanation, but I'd suspect they'd tell you the number 20 is bigger than the number 10, then avoid (actually be unable to answer) the question using the "whole person concept" and "it depends".

But, all other things being equal...it's a good question. It's certainly a complication to have multiple different career fields on the same board.

Bendy

[Liquid]

Isn't a feedback form between the rater and the ratee? You'd give "feedback" on the quality of how a feedback form was written? That's micromanaging IMHO. If you don't think I give clear feedback i.e. do my job, then don't make me a rater.

Yes. Not micromanaging, verifying and assessing. How would I know if you gave clear feedback if I didn't check? We had problems with no feedback, inaccurate feedback and false feedback dates on OPRs. After the minor policy change that described the expectations and standards, the problems went away.

[panchbarnes]

Is there an "official" AF-wide policy for OPR/EPR/1206 abbreviations?

It seems like every unit, CC, sup has their own abbreviation/acronym policy that adds unnecessary manhours/work to the whole process. As soon as you get a new person in charge, there is a new policy based on their previous unit/AFSC experience/preference.

Is the board okay with a little bit of white space? Or is that a hidden message from the rater? If I can abbreviate target to tgt or level to lvl then perhaps I can squeeze more impact to the bullet. Do I really need to spell out msn or wks? Is spted really a legit abbreviation?

It seems like I'm always one letter too many for that perfect bullet... damn it!

[ThreeHoler]

18AF has a guide. So does HAF.

[Dupe]

The other services stratify everyone, but there are problems with their promotion systems as well. No system is perfect. Ours works.

Our system could work much better if the OPR matched what we're looking for. The board wants strats for the top 20% and percentiles for everyone else? Fine, put that on the form. So breadth, depth, primary job performance, deployments, and leadership are all valued traits: make blocks on the form. We want to ensure a senior rater gives only one #1 strat? Seems like a job for a computer. In a service that values data and numbers, I'm constantly shocked that there are no analytics applied to our OPRs.

We spend an insane amount of time training writers, reviewing OPRs, holding MLRs, and fueling the overhead to keep it all going. The AF as an organization has developed a whole separate process (review cycle & MLR) to deal with the failings of the first process. On top of that, if you're a member in the top 20% down to the top 70% (I.e...going to get promoted but not a school nod), the time spent crafting your OPR was largely wasted. We need a system enables extra focus at the cut-lines.

Sure, our system works. It could work much better if the tool (the OPR) were designed to specifically input the data boards cared about. Instead, we're using a canvas and paint brush to draw architectural drawings. I'm surprised more senior leaders aren't asking "why?" and "What do other services and Fortune 500 companies do?" It seems the "Our system works" line has been pounded in from SOS and beyond to the point where senior leaders are conditioned to not question the process. It's funny: I can tell where I stand percentile-wise for my PFT over time and across the AF, but I can't do the same with my OPR. Which is more important there?

There are better systems out there... there really are. Senior leaders would do well to ask "What data do we want from this process and how can that data be most efficiently be delivered?"

Somebody... please end the madness.

[Liquid]

I don't know if there are better systems in industry. The Army uses a two page performance report with many analytics you describe, including quotas. You check the top one of three attributes (mental, physical, emotional), two of 4 leadership competence skills (conceptual, interpersonal, technical, tactical) and three of 9 leadership actions (communicating, decision-making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, building, learning) to best describe the officer. There is a section to identify unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value to the Army. Height, weight, PT pass, promotion potential (best qualified, fully qualified, do not promote and other), # of officers the senior rater rates in that grade and comparison by senior rater of other officers in same grade (above center of mass, center of mass, below center of mass). It is written in paragraph form, not bullets. The Officer Record Brief includes a full length photo. Many of those in the Army complain about the unwritten codes, playing favorites with strats, MOS favoritism and confusing promotion board values. Something similar to the Army system may be better, but I doubt it. Our system works relatively well and it would be a significant administrative effort to completely change our performance reports. Not sure it would be worth the effort.

[Chuck17]

I don't know if there are better systems in industry. The Army uses a two page performance report with many analytics you describe, including quotas. You check the top one of three attributes (mental, physical, emotional), two of 4 leadership competence skills (conceptual, interpersonal, technical, tactical) and three of 9 leadership actions (communicating, decision-making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, building, learning) to best describe the officer. There is a section to identify unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value to the Army. Height, weight, PT pass, promotion potential (best qualified, fully qualified, do not promote and other), # of officers the senior rater rates in that grade and comparison by senior rater of other officers in same grade (above center of mass, center of mass, below center of mass). It is written in paragraph form, not bullets. The Officer Record Brief includes a full length photo. Many of those in the Army complain about the unwritten codes, playing favorites with strats, MOS favoritism and confusing promotion board values. Something similar to the Army system may be better, but I doubt it. Our system works relatively well and it would be a significant administrative effort to completely change our performance reports. Not sure it would be worth the effort.

This.

Fellas, I work with the army everyday. I have two former HRC (Human Resources Command) Branch Managers in my working group - and have received the full brief on their ORB more than once. The grass is not greener. In fact it is much much worse IMHO. They play even more ridiculous games with their reports than we do, and the ONLY thing that matters to their boards is the Above Center of Mass score from the senior rater.

Dudes I know it can be frustrating. It once was for the army too - and they went full retard in the other direction to fix it - making it worse. You know what the guys in my staff group worry about? Their full length official photo that accompanies their ORB - are their medals straight, does their face look fat, do they have a five o'clock shadow, are their foreign jump wings displayed correctly. THAT is what you're wishing for...? No thanks.

Queep is queep. Fight the fight. Notch the real threats, not the decoys.

Chuck

Edited April 29, 2014 by Chuck17

[deskjockey]

Allow me to sum up what Liquid just said. "It could be worse." This, for those who don't know, is the unofficial AMC motto. Don't like your deployment rate? "It could be worse, you could be flying a C-xx!" Missing your kids birth? "It could be worse, I missed the conception!" Etc etc etc...for 12 years I've heard it.

I think this is the root of our problems...the guys flying the line are saying "it could be better". Those at the top continue to say, "it could be worse". And the implied statement is. "So I don't need to fix it because so and so has it worse".

[Liquid]

Allow me to sum up what Liquid just said. "It could be worse." This, for those who don't know, is the unofficial AMC motto. Don't like your deployment rate? "It could be worse, you could be flying a C-xx!" Missing your kids birth? "It could be worse, I missed the conception!" Etc etc etc...for 12 years I've heard it.

I think this is the root of our problems...the guys flying the line are saying "it could be better". Those at the top continue to say, "it could be worse". And the implied statement is. "So I don't need to fix it because so and so has it worse".

No. What I am saying is it is more difficult to make better than some think it is. Many times when we try to make it better we actually make it worse. The Army system is one example of this. EPRs is another.

[zach braff]

Part of the PRF/OPR/EPR issue I've witnessed is every time there's a workshop/lesson/mentoring/whatever on writing, it's always about how to write the strongest report. You learn all the techniques to make someone stand out as a winner, but those events rarely/never address how to write for the average (not bottom of barrel but not top 20%) to get across that they are top 40%, 60%, 80% etc.

I can draft a sh-t hot PRF, RRF OPR on anyone but I'd struggle to write for a good performer who isn't going to be a school select (but that I still want to keep moving).

zb

[Azimuth]

No. What I am saying is it is more difficult to make better than some think it is. Many times when we try to make it better we actually make it worse. The Army system is one example of this. EPRs is another.

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.