Should SNCO's, CPO's, and Officers receive marks on their EVAL/NCOER/FITREP from junior personnel?

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:19:40 -0400

I think that we should have a drastic change to the Senior Enlisted and Officer evaluation to include a section from how the junior personnel rate them. Speaking for the Navy it should be grouped in with Block 33-39 with a 1-5 rating. I think this would help weed out the leaders that look good to their seniors but do not take care of their subordinates as they are required to do.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 15 at 2016 11:29 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:29:02 -0400

I kind of like the old process. It's been my experience, in the Navy and second career in private industry, that if a portion of those reporting to you aren't complaining about you (my estimate, about 10%) aren't leading. Everyone is evaluated by their seniors, they know if you are or are not meeting mission goals.

Response by SSgt Joseph Marquis made Aug 15 at 2016 11:38 AM

SSgt Joseph Marquis — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:38:49 -0400

Leaders are evaluated on their completion of assigned missions.

To give a lackluster PVT the ability to waiver your future opportunities because you denied their "Leave" to go Pokémon GO, is just not a fair evaluation of a leader. sometimes leaders are not liked by those who must do the dirty work and if you allow a Jr member to use this influential point that in someway could lead to their own promotion to fill the gap created by the SNCO/CPO firing or Passover for promotion? It breeds dishonest practice and self promoting behavior.
Once we evaluate on how nice my leader is to me and not on the merits of mission accomplishment, the military will crumble and fall from it's position as an elite organization.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 12:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:36:47 -0400

I think that this would be good only for those junior personnel that rate them to be leaders themselves. I think that it could be useful however there is a lot of concern about favoritisum. that and whos comments do you inculed in the report.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 1:06 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:06:32 -0400

I do not think that junior personnel should have any direct influence on an EVAL of FITREP for several reasons, most already listed below. However, perhaps something to look into would be more surveys. This time with a list of names that junior personnel can anonymously fill out with both good or bad comments. This way leadership can read through these comments and give recognition or corrective mentoring where it is due. Just an idea; though I highly doubt such a thing will come about in todays Navy.

Response by MSG Pat Colby made Aug 15 at 2016 1:06 PM

MSG Pat Colby — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:06:51 -0400

OH HELL NO!

What could be used though is a Peer Evaluation from NCO's in the same Grade. Haven't really thought through the specifics of low density MOS's, but Most of us NCO's know "that one guy" who is screwing the pooch and there isn't a damn thing we could do about him....

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 1:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:38:38 -0400

It'd be difficult with an NCO who has let's say over 5 Soldiers. But maybe you could pick at random X amount of subordinates to give 2 good bullets and 2 improvement bullets that have no effect on the NCOs rating but are taken into account for senior NCO selections where board members can view throughout that NCOs career how his or her soldiers view them and whether or not they have improved their short comings. But it'd have to be anonymous somehow to avoid reprisal. Maybe a quick online type of survey issued to every one of their soldiers that calculates the data into a graph that goes into the eval

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Aug 15 at 2016 1:43 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:43:34 -0400

Not a great idea as many have shown in thier response so I'll not belabor the point further.
What I will do is pout a spin on it and give a like workasoultion you do not need to wait on DOD or your service to implement.

As the "rated" nco, ask one or more of your Sm to rate you as a way to get feedback and see if there is a gap between what you think they consider your are doing right and wrong and what you read they think.
Has to be a GREAT NCO subordinate relationship where the subordinates KNOW there will be no retaliation. And the leader has to be willing to hear thinks they may not want to hear...while not getting emotional about it.

Likewise, a Senior leader that is senior rating an NCO, can ask the same of a few of that rated leaders subordinates.. I would interview 10 subordinates and only ask 2 to write an NCOER, telling all 10, the rated NCO would only know who was selected if THEY told someone, as I would not.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Aug 15 at 2016 2:51 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:51:22 -0400

NO..If that isn't clear enough...HECK NO!!! To allow a junior enlisted member to comment on my performance is Ludacris at best. When I was a commander I had to take action on many different cases and circumstances. At any given time my 1st Sgt, Chief, and my name were burned in effigy for one reason or another because they had no leadership experience then barracks lawyers went to work about what they would have done had they been in charge...without all the info at all because we could not share it. If this were to take effect, the leadership evals would be based on leave approvals or denials, Art 15's or the lack thereof, not having a holiday party and calling people back from leave or cancelling leave should you have to because of the mission...and too many situations to even list. These junior personnel do not have the maturity or leadership experience to professionally judge their leadership...they haven't walked a mile in the shoes. If you want feedback from your subordinates on your ability to lead, do a climate survey...it will open your eyes and make you adjust fire as required to effectively lead. Sometimes I got unsolicited advice and it helped...sometimes I got unsolicited advice and I told them noted, thanks for your interest in national security. I relied on my SNCO's especially Chiefs to guide me and the ones I had weren't shy about advising...and I was extremely grateful. No input on evals from junior personnel...recipe for disaster.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 3:45 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:45:53 -0400

I would understand a subordinate feedback session, to help with growth. But to give someone that doesn't understand all of your tasks assigned to you the power to affect your career based solely on their experience with you is a horrible idea, IMO

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 3:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:50:43 -0400

This is what is wrong with the mind set of the military having lower enlisted feel they have special priority over those who put time in to be where they are in life. No they shouldn't have anything to do with the progression of an nco. Now that being said if this is the route the military is going especially with the millinial mindsets of getting rank but having know knowledge for that rank... It starts with giving the corp out power back not teaching them we are the same by down playing punishments we try to enforce. The problem with our new system we let everyone join when being part of the service is not for everyone just those who are special enough to keep driving through by learning and development

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Aug 15 at 2016 4:56 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:56:31 -0400

I see the 360 rating methodology working for Civilian employees, but not for military. I've had some experience with the 360 rating system when a private sector project manager working for me (I was the COR) was rated with it. I think it worked well for his company because it included inputs from the customer (me), subordinates, supervisors, and peers. The one comment the PM made to me was that it took a lot of time and paperwork. The military evaluation should be based on the demonstrated capability of the service member to accomplish the assigned mission. This must be the first consideration. I believe good raters know how well the SNCOs and Officers take care of "their people." The Squadron Commander knows if the Flight Commanders are taking care of their subordinates. They observe the interactions between the Flight Commanders and those they supervise. He or she gauges it by many factors such as promotion rates, discipline rates, technical testing performance, timeliness and quality of award submissions and other recommendations, and most importantly operational performance. The performance of the Flight is almost always a direct reflection of leadership. I'm saying you don't have to ask the subordinates or peers, just watch what's going on and you'll know.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 7:36 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 19:36:38 -0400

I haven't even scrolled down to the comments yet, and I can guarantee you there's going to be 5-6 claiming that superiors should not be beholden to their subordinates.

Let's say you're the one rating YOUR superior. If your superior does the following things:
A) Communicates with you consistently.
B) Knows you personally, and places your needs above his own.
C) Remains fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment.
D) Believes you are entitled to outstanding leadership, and does his best to provide it.
Would you give him a poor rating?

This attitude of "leadership is not a popularity contest" is a smokescreen used by poor leaders to justify riding their subordinates mercilessly for the sake of mission completion. Unpopular leaders often have a reason they're unpopular--and it's typically because they fail at one of the four points above. Perhaps the same should not be said of Officers, as their responsibilities are quite different, but speaking for NCO's, the Creed says it all: you've got TWO basic responsibilities, not just the one. As a leader, you're tasked with the welfare of your soldiers AND the accomplishment of your mission. Failing at either means you have failed your duties. The hallmark of a great NCO is one who can carefully and skillfully juggle both their mission and their subordinates' welfare.

Too often, I see NCO's who are extremely driven to reach that next level--which is fantastic, I will never begrudge someone their ambitions. However, these same leaders are often the ones concerned with "adding bullets" rather than simply doing their job and allowing their work to speak for itself. This causes them to focus on mission accomplishment, almost to the exclusion of all else. Show me an NCO who lives and breathes the Creed, and I guarantee you their NCOER will match with a 1-1.

The welfare of your soldiers is not a secondary mission; it's not an afterthought, to be completed once the mission is done. Taking care of troops is what leaders do, and truly great leaders do it extremely well. And when you care for your subordinates, it pays dividends when it comes to crunch time. Any senior leader will tell you the exact same thing: "Take care of your troops, and your troops will take care of you."

So why not rate leaders on this? What better group to determine a leader's effectiveness than those whom they lead? Ten dollars says there's a comment above me that says something along the lines of, "What about that one soldier who just hates me because I wouldn't approve his leave during a field problem?" To which I respond, did you care for him? If all you've ever done for your soldier is piss him off to the point where he's willing to give you a poor rating out of spite, have you truly led that soldier? For every time you disapproved of his leave, did you do something else to take care of him? Maybe give him some time off when the mission allowed? Ask how his family is doing? Offer advice or wisdom? If you're doing your job well, and balancing his welfare equally with mission completion, he's going to give you an appropriate rating.

Ask yourself, leaders: are you afraid of subordinate ratings because it would shine a harsh light on your own shortcomings? Have we as an Army become too focused on hitting the 25-meter targets (short-term mission accomplishment) that we've been neglecting the 300-meter ones (soldier welfare)?

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Aug 15 at 2016 10:21 PM

MSgt Michael Smith — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:21:55 -0400

I think that would be a really terrible idea. It's about the mission, not hurt feelings.

Response by SSG Robert Massing made Aug 15 at 2016 11:01 PM

SSG Robert Massing — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:01:45 -0400

Hell No

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2016 11:32 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:32:41 -0400

The way I see it, joe knows bubkiss about the daily ins and outs of their senior leadership's job. Joe gets put on staff duty on a friday? 1sg must be incompetent. They don't have the scope of what's going on outside their three feet, and that's okay. Joe isn't paid to know what top is up to. If he was, joe would be top.

Response by PO1 Richard Cormier made Aug 16 at 2016 11:44 AM

PO1 Richard Cormier — Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:44:27 -0400

NO. But I think the rating SNCO/Officer should at least talk to/listen to the people being supervised. This comes from first hand experience.

I was a young E5 and the E7 I worked for (and consequently the E6 that worked for him) needed someone to be in charge of for evals. I was the only E5 working directly for this E7/E6. They would countermand each others orders to me and blame me for not following their instructions. Informing them that they were directly conflicting each others orders just infuriated them. I was considered a "shitbag" and transferred to another office. The other office office was asked, once in a Department Meeting, how they like the cast-offs. They replied that if they had more like that they would be the #1 Department on the base, not just in this group.

The other SNCO's looked into it and found that my replacement E5 was now a "shitbag" and that the E7's accomplishments could be tied to the E5's work. An E8 came up to me latter and actually apologized saying there was nothing that could be done about the past but if it is any condolence, the E7 will never make E8.

Wonder how many times that has happened?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 17 at 2016 12:12 AM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:12:26 -0400

Well, I believe if you want to know what kind of leader you really are.... you should ask those you lead...

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Aug 17 at 2016 2:15 AM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:15:26 -0400

Hell no. It's all well and good if you want to do a 360 review to see how people perceive you but using it in a formal rating manner, no. Junior personnel do not have the experience, knowledge or background to rate a senior individuals performance in accomplishing their mission. I include both officers and enlisted in that statement. If you asked me when I was a 2ndLt to rate the colonel on his job performance, you would have gotten a completely useless opinion back that consisted solely of my very limited knowledge at the time, with little to no relation to his actual mission.

Being a leader is not a popularity contest. There is a reason we have the phrase "mission first, Marines always". We take care of our own but the mission comes first, even if that means making people unhappy for a while to get things done. Do you know how unhappy people rate the person making them unhappy? Poorly. Even if they are accomplishing the mission in the most effective manner.

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Aug 21 at 2016 3:17 PM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:17:58 -0400

No.......... You are in the military not working at Dairy Queen. If you were working at Dairy Queen the manager is rated on profits and efficiency i.e. accomplishing the mission not on the happiness of the employees. It stands to reason that happy employees will perform better but the focus needs to be on the mission not the happiness of the employees. Boys and Girls you not are living with mommy and daddy anymore. You are responsible for all of your actions or lack there of.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Aug 21 at 2016 4:02 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:02:00 -0400

NO, that just encourages the popularity contest. The leader needs to be just that a LEADER.
Whose idiot idea is this anyway?
What next, get voted out because you made some Pvt. clean the head?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2016 5:34 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 17:34:18 -0400

I see a massive lack of distrust toward junior-enlisted personnel. If I am asked to rate a senior, I don't care if they called me a scumbag 5 minutes ago; if I deserved it, I deserved it and also deserved to be corrected. They would get a fair and impartial rating based on their ability to lead, develop, and achieve, as well as provide purpose, motivation, and direction to his/her subordinates. There should be no alternative or "personal opinion". There's no room for opinion. Only hard facts. Did they do their job, yes or no?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2016 7:12 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:12:41 -0400

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2016 7:17 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:17:02 -0400

I can really see this work. You nknow the guy who got the Article 15s should surely be fair and say yep the commander did the right thing for me.

Sure they would.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2016 8:06 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 20:06:31 -0400

I've had a couple of Soldiers who thought I was an SOB because I held them to the standard. That meant not pencil whipping APFTs and requiring their haircuts to be within regulation. I don't see how giving individuals like that an opportunity to influence my evaluation is a good thing. Leadership is not a popularity contest, which such a change could easily bring about.

Response by CSM Michael Sweeney made Aug 21 at 2016 8:26 PM

CSM Michael Sweeney — Sun, 21 Aug 2016 20:26:47 -0400

I don't know, maybe. Maybe as a yes/no type of questionnaire. I have to say though, that in my career, I had a few raters and senior raters, that simply were not able to conduct proper performance evaluations. They could not put two words together to save their lives. I actually had to write my own end of tour NCOER once. I was pretty hard on myself and I think I was a confident enough leader to let subordinates rate certain aspects of my performance.

Response by CW3 Matt Hutchason made Aug 22 at 2016 7:18 PM

CW3 Matt Hutchason — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:18:18 -0400

They've got that already. It's called an open door policy.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Aug 23 at 2016 5:59 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:59:11 -0400

The evaluation report is a testament of how your Soldiers/Service members feel about the leader. You are rated based on what your elements performance is like in many areas including fitness. You show me a leader that gets high marks while the unit consistently performs poorly and I will show you a unit that has no integrity amongst their leaders.

Response by SFC Thomas Butler made Aug 23 at 2016 7:27 PM

SFC Thomas Butler — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:27:24 -0400

That is.....the craziest suggestion I've ever heard.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Apr 7 at 2017 9:02 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 21:02:35 -0400

I saw this done a few years ago in my state agency. Respondents were asked to be honest in reviews of their supervisor and promised anonymity. Several of my coworkers honestly gave their opinion. They were lied to, their reviews and identities were given to the supervisor, who made their lives hell for a significant time.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2020 3:15 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:15:44 -0400

The Chief you need isn't always the Chief you want.