33
33
0
By now everybody involved should have received several LPDs, or briefings, on the new NCOER. Most people understand where the Army is going with this new, improved evaluation system, but there are some people out there who are resistant to change and simply don’t like it. I believe that most of the people who haven’t bought into this yet simply do not understand why it was implemented and how it will improve our current evaluation system.
Under the new system, your evaluation will be tied to our current leadership doctrine as outlined in our Leadership Requirements Model in ADP 6-22. By linking the NCOER to our 23 Leadership Competencies and 14 Attributes every NCO, regardless of MOS or duty position, can be rated against every other NCO in that same grade. After all, leadership ability and performance isn’t tied to a duty position or MOS. Leadership is leadership. The S-1 NCOIC is evaluated on the same competencies and attributes as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant, and has the exact same opportunity to excel.
The perception that some would receive higher ratings based on their MOS/duty position came to my attention when we were doing some training on this new system. A NCO from the S-1 section made the comment that he would likely receive a lower rating than a Combat Engineer NCO in the same grade. I have to tell you that the best First Sergeant in our battalion is a Signal First Sergeant, not a Combat Engineer, and his evaluation will indicate that. If we stick to our doctrine, everybody has a fair shot at a “most qualified” box check regardless of MOS/duty position.
Another great advantage of the new system is the use of three different reports that are based on the rank of the rated NCO. One report for Sergeants (Direct Level), another for Staff Sergeants thru First Sergeant/Master Sergeant (Organizational Level), and a third for Command Sergeants’ Major/Sergeants’ Major (Strategic Level).
I personally believe that the Direct Level report for Sergeants is a fantastic developmental tool because, when rated on the competencies of: presence, intellect, leads, develops, and achieves, the rated NCO either meets standards or does not meet standards. No longer do we have an excellence, success, needs improvement (some), or needs improvement (much) for our young NCOS. When we had those “block checks” we were conditioning our young NCOs to believe that anything less than an excellence was substandard and detrimental to their career. The notion was, “if you didn’t have an among the best and a 1/1 for performance and potential, then you weren’t good enough”. That notion was learned by the force, and when they became raters, they continued the process of unintentionally inflating NCOERs. This new system has the additional benefit of reducing the reluctance on the part of the rater to look somebody in the eye and tell them that they did not meet the standard. After all, there are now only two choices, and we have seen quite often a situation where a NCO did not meet the standard and received a success simply because raters were (dare I say it?) afraid to call it like it is.
Bullet comments are still the norm when evaluating NCOs at the Direct (SGT) and Organizational (SSG-MSG/1SG) level, while narrative comments are required for the Strategic Level (SGM/CSM). There are many people who believe that bullets are sufficient for the rater portion on the SGT NCOER, but a narrative should be allowed for SSG-MSG/1SG evaluation. I’m not sure where I personally stand on that topic, but I think it is sufficient that the senior rater writes a narrative in his or her section that deals with overall potential.
I recently had a NCO sitting across from my desk, nearly in tears, because he “only” got two excellent block checks and his senior rater gave him a “2” for performance and a “1” for potential. He did not understand the evaluation system and believed that this was a career ender. I believe with this new system, young NCOs will be conditioned to understand that not everybody (by definition) can receive an excellence.
I also had a Staff Sergeant come see me because he was not pleased with the 3/3 rating he received. I sat down and went over every bullet comment, and after reading each, I asked if it represented excellence or a success. He admitted that it was accurate and indicated he did his job to standard. It turns out it was a very fair, well-written evaluation and the rated NCO agreed that the bullets equaled success, but went on to say that anything less than a 2/2 would be a “career killer”. So here I am with a Staff Sergeant who was getting an honest evaluation for the first time ever, and he was shocked that he was not quite as awesome as he believed he was. What kind of NCOERs was he writing for his subordinates? It was then that I realized that we had some educating to do within our battalion, not only in regards to writing evaluations, but also in conducting counseling.
The new system fixes most of these issues, but will require education and 100% buy in by NCOs who want to make the new system work.
Instead of an uncontrolled “box check” of 1-5, NCOs are assessed by their senior rater as being:
- MOST QUALIFIED (limited to 24%)
- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
- QUALIFIED
- NOT QUALIFIED
This rating system forces the senior rater to give an honest assessment of each NCO that he or she currently senior rates. The system will not allow a senior rater to give a “most qualified” box check to more than 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates.
Here’s an example of how that works: If I currently senior rate SSGs, and the rater indicated on the NCOER that the rated NCO FAR EXCEEDED STANDARDS, and I believe that this NCO is MOST QUALIFIED (and check that block) for potential, I can’t give that box check again until I senior rate 8 more NCOs in the rank of SSG because my ability to do so is limited to 24% of the NCOs I senior rate for my entire career. It forces me to manage my profile so that only the absolute best receive the highest rating from the senior rater. So although the box check is important, the narrative that the Senior Rater completes is just as significant as it paints the picture of the rated NCO.
When we briefed this to our battalion last summer, some people were visibly upset. Many wondered what would happen if your profile would not support a “most qualified” for a NCO who truly deserved it. Well, the board can see your profile on the evaluation, so they will know that a profile could not support a block check of “most qualified”. We are now being forced to write well, and ensure that bullets or narratives are clear, concise and measurable.
Raters are unrestricted in that they can check the box for: far exceeded standard, exceeded standard, met standard, or did not meet standard. The form however will show how many NCOs in that grade you currently rate, as well as a historical snapshot of how many of them got what box check. This is called the Rater Tendency and is visible to the rater’s rating chain. It is important for raters to maintain a credible rating history. Raters are NOT doing you a favor if every evaluation they give is “far exceeded standard” or “exceeded standard”. Boards will look at the unusually high number of these performance box checks and get the impression that the evaluation is inflated. Remember: not everybody is a rock star. Most of us, by definition, fall in the middle ground (the average) of met standard.
I am passionate about leader development. I believe that everything we do is leader development, but we often overlook opportunities to really develop our junior leaders as well as ourselves. Opportunities exist to develop leaders not only in the field, but even when doing mundane things like post police call, vehicle maintenance, PT, or payday activities. When was the last time you took a young Soldier and helped him/her plan, resource and execute a training event? If you are finding opportunities to do these things on a daily basis, good. If not, look for opportunities (they are all around you) to teach your replacement. When the Army needs leaders, we don’t go to Monster.com to get them. We develop them from our ranks. Just think that somewhere today in our force, there is a PFC who will eventually become The Sergeant Major of the Army.
As the Army gets smaller we have a fantastic opportunity to reshape the force into a more efficient, lethal one capable of continuing our long history of excellence. It simply requires leaders today to get involved and do the hard things.
Under the new system, your evaluation will be tied to our current leadership doctrine as outlined in our Leadership Requirements Model in ADP 6-22. By linking the NCOER to our 23 Leadership Competencies and 14 Attributes every NCO, regardless of MOS or duty position, can be rated against every other NCO in that same grade. After all, leadership ability and performance isn’t tied to a duty position or MOS. Leadership is leadership. The S-1 NCOIC is evaluated on the same competencies and attributes as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant, and has the exact same opportunity to excel.
The perception that some would receive higher ratings based on their MOS/duty position came to my attention when we were doing some training on this new system. A NCO from the S-1 section made the comment that he would likely receive a lower rating than a Combat Engineer NCO in the same grade. I have to tell you that the best First Sergeant in our battalion is a Signal First Sergeant, not a Combat Engineer, and his evaluation will indicate that. If we stick to our doctrine, everybody has a fair shot at a “most qualified” box check regardless of MOS/duty position.
Another great advantage of the new system is the use of three different reports that are based on the rank of the rated NCO. One report for Sergeants (Direct Level), another for Staff Sergeants thru First Sergeant/Master Sergeant (Organizational Level), and a third for Command Sergeants’ Major/Sergeants’ Major (Strategic Level).
I personally believe that the Direct Level report for Sergeants is a fantastic developmental tool because, when rated on the competencies of: presence, intellect, leads, develops, and achieves, the rated NCO either meets standards or does not meet standards. No longer do we have an excellence, success, needs improvement (some), or needs improvement (much) for our young NCOS. When we had those “block checks” we were conditioning our young NCOs to believe that anything less than an excellence was substandard and detrimental to their career. The notion was, “if you didn’t have an among the best and a 1/1 for performance and potential, then you weren’t good enough”. That notion was learned by the force, and when they became raters, they continued the process of unintentionally inflating NCOERs. This new system has the additional benefit of reducing the reluctance on the part of the rater to look somebody in the eye and tell them that they did not meet the standard. After all, there are now only two choices, and we have seen quite often a situation where a NCO did not meet the standard and received a success simply because raters were (dare I say it?) afraid to call it like it is.
Bullet comments are still the norm when evaluating NCOs at the Direct (SGT) and Organizational (SSG-MSG/1SG) level, while narrative comments are required for the Strategic Level (SGM/CSM). There are many people who believe that bullets are sufficient for the rater portion on the SGT NCOER, but a narrative should be allowed for SSG-MSG/1SG evaluation. I’m not sure where I personally stand on that topic, but I think it is sufficient that the senior rater writes a narrative in his or her section that deals with overall potential.
I recently had a NCO sitting across from my desk, nearly in tears, because he “only” got two excellent block checks and his senior rater gave him a “2” for performance and a “1” for potential. He did not understand the evaluation system and believed that this was a career ender. I believe with this new system, young NCOs will be conditioned to understand that not everybody (by definition) can receive an excellence.
I also had a Staff Sergeant come see me because he was not pleased with the 3/3 rating he received. I sat down and went over every bullet comment, and after reading each, I asked if it represented excellence or a success. He admitted that it was accurate and indicated he did his job to standard. It turns out it was a very fair, well-written evaluation and the rated NCO agreed that the bullets equaled success, but went on to say that anything less than a 2/2 would be a “career killer”. So here I am with a Staff Sergeant who was getting an honest evaluation for the first time ever, and he was shocked that he was not quite as awesome as he believed he was. What kind of NCOERs was he writing for his subordinates? It was then that I realized that we had some educating to do within our battalion, not only in regards to writing evaluations, but also in conducting counseling.
The new system fixes most of these issues, but will require education and 100% buy in by NCOs who want to make the new system work.
Instead of an uncontrolled “box check” of 1-5, NCOs are assessed by their senior rater as being:
- MOST QUALIFIED (limited to 24%)
- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
- QUALIFIED
- NOT QUALIFIED
This rating system forces the senior rater to give an honest assessment of each NCO that he or she currently senior rates. The system will not allow a senior rater to give a “most qualified” box check to more than 24% of the NCOs he or she senior rates.
Here’s an example of how that works: If I currently senior rate SSGs, and the rater indicated on the NCOER that the rated NCO FAR EXCEEDED STANDARDS, and I believe that this NCO is MOST QUALIFIED (and check that block) for potential, I can’t give that box check again until I senior rate 8 more NCOs in the rank of SSG because my ability to do so is limited to 24% of the NCOs I senior rate for my entire career. It forces me to manage my profile so that only the absolute best receive the highest rating from the senior rater. So although the box check is important, the narrative that the Senior Rater completes is just as significant as it paints the picture of the rated NCO.
When we briefed this to our battalion last summer, some people were visibly upset. Many wondered what would happen if your profile would not support a “most qualified” for a NCO who truly deserved it. Well, the board can see your profile on the evaluation, so they will know that a profile could not support a block check of “most qualified”. We are now being forced to write well, and ensure that bullets or narratives are clear, concise and measurable.
Raters are unrestricted in that they can check the box for: far exceeded standard, exceeded standard, met standard, or did not meet standard. The form however will show how many NCOs in that grade you currently rate, as well as a historical snapshot of how many of them got what box check. This is called the Rater Tendency and is visible to the rater’s rating chain. It is important for raters to maintain a credible rating history. Raters are NOT doing you a favor if every evaluation they give is “far exceeded standard” or “exceeded standard”. Boards will look at the unusually high number of these performance box checks and get the impression that the evaluation is inflated. Remember: not everybody is a rock star. Most of us, by definition, fall in the middle ground (the average) of met standard.
I am passionate about leader development. I believe that everything we do is leader development, but we often overlook opportunities to really develop our junior leaders as well as ourselves. Opportunities exist to develop leaders not only in the field, but even when doing mundane things like post police call, vehicle maintenance, PT, or payday activities. When was the last time you took a young Soldier and helped him/her plan, resource and execute a training event? If you are finding opportunities to do these things on a daily basis, good. If not, look for opportunities (they are all around you) to teach your replacement. When the Army needs leaders, we don’t go to Monster.com to get them. We develop them from our ranks. Just think that somewhere today in our force, there is a PFC who will eventually become The Sergeant Major of the Army.
As the Army gets smaller we have a fantastic opportunity to reshape the force into a more efficient, lethal one capable of continuing our long history of excellence. It simply requires leaders today to get involved and do the hard things.
Command Post
NCOER
Evaluations
Leadership
Performance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
5
5
0
Sounds like a good system. The rater profile reminds me of the struggle the BC's used to have with racking and stacking the officers and balancing who was really top notch compared to just good, so when they picked the best they actually were.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
This is all well and good if it works. I can fully understand why this needs to succeed, but an additional area will need to be fixed in the near future that can have an impact on this is the awards system and how it is implemented. An example that is well worn in some units where two soldiers one a SSG and one a SFC holding the same position as a platoon sergeant (same type of platoon) and the SFC is awarded a Bronze Star and the SSG is awarded either an ARCOM or nothing at all; and both met the same objectives and completed the mission at the same level. Then that SSG is told that he did not get a Bronze Star because it is unit policy that SFC and above get that award.
(4)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
SFC (Join to see) - While stated in different terms than I would use, I think you have the essence of the new NCOER "top block" correct. It is the same as the logic that the OER system has used in one flavor or another for at least my entire career. Most recently, they expanded the "top block" limitation to OER raters (it had been just senior raters).
In the end, there can be only so many "stellar" NCOs for rating purposes. In fact, there can be just under one in four. As MAJ (Join to see) has rightly pointed out in other discussions, and here, this does mean that TIMING and profile management will have a lot to do with who gets them.
This implies, and should drive, greater though in the dispensing of ratings. Whether it does, and what form it takes, remains to be seen. Do you just watch your profile, and give an ACOM to whomever needs a rating at just the right time? Do you purposely give less than the maximum number of ACOMs you could, so that you have a cushion for when you really WANT to give one to a Soldier? Do you believe that if 24% is the "max" that it should also be the "min"? Are you rating people against their peers, or the entire Army population? There are a lot of things that senior NCOs and Junior Officers will need to become fairly sophisticated at thinking about regarding NCOER and their philosophies. Because this is how the OER system has been, I have opinions on all the above, but I know peers that have come to different opinions.
In the end, there can be only so many "stellar" NCOs for rating purposes. In fact, there can be just under one in four. As MAJ (Join to see) has rightly pointed out in other discussions, and here, this does mean that TIMING and profile management will have a lot to do with who gets them.
This implies, and should drive, greater though in the dispensing of ratings. Whether it does, and what form it takes, remains to be seen. Do you just watch your profile, and give an ACOM to whomever needs a rating at just the right time? Do you purposely give less than the maximum number of ACOMs you could, so that you have a cushion for when you really WANT to give one to a Soldier? Do you believe that if 24% is the "max" that it should also be the "min"? Are you rating people against their peers, or the entire Army population? There are a lot of things that senior NCOs and Junior Officers will need to become fairly sophisticated at thinking about regarding NCOER and their philosophies. Because this is how the OER system has been, I have opinions on all the above, but I know peers that have come to different opinions.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Seen that one too many times where a Ssg is not awarded a BSM when the majority of SFCs and above are blanketed BSMs. Stings when you know you poured your heart and soul into a deployment and end up with the same award as the junior leader meanwhile the SFC managing the MWR tent gets the higher award...
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Lol that's funny, this was one of my first thoughts as well. Now that we revamped NCOERs lets go after the awards system as well.
(2)
(0)
SA Daryl Foster
Thanks for the lengthy response. I will be presenting aspects of it in class tonight. https://happywheels2.io
Play Happy Wheels - Your goal is to complete various challenges, overcome deadly obstacles and lose as few limbs as possible! Ignore the blood and keep going!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
This was a great read. I do like the way the evals have changed, but the units have failed in properly instructing their NCO's on these changes. We cannot just email a PowerPoint that is pretty basic to everyone and say there you go you have been informed. The only issue I have so far since I've written about 8 using this new form is that there is now less room for writing bullets. A standard 2 line bullet on the old 2166 now turns to three lines on the new form. So you barely have room to formulate informative bullet comments. I know it will just take some getting used to but it has definitely been a challenge for me and my peers so far this year. But overall I applaud the changes in the way we are rated against each other. It should definitely help with all this NCOER inflation. Now we just need a way to fix our awards system and I'll be happy for a while.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google