The link: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/F040_draft_47A4A24FDF8E7.pdf
The suggestions I made:
Dear Sir/Ma'am:
I have recently come across a draft of the CAPF-40 Draft (Performance Review) and would like to voice a very big concern of mine.
180 degree reviews have been a common sight in the corporate world for quite some time now. However, this wasn't always the case. In the past, these types of reviews were considered risky since openly reviewing one's supervisor may end up in unfair treatment by the supervisor and since a lower than expected rating by the supervisor may end up in retaliation (on the reverse review) by the employee. Aldo, reverse reviews (employee of employer) are usually done anonymously to solicit genuine feedback. Employees often will rate the employer higher if they know: 1. The employer could punish them for low scores and 2. The employer could reward them for high scores. Those reviews don't make for honest and useful feedback.
Suggestions:
1. Retain CAPF-40 as the Performance Review with all sections of downward review (supervisor reviewing subordinate) retained as is.
2. Create CAPF-40a as Reverse Performance Review with performance criteria relevant to leadership and command. Omit Name, Grade and CAPID fields of the reviewer to maintain anonymity of the reviewer so that true feedback is provided.
I truly believe that without these changes, the review process will not be an honest measure of CAP members' performances, could lead to loss of trust and morale within the unit and will eventually be ignored by unit personnel.
If this remains a voluntarily process by all involved, then I don't care either way - though I don't see this as a good idea in CAP.
However any hint at making this mandatory is a bad idea - more tickets to punch, few would take it seriously, and many would never bother.
Performance reviews are a mine field in the corporate world, without proper training and oversight it would be much worse in CAP.
Just what reg requires or even suggests that this form be filled out? I have been in CAP for just short of 16 years and have never even heard of such a thing.
Having had 30 years worth of Performance Appraisals in the Army and better than 23 years of the same sort of thing in CIA, I have had my share of appraisals. To even remotely consider such a thing in CAP really rubs me the wrong way.
We are volunteers and our superiors and subordinates are volunteers and I'll be [darn]ed if I will do a performance appraisal on any of them. If I have a problem with their performance, I will certainly approach them in person and have a chat. Let me assure all of you that when someone tries to do a performance appraisal on me in CAP, I will instantaneously become a former CAP member.
Quote from: bosshawk on December 24, 2008, 06:40:51 PM
We are volunteers and our superiors and subordinates are volunteers and I'll be [darn]ed if I will do a performance appraisal on any of them. If I have a problem with their performance, I will certainly approach them in person and have a chat. Let me assure all of you that when someone tries to do a performance appraisal on me in CAP, I will instantaneously become a former CAP member.
That statement alone makes me want to reconsider my first response above and make them mandatory today.
Is your performance so far superior there might not be any personal blind spots you could work on?
What about the marginal members who really need a kick in the pants? How many members do we have that are off doing their own thing at some other echelon or activity and contribute nothing to the local unit that has the burden of their membership?
Using the "volunteer organization" mantra as a pass to being held accountable for performance perpetuates the "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality which plagues CAP, and makes it difficult for us to stand next to professionals operationally.
The idea these are needed is spot on, my issue is that we don't have the ability to execute this properly or make things stick without significant top-down support.
In the business world, a performance review has a period on the end that says "do this or you may not be here for the next round..." without that stick in CAP, there's not much point - the top performers will just get confirmation they are top performers, and the marginal members will ignore it or react as you did.
I think these aren't a bad idea if they're done properly and orderly. We all need a reminder of how we're doing, good and bad. This would also have the potential to end some railroading by CAP brass for "unknown" reasons. If you have all positive reviews, one can't say you haven't performed to standard.
However, there are things that need to be changed. CAP is well known for personal feelings getting in the way of professionalism.
CAP doesn't need that statement on the bottom. Performance reviews can and should be used in duty assignment/promotion/demotion/termination actions.
The link: http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/F040_draft_47A4A24FDF8E7.pdf
The basic guiding principal in non paid volunteer managment, is to ALWAYS accent the positive with your volunteers, not the negative. At the squadron level, sometimes there's VERY SIGNIFICANT challenges to use our members' available skills set/capabilities where they will be happy, motivated, & contribute to the organization. Frankly formal appraisals/feedback has a much great potential for killing volunteer motivation.
I think we have enough problems already with retaining good members, without adding something like this.
RM
I believe this is part of the Organizational Excellence Specialty Track proposal. I am forwarding the comment about the CAPF 40 and how wide-spread is it expected to be used. The only place I have seen it's use mentioned in the the OE pamphlet draft. Even there, there is no evaluation cycle mentioned.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 24, 2008, 08:11:37 PM
The basic guiding principal in non paid volunteer management, is to ALWAYS accent the positive with your volunteers, not the negative.
And I would agree with you from a motivational perspective, but the result of reticence to discuss the negative many times results in a member being so far off the mark that they are not recoverable by the time the "uncomfortable" conversations start happening.
That's really the point of regular OPR is to keep people on the right track from both a personal goals and command direction perspective.
Those of us with management experience can apply the same experience we have from corporate PR's to CAP ones, but as has been pointed out many times, the management abilities and experience of most of our CC's is inconsistent at best.
Quote from: bosshawk on December 24, 2008, 06:40:51 PM
We are volunteers and our superiors and subordinates are volunteers and I'll be [darn]ed if I will do a performance appraisal on any of them. If I have a problem with their performance, I will certainly approach them in person and have a chat. Let me assure all of you that when someone tries to do a performance appraisal on me in CAP, I will instantaneously become a former CAP member.
I do see the need for some type of performance review - but a formal written performance appraisal is a bit too much. First it generates way too much paperwork. Second, the written word can be a bit too strong for volunteers. You really don't want to piss off a member when you are trying to motivate them.
I would like to see a verbal performance review requirement that is conducted at least annually. That way the Commander (or supervisor) can discuss how the person is doing in the job, what their goals are, what problems they are facing in doing the job, what they are doing right, what the Commander is expecting of them in the job, etc. It doesn't have to be confrontational nor take forever to conduct. It also makes a perfect time for let the non-performers decide someone else should be doing the job and not them. Pet Peeve: People who get a job to progress in their specility track but never do anything.
Quote from: Short Field on December 24, 2008, 08:43:49 PM
I would like to see a verbal performance review requirement that is conducted at least annually.
The problem there is the he-said / she-said when its not in writing.
Quote from: Short Field on December 24, 2008, 08:43:49 PM
Pet Peeve: People who get a job to progress in their specialty track but never do anything.
Ditto, though that is a command failing in letting them do that.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 24, 2008, 09:00:22 PM
The problem there is the he-said / she-said when its not in writing.
This is CAP. It doesn't matter who said what. Once the Commander decides to reassign a person, it is a done deal. If the member doesn't like it, they can (1) transfer to another squadron, (2) join the Ghost Squadron, (3) stop showing up, or (4) quit. If you are trying to build a case to 2B a member, then you do need to document it, but that is beyond a performance appraisal.
I could be mistaken here, but if a member just shows up, holds some ES qualifications, participates in activities but is not holding a position in the squadron, there is no need for a performance appraisal.
As far as I know...the CAPF-40 will only need to be done on those people in the Organisational Excellency Specialty Tract.
That tract is for those seeking or being groomed for senior leadership positions and command.
As such for those individuals I think a documented performance evaluation is a good thing. It leaves a record of accomplishments and strenghts and weaknesses that can help Wing/Regional/National selction boards/commanders make informed decisions about putting the righ person in the right job.
About the 180 review process.....yes in the corporate world and in the real military we run the risk of reprisals....but again in the OE Specialty Tract the person doing the evaluating is the OE MENTOR. A MENTOR should be open to critisim to help make the organisation as excellent as possible.
I would not support CAPF-40 being done on everyone.....as Shortfeild pointed out....a lot of officers just hold ES positions or minor adminstrative positions...and it would be a waste of time to do a formal evaluation. But for the those destine for command we need this form.
I agree with limiting it's use to the OE track, but we all know someone in an echelon-above-reality will look at it and decide to require it for all seniors, even the career 2d Lt's.
So...we pencil whip and move on. ;D
I've delt with stupid regulations before....and we just move along...do what you must to keep the SUI team happy and move on with the important things.
What the crap is this?? Oh I get it now...........its CRAP!!
First how many people can actually give feedback, and conduct a counseling session?? IN CAP???
Second, until they define what "Officership" is in CAP, this whole proposed form and rating system is Crap.
That is what this form will eventually be used for. To rate CAP Volunteers. I have seen forms like these come and go in the military and civilian world, and unless the "rater" or "evaluator" knows how to effectively evaluate, the whole thing is a waste of everyone's time.
Honestly if this comes about, and I got called into the SQD Commanders Office for "feedback", I would laugh. I took the instruction on how rating and evaluation systems work, I have been doing it for the better part of a 12 year military career. To sit down with a person I know that can not correctly spell or put a complete sentence together correctly, well again, its just laughable.
Instead of inventing creative "step action drills" (doing something by reading the steps written down in an instruction format and checking off each step as you go) maybe we can invent a better recruiting and retention program. Maybe we can invent updated PRO DEV Courses.....etc.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2008, 10:20:12 PM
As far as I know...the CAPF-40 will only need to be done on those people in the Organisational Excellency Specialty Tract.
That track is for those seeking or being groomed for senior leadership positions and command.
So CAP will have two classes of members -- those who are being groomed for responsibility and those who are run-of-the-mill volunteers? Way to engender trust in volunteers, who just might take a hike if they see they're the also-rans.
I can't imagine that's the idea.
I'm sorry......I don't think anyone is trying to make two classes of personnel.....nor do I thing anyone is going to get called in for an evaluation.
But....if you read the draft specialty tract that generates this form.....you will see that anyone who choose to get a OE rating will have to have this form completed by their mentor.
No big conspiracy.....just a training program to help people in command and senior staff positions and people seeking those positions.
Not all of our members possess the requisite writing skills to make a written evaluation feasible. I well remember negotiating with my raters as a junior NCO to allow me to rewrite their scribblings into something that wouldn't hurt my career. Many were fine leaders who could convince soldiers to follow them into the gates of hell, but could not write simple sentences. The Army addressed this issue in the 80's by changing the NCOER to a check block + short declarative statement to get around this issue.
I also did not see a spot where the person being evaluated could disagree with the rating.
The Form 40 looks a bit cumbersome, but I agree that it is needed. Not every squadron has a very experienced command team, that is one with heavy experience in management and military leadership. I am fortunate to serve in just such a squadron......
I mean that I think it will also make for better motivation to have the evaluation on paper. Those members that can be motivated will be and those the can't won't. This also eliminates the he said she said problem.
This is one of those things that should be taught and taught CORRECTLY at a UCC SLS level.. Maybe even a writing course at a college, eh??
It might be fine for some of you biz types...
I did and recieved NCOERS in th Army and some can be career enders. Is this your intent for the folks who aren't all CAP superstars??? Better have the training and BETTER YET, give that to some of those illustrious CAP lawyers to hash out
Best be careful with this.. Better know what you are doing and and BETTER yet, you best know what you are writing
Some CAP Commander types probably have not written this type of thing in a LONG time
The comments geared toward volunteers is true.... you best encourage, find out their interests even before trying this type of thing
Using paperwork just to "get the dead weight out" and try not understanding what the members intent is just a crutch to use 'cuz you just got a new piece of CAP paperwork , that in a survival situation, would be the beginnings of a beautiful warming fire....
One would assume that they will ensure the mentors who are writing thse things know what they are doing.
I think this particular issue is jumping the gun, making a lot of assumptions, and taking things well beyond their logical conclusions.
So I am wondering if one will have to be in the OE PRO DEV specialty track to be considered for Command positions in the future??
Where did this thing come from, I never even heard any rumors about it here at CAPTALK, nor "on the street"??
Its been discussed for many years. Some of those in the commander positions felt that their "careers" were being hampered because they couldn't properly participate in any of the other professional development tracks because of the onerous duties of squadron command. Thus, they came up with this as a way for commanders to move up the senior member training track.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2008, 04:44:29 AM
Its been discussed for many years. Some of those in the commander positions felt that their "careers" were being hampered because they couldn't properly participate in any of the other professional development tracks because of the onerous duties of squadron command. Thus, they came up with this as a way for commanders to move up the senior member training track.
But that doesn't even make sense, since this proposed track directs members to complete certain levels in OTHER specialty tracks. Riddle me that?
The complaint was that commanders are sort of jacks of all trades....they are admin officers, CP, ES, Personel, safety, ML, and logistics just to name a few.
So...the request was to have a "commander's specialty track". That evolved into the Organisational Excellance Officer Specilty.
Am I missing the actual information on the new OE Spec. Track?? All I saw was the pamphlet that CAP stole from the DOT?!? If they are going to steal anything, why wouldn't they take the AF documents on the subject, or one of the other military branches materials.
I also read the DOT pamphlet that CAP "jazzed up", and I personally do not like it.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 26, 2008, 06:44:25 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 26, 2008, 04:44:29 AM
Its been discussed for many years. Some of those in the commander positions felt that their "careers" were being hampered because they couldn't properly participate in any of the other professional development tracks because of the onerous duties of squadron command. Thus, they came up with this as a way for commanders to move up the senior member training track.
But that doesn't even make sense, since this proposed track directs members to complete certain levels in OTHER specialty tracks. Riddle me that?
I didn't say that this proposed specialty track would answer what seems to be the main complaint that prompted its development. And, I don't agree with what they were complaining about either. I don't see being a commander as a major impediment to PD since many just switch their PD to something useless like Administration and progress through that very easily.
Having a "commander's specialty track" like this makes no sense. If the complaint is that commanders don't get a chance to work on specialty tracks, why would this proposed track stipulate that several other specialty tracks (and progression in those tracks) are completed for each level?
I'm not sure this proposal isn't a solution in search of a problem.