Performance Reviews for CAP Officers

Started by RiverAux, January 04, 2007, 02:09:46 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

Would having a system of reviewing the performance of CAP Officers regularly (every year?) be something that would be of use in professionalizing the organization?  After all, this is a common practice in just about every job, civilian and military. 

Areas to be reviewed would be:
1.  Participation rate in squadron meetings. 
2.  Willingness to take on staff positions and actually perform the duties. 
3.  If received initial appointment for mission-related or professional duties, have they achieved qualification in that ES specialty or are they performing the professional duties they were bringint to us?
4.  For those who participate in ES we would want to evaluate their participation in SAREXs and actual missions.  Are they showing up as much as can be reasonably expected given their job, etc? 
4.  I'm open for suggestions for other areas, but lets not get too carried away.  Remember this would be a new burden on squadron commanders. 

I would have this review be something that the commander would fill out online.  It would have numeric values for the various ratings for easy database storage, plus some room for comments if necessary.  The next commander up would have to review and approve them. 

Why should a member care about their review?  At a minimum I would suggest that a member must receive at least a certain rating on their last review in order to promote. 

For all those Lt. Cols that are maxed out or others that don't care about promotion, unsat ratings would result in the member being placed on probation and given three months to fix things.  If after three months no real progress was made, I wouldn't be adverse to revoking some privileges (Would need to develop a list from which options could be selected by the CC depending on the situation).  If after 6 months since the unsat rating no progress has been made all ES and flying quals would be suspended and they would be transferred to the ghost/Reserve squadron.  If 6 more months goes by and they don't fix things they will get kicked out. 

If a member needs to take a break for some reason they will be transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron with no privlieges for as long as they want to pay membership dues and they can return and start fresh with no penalty in the future. 

Now, this is closely related to the "active member" issue that DNall talks about regularly, but I don't recall seeing a proposal for a formal review process.  If I have, I apologize for any inadvertent plagarism.

I think that this would put new members on notice that CAP expects them to keep active throughout their career and would make it harder for burn-outs to just coast through CAP enjoying the benefits without making any serious contribution.   

Also, I think it would make squadron commanders understand the seriousness of their job duties a little more.  This would actually make them start thinking a little more as if they were actually in charge of something.  We would probably need some slightly different methods to evaluate squadron commanders.  Not on paperwork junk, but how they're actually leading their units. 

Thoughts?


shorning

Why are you so fired up to kick people out?

arajca

One thing missing on this (or maybe I missed it) when does the member see/sign their review?
Would there be a "Member refused to sign" check box?

Al Sayre

You are going to have to lay out some VERY specific criteria for the ratings.  I have filled out enough evaluations for my troops WIWAS to know that if there is any chance of a grade being arbitrary, you are going to have a battle on your hands as Commander, and maybe a lawsuit since we are volunteers. 

I can still hear a few voices ringing in my ears "I didn't get promoted and it's all your fault, cause you don't like me and screwed me on my evals!  This is all about politics!" 

My reply back then was "Wah F...... Wah, suck it up sailor", but you can't say things like that to volunteers and expect them to hang around.

...JMHO
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

lordmonar

While on the surface...a written performance report would not necessarily be a bad thing...a nice way to give some formal feed back to you squadron members.

On the other side of things...why do it?  I mean...if you are not going to use if for promotion purposes like we do on active duty.  What good will it do?

If Capt B. O'Dirt is not ready for promotion you tell him so when he hands you his CAPF2 for his promotion to to Maj.  You can explain right then and there why and be done with it.

If 2d Lt I. M. Highspeed gets all top markings on his rateings...what can he do with it?  Will it get him promoted faster?

Performance report are used to rack and stack candidates for a limited number of ranks.  In CAP we don't have that. 

Requiring PR's would be a paperwork nightmare.  Can you imagine doing 100 PR's for all your senior members?  You are either doing 10 per month or 100 all at once.

Increasing the work load on our squadron commanders is not really a good idea.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Al Sayre

Were already supposed to be doing them for Cadets at least once per phase.  I understand the value, but I've got 30 Cadets to deal with, seems like by the time I owrk my way through them all, they'll be promoting again and I have to start all over... :-\
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Major_Chuck

Performance reviews for volunteers who receive no financial compensation or reward is a bad idea.  I understand and see why you are wanting to do it but it is not going to work.

For the first thing, it is subjective to the whims of the evaluator.  Captain Fuzzy may not like Lieutenant Dorf so he writes him a bad review, then that ends up following Lieutenant Dorf long after Captain Fuzzy is gone.

Not everyone has experience or the ability to write a fair and honest justification.  We've talked about the 'good old boy' syndrome, this will just shore that up.

I'm a Major with close to 17 years CAP experience.  I am not as active as I was 12 years ago when I was really gung ho.  My priorities and commitments have changed.  I don't attend all meetings because I've got real world obligations.  To have someone put me on probation because of this my first response would first to tear it up and then most likely quit.

l
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

RiverAux

QuoteWhy are you so fired up to kick people out?

I'm not.  I think most of us here are interested in increasing the professionalism of the CAP Officer corps.  I think one of the ways of doing this is starting to demand that our members act like professionals.  If a member just wants to pay dues and not do anything else, I'm more than happy to have them be a member of the ghost/reserve squadron for 25 years.  However, if they want to do the "fun stuff", they need to do some of the not-so-fun work as well. 

QuoteOne thing missing on this (or maybe I missed it) when does the member see/sign their review? Would there be a "Member refused to sign" check box?
This obviously wasn't a full proposal but I assume there would be something like that, just like there is in "real life". 

QuoteYou are going to have to lay out some VERY specific criteria for the ratings
I agree, everything needs to be as specific as possible and as simple as possible.

Quoteif you are not going to use if for promotion purposes like we do on active duty.  What good will it do?

I did suggest that it be part of the promotion process.  I envision it as being grafted onto the current requirements.  Do the time in grade, required courses, whatever, but you don't get promoted unless you've got satisfactory ratings.  As has been discussed in another thread, commanders have some limited authority in this area but there are absolutely no standards and it is totally subjective.  That is not acceptable. 

QuotePerformance report are used to rack and stack candidates for a limited number of ranks.  In CAP we don't have that.
Actually we do in some areas--- there are only so many seats in an airplane.  But, why shouldn't we expect a little bit more from our people?  We all know a lot of folks who got technician and higher ratings in some skill based on holding a staff job that they never actually performed.  They just had their name on the assignment roster for a period of time, but never did much.  Having some actual evaluations involved of their performance might inspire them to actually do the job.  Why not expect people to do some of the staff jobs? 

If a guy wants to join CAP, get some ES ratings, and attends meetings but doesn't do anything beyond that to help with the real work in CAP (staff jobs), I'm fine with not promoting him until he steps up and goes beyond the minimums.

QuoteIncreasing the work load on our squadron commanders is not really a good idea.
If it gets more members actually doing some of the squadron grunt work in order to keep good ratings so they can go fly holes in the sky it might reduce some of the other paperwork burdens directly on the commander. 

QuoteNot everyone has experience or the ability to write a fair and honest justification.
I'm not talking about writing .... numerical scores only.  And if a squadron commander doesn't have the ability to evaluate the performance of the people under them then they shouldn't be in the job.  That is a critical part of being a leader. 

QuoteI am not as active as I was 12 years ago when I was really gung ho.  My priorities and commitments have changed.  I don't attend all meetings because I've got real world obligations.  To have someone put me on probation because of this my first response would first to tear it up and then most likely quit.

I didn't get into the specifics of what the sat/unsat requirements would be.  I certainly wouldn't expect 95%+ attendenace, but there has to be some level that is a minimum.  I'm not stuck on a specific number, but personally I think that if someone is attending less than 50% of the meetings I will be questioning their committment to the organization.  Everyone understands other personal committments come up and I'm all for giving a lot of slack for stuff like that, but it can only go so far.  I know that at least locally cadets regularly ask for leaves of absence if they need to back off for a while and I've got no problem with doing something like that for officers. 




PA Guy

This thread is just another example of why grade  for seniors is a joke. Let's just get rid of it. Riv Aux, you refer to privileges and benefits being witheld for poor performance. What are those privileges and benefits?

Dragoon

Performance Reviews, done correctly, help increase discipline in the workforce.

The key is "done correctly."

If we wanted to add performance reviews, we'd also need

1.  Clearcut standards for every job position (20-1 don't cut it)

2.  Training for all supervisors who conduct performance reviews, probably on a yearly basis.

3.  A much more secure record keeping system, to ensure these reviews are stored, only available to folks who have a right to read them, and secured from anyone changing or deleting them.

4.  Personnel to suspense the system, ensure the reviews are submitted on time and are quality checked for completeness.

5.  An appeals system that allows a member to contest an unfair rating (expect a LOT of use of this thing).


Without all of this, we end up with something that is likely to just be divisive and suck up a commander's time.  For those reasons, I don't think it's very feasible



In general terms, the question is how to increase the the professionalism of the members WITHOUT additional resources.  Unless we think we can get a few million from USAF to support the improvement effort.

DogCollar

I joined CAP in order to serve my community in a volunteer setting, while making the best usage of my skill set.  I enjoy working with the cadets...that is good use of my time.  I am working on my ES rating (joined in June this year) so that I can be a mission chaplain if called upon.  I will do what is asked of me to the best of my abilities and as time allows.  However, I will not stress out about my professionalism and, frankly, I wouldn't give any weight whatsover to a Performance Review.  Promotions are nice, but that isn't my motivation for being in CAP.  I am first and foremost a volunteer who wants to give back! 

I wonder if confidential peer reviews wouldn't help achieve some of the same goals?  For example Squadron Chaplains reviewing other Squadron Chaplains, Commanders reviewing Commanders, etc...  The goals would be to (1) uphold the standards of CAP (2) offer guidance in areas of struggle (3) provide collegial support (4) enhance the effectiveness of that senior member in the performance of his/her duties.  I would want this to be confidential, with Wing/Group notified only that a peer review was performed, and with no personal consequences unless it was discovered that the person being reviewed is engaged in illegal activities.

This is just my opinion.  I enjoy reading everyones ideas.
Ch. Maj. Bill Boldin, CAP

Al Sayre

Welcome Chaplain!  Peer reviews are a good tool I'll agree, but there are many places where the logistics of it are prohibitive.  In my Wing, most squadrons are separated by 50-100 miles.  How can you do a peer review of a Commander, Chaplain or other staff positions if you don't see them interact with their respective Squadrons on at least 2 or 3 occcasions?  I have trouble making it from work to my own Squadrons meetings on time because of distance (52 miles from home, 90 miles from work).  It would be a real hardship for me and other Commanders to drive 3-4 hours to any other squadron to watch the meetings and then back home and try to get up for work at 4:00 a.m. 
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

ZigZag911

How about this?

1) Have officers set personal, professional, departmental goals early in their service,
    and again early each year (calendar, fiscal, whatever)
    Review & revise with immediate supervisor (generally deputy for seniors or
    cadets)

2) Have officers prepare an annual self-evaluation based on accomplishments and
    standardized officer effectiveness report (OER) form -- several wings have a
    version absed in military forms.

     This should be reviewed, revised, discussed with supervisor & unit commander (chief of staff in higher echelons) ....should lead to setting further goals, or editing standing ones

Hopefully this would be positive, professional, and provide leadership an opportunity to mentor members.

Dragoon

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 04, 2007, 08:03:40 PM
How about this?

1) Have officers set personal, professional, departmental goals early in their service,
    and again early each year (calendar, fiscal, whatever)
    Review & revise with immediate supervisor (generally deputy for seniors or
    cadets)

2) Have officers prepare an annual self-evaluation based on accomplishments and
    standardized officer effectiveness report (OER) form -- several wings have a
    version absed in military forms.

     This should be reviewed, revised, discussed with supervisor & unit commander (chief of staff in higher echelons) ....should lead to setting further goals, or editing standing ones

Hopefully this would be positive, professional, and provide leadership an opportunity to mentor members.


I think that's a viable plan.  A basis for improvement rather than a disciplinary tool.

However, I'd suggest it doesn't apply to all members.  After all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

DogCollar

I will learn how to use quotes another day...but thanks Al Sayre for the welcome, and I see your point.

I offered the idea of a Peer Review because I think it's the best tool for enhancing performance.  Yet, it doesn't work for every situation. Whatever is offered, I don't think rewards should be offered for "good reviews" or punitive consequences for "negative reviews."  The purposes of any review should be to correct and enhance!
Ch. Maj. Bill Boldin, CAP

DNall

I think peer/performance reviews (adult version of Fm50) would be a good thing, but honestly meaningless for the purpose intended. Because standards vary so widely from unit to unit, you may go to one of those Boy Scout AE focused day cares & see a Ranger get a bad review for trying to instill military discipline where people don't want it. You can't standardize local performance on biased local review.

Monty

We sort of do a quasi-performance review for our officers when it comes time for them to promote.  We have a squadron form that consists of several attributes with the means to rate each attribute on a 1-5 scale.

(It's actually what I use so that I can fairly determine if the person is ready to be promoted, given that no promotions are automatic.  It also helps me to not play favorites when everybody has to go through the same considerations on the same form before I'll put my name on their promotion and send it to NHQ or to my boss.)

I go through and answer the same questions for company grade promotions, bearing in mind that it's a little harder to get a higher mark for a Capt than a 2d Lt.  (Nothing unreasonable, of course; we're CAP, meeting 2.5 hours per week, not 24/7 like my USAF days.)  When all's said and done, I tally an average and if it is within a certain amount, their good to go with no further comment; a lesser amount, they're good but we need to meet, and an even lesser amount means that I'll rethink the matter in a month.

As always, they'll get my form that I use to rate how they are to do with as they wish.

It's worked great for us; my officers know what I rate them high in, they know what they need to tweak, and they see a fair estimate of how I consider them to be as I send in their promotion.

The option exists for us to do one outside of a promotion but nobody's asked and I've not offered...I'm not entirely convinced that outside of the day I have to consider them for promotion, that any feedback on a paper should overtake what I can tell them to their faces.

RiverAux

I see this as part of the overall improvement package for CAP and not a stand-alone idea.  It would take a real dedication to professionalism at all levels to work. 

As to having to do it for 100 senior members, just how many squadrons out there actually have 100 senior members?  The average in CAP is somewhere around 30.  And if some of the inactive members were fairly quickly transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron you would probably only be talking about 20-25 people. 

As to local standards being different, I'm not talking about grading the folks on how well they fit in, but rather on the amount of dedication they are showing to the organization and in developing their own skills. 
If the member is only attending 20% of the meetings and hasn't received a leave of absence or whatever technique we want to use to give people some slack every now and again for personal reasons, they they would probably get an unsat on that criteria. 

And how about this as a general question?  Why do we devote a lot of time to trying to develop leadership abilities in our cadets, evaluate them regularly, expect them to meet uniform standards, expect them to attend meetings regularly, but don't do or expect any of this from our Officers? 

Take a look at the form 50s for the various levels.  You could almost graft them into the Senior Member training program for what we would expect out of our Officers at various levels in their CAP careers. 

RiverAux

QuoteAfter all the "just a pilot" or "just the testing officer because my kid's a cadet" kind of member really doesn't need it. (And regardless of their rank, they really acting as officers)

1.  My kids a cadet member -- if they are not actively helping the squadron by taking part, then they don't need to be there. 

2.  Just a pilot members:  If somebody joins CAP just to fly and doesn't want to do any staff jobs or any of the grunt work, I suppose thats fine.  But, they should know up front that they will be on the very tail end of the alert roster and o-ride call sheet.  If the squadron ever gets to the point where they honestly have all the jobs filled with people actively working in them (and not just filling a blank on the chart), and each of those officers has an assistant actively working with them then MAYBE we could have room for people to be "just a pilot". 

People have to acknowledge that in order to make the organization work we need people to do a lot of grunt/office work.  Frankly, I'm not sure its always worth our time to train up the "just a pilots" to CAP standards.  We will get more bang for our buck training up a multi-tasker. 

Your normal flying squadron with 1 plane assigned to it really doesn't need more than 6-9 pilots to ensure a 100% probability of having someone ready to fly the plane 24/7.  There are many more slots on the org chart than that. 

The guy that wants to be "just a pilot" needs to remember Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."  In CAP, the power is the airplane and the airplane is staff work. 

ZigZag911

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2007, 04:49:59 AM
I see this as part of the overall improvement package for CAP and not a stand-alone idea.  It would take a real dedication to professionalism at all levels to work. 

As to having to do it for 100 senior members, just how many squadrons out there actually have 100 senior members?  The average in CAP is somewhere around 30.  And if some of the inactive members were fairly quickly transferred to the ghost/reserve squadron you would probably only be talking about 20-25 people. 

Commander would do direct reports on (imagining a composite squadron) both deputies, safety officer, perhaps the chaplain... total = 4

DCS would prepare reports for  department heads (who would write for any assistants)

DCC would do his staff reports (leadership, activities, etc)