Promotion and PRF Information

[Danny Noonin]

Get past the literal words? It's like you've never sent an email before or something...this is ludicrous. Look for the message being sent? Which one? You mean the one being conveyed by the words on the paper? I think you might be on the other side of the kool-aid line here.

Yeah, get past the literal words. If you read an OPR that said "average officer" would you really interpret that to mean the guy was an average officer? i.e. doing just fine, middle of the road, promote on time? Fuck no. You'd read that the guy was an oxygen stealer. Now go with "slightly below average officer". That guy still makes O-5 if taken literally. But that's not how anyone actually reads that line. Make sense?

So if you want to be the guy to take a moral stance when rating someone and say that you are only going to write down literally what you think of your dudes performance, then you're an asshole. Because that's not how anyone else is doing it, so you just fucked someone over. I've had this discussion with many a "core values" crusader who stomped their feet about integrity. You can do that with yourself if you want, but when you are messing with the careers of someone else, you play the game. And the game--as ludicrous as it is--is that you concentrate on communicating the correct message to a board or to outside readers. If you communicate literally, you will NOT be sending the message you intend to send. So focus all your "integrity first" energy into sending the correct message about a person, not using words literally. I think its ridiculous too. But that's the system right now and I can't fucking change it. Can you?

So there are ways to write using just words--not numerical strats--that communicate clearly whether a guy who is not in the top 20% is still a strong swimmer or average or no so much. Its not that difficult.

[Danny Noonin]

Danny, you are right... it absolutely does depend. But what does it depend on?

It depends on what the actual numbers are, Champ. You said:

In my experience, the following are the "tiers" of stratification:

1: x/xx Capts (or Lts, Majs, whatever.. specific to your rank)

2: x/xx CGOs/FGOs

I'm telling you that's an over generalization, far too formulaic, and often times bullshit. I can give you a million examples of when a CGO or FGO strat would be better than a captain or even a Lt Col strat, so it does not at all bump someone down into another "tier" to use the other one.

It depends on the number. does it water down the denominator? Yeah, sometimes. But sometimes I need a bigger denominator to actually make the point I'm trying to make. Does #1 of 2 captains sound better than #1 of 8 CGOs? No. But according to your rules, that means I'm giving him a second tier strat and should stick with the first one. Bullshit. See what I mean? It. Fucking. Depends.

I thought my logic of giving a Lt a CGO strat would translate into a Maj receiving an FGO strat, as I was trying to prevent posting a wall of TL;DR words.

Fair enough, but here's what you originally posted:

In my experience, the following are the "tiers" of stratification:

1: x/xx Capts (or Lts, Majs, whatever.. specific to your rank)

2: x/xx CGOs/FGOs

So your specific example had a "major" strat being better than an FGO strat for a major. Just sayin'.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin

[Bender]

I respect your opinion, I do. So please understand why I even take the time to respond here.

Wrong. It definitely matters who is a 30%-ish guy vs a 50%-ish guy vs a 70%-ish guy. While you may not give them a numerical start, you can pretty easily communicate about what level the guy is at with words.

At the moment of the boarding process, no...no it does not. Over the course of 2 or 3 boards spread out by 4 to 10 years, I agree with you that this distinction matters. I do see that it is now "pretty easy" to do. I only assume that is with words if not numbers, with only symbols (i.e. $@&?!$) reserved for only the extremely special among us. We probably just use words that parrot the Article 15 there though.

So, agreed...it's important to stratify everybody appropriately to take care of their careers come board time. However, a strat that goes on a report is not a board ranking. It is this board ranking that was I referencing, not an annual strat itself. However, they are intimately connected.

Why does it matter beyond 20%? Well, until our recent budget fiascos, the top 35% of a year group went to IDE in res. That's one reason. Another one is that the 30% guy--if he sticks around--will likely be an O-6 some day, while the 70% guy will not. Don't believe me? Look at the O-6 promotion statistics, project forward to this mythical captain or major's O-6 board, then remove all the guys who stratted above that 30% guy who got out at 12 or retired at 20 from consideration. He makes it easily.

Meh, if it's 35% instead of 20% then change the number in my statement and don't sidetrack the conversation like that.

So...the promotion board cares about (and takes time to) carefully racking and stacking all of the records into 30-50-70 percentile on a board with a 70 to 95 percent promotion rate that is sending 20% to developmental education? Even the most cursory look at the process shows this is not true. It does not matter if you are 30 or 70. If you are 70, the words do take on this importance you're trying to convey here, because they will be looked at more closely. But, keep in mind this is 70th percentile of the record on the board, not of the people in a unit they were actually stratified against...

It definitely depends...if 8 raters in a row say someone is "average" that does not make them average. If 7 raters give a numerical stratification and one rater says they are average on their last report, they are not "average". The answer here lies in how individual sets of stratification create the corresponding component to board ranking...that matters (a lot).

While no, Bendy, I do not expect that without a numerical strat a board could put 10 guys in perfect rank order based solely on words, but they could definitely group them pretty accurately into 30-ish%, 50-ish% and 70-ish% piles. Which is a stratification.

I agree with you that "Top Tier" on an OPR is stratification. I don't even think it's "fluff" on a PRF. If every line started with the same strat, I think I would agree with you more easily here.

"Top Tier", "Above Average", "Average"....done, right? Wrong. As a commander, you must stratify each individual every year. THIS effort can be "pretty accurately" piled into 30-50-70. However, when there are 8-10 push strats to deal with for every individual, the water gets murkier. This is the place where the comment about "Top Tier" being "fluff" is coming from.

So then...One pile is still all numbers (30-ish), one pile is some numbers and some words (50-ish), the other is all words (70+) right? Wrong again. As you pointed out with Champ, there is gaming that goes into the numbers alone. The progression or regression of these stratification could add logic into a board ranking (in the gray zone, not 40 vs 50 on a board promoting 80 percent).

It is the differentiation of records within this gray zone that matters within the current system. At the time of the board, it does not matter if you are 40 or 70th percentile; you both get promoted as school candidates. Does it matter come the next board (with a much lower promotion rate) that your record previously ranked 40 vs. 70th? Of course it does, that part of your record is still there unchanged, but there are also a lot of reports on top now.

In the end, "getting the bigger picture" and "It depends" are always shitty vague answers. It doesn't make them untrue, just unhelpful.

Bendy

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Bender]

Yeah, get past the literal words. If you read an OPR that said "average officer" would you really interpret that to mean the guy was an average officer? i.e. doing just fine, middle of the road, promote on time? Fuck no. You'd read that the guy was an oxygen stealer. Now go with "slightly below average officer". That guy still makes O-5 if taken literally. But that's not how anyone actually reads that line. Make sense?

At the time you wrote that, for the people you were rating on, yes. Are you saying that you take your shittiest officer and call him "average" on his performance report because that actually means oxygen stealer? A stratification being "taken literally" is not the same as promoting someone based upon a single stratification like you "slightly below average officer" example. (Not all positive words by the way).

So no. It makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that makes sense is that you are writing performance reports that do not accurately reflect actual performance in an effort to inflate their potential for promotion, because that is what everyone else is doing. It's just like 5's on EPRs. It's just like ironing wrinkle free uniforms. Clearly you "see the bigger picture" and are acting accordingly.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do what you're doing, I'm saying....no, it doesn't make sense. It is important to understand why. That makes it important to be able to explain why. When you can't do that, it means what you (you as in the Air Force here, not you as in BODN Danny Noonin) are fucking up.

So if you want to be the guy to take a moral stance when rating someone and say that you are only going to write down literally what you think of your dudes performance, then you're an asshole. Because that's not how anyone else is doing it, so you just fucked someone over. I've had this discussion with many a "core values" crusader who stomped their feet about integrity. You can do that with yourself if you want, but when you are messing with the careers of someone else, you play the game. And the game--as ludicrous as it is--is that you concentrate on communicating the correct message to a board or to outside readers. If you communicate literally, you will NOT be sending the message you intend to send. So focus all your "integrity first" energy into sending the correct message about a person, not using words literally. I think its ridiculous too. But that's the system right now and I can't fucking change it. Can you?

This is a beautiful capture of the problem, well done. There isn't a right answer here at this point in time. It is currently what it is and we have to operate under planned change concepts here, so there is no benefit to "blazing the trail" or being a "moral crusader". It is worthy to note that it's sad a person of you caliber would need to defend themselves using such words. I know you know it. ...and, no, I can't change it either (at least not yet).

Is it possible that this "correct message" you speak of is the "message" built over the course of the previous strats? "Average + Top Tier + Average" does not equal "Top Tier + Average + Average".

The problem here is you can't share the decoder ring, you only do it the way you do it because that's how it was taught to you and melded with how you think it is, which is different than how others were taught and different than how they think it is. Even if we don't change, we could standardized by explaining why...something the CSAF should have someone doing. This problem is pale in comparison to our bankrupting nation though, so we'll just make due with promotion boards as they are for the time being (which is actually a pretty decent system, it could be much worse).

So there are ways to write using just words--not numerical strats--that communicate clearly whether a guy who is not in the top 20% is still a strong swimmer or average or no so much. Its not that difficult.

I never said it was, Danny. I said it wasn't that important to a board wether you write "above average" or "top tier" to a board that is looking at every other stratification as well. Clearly it's important, it's just not relatively as important. That choice is unlikely to alter the outcome, that choice made 8 times in a row definitely will.

It's a good topic. I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts.

Bendy

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Champ Kind]

Fair enough, but here's what you originally posted... [snippet]

So your specific example had a "major" strat being better than an FGO strat for a major. Just sayin'.

I also said this:

...The only way a "CGO" strat would be top-tier would be a Lt getting a #1 or 2/XX CGOs strat because it implies that he/she is performing above the level of Capts also in that CGO category. Open to interpretation....

After your reply, I went on to say this:

You are correct about the Maj vs FGOs strat. I thought my logic of giving a Lt a CGO strat would translate into a Maj receiving an FGO strat, as I was trying to prevent posting a wall of TL;DR words. Giving a Capt a CGO strat is padding the denominator. Capts are supposed to perform above Lts. That's not always the case, so that's why you'll see Lts with CGO strats. The same is true for Majs.

The logic for giving a Maj a FGO strat is the same as giving a Lt a CGO strat.

[Danny Noonin]

Are you saying that you take your shittiest officer and call him "average" on his performance report because that actually means oxygen stealer?

Maybe. It depends. If I take my shittiest officer and say something negative about him, by reg that becomes a referral report. You understand that, right?

The dude may not warrant a referral report. He may be below average in reality, but doesn't deserve a career killing OPR that prevents him from even making major.

The only thing that makes sense is that you are writing performance reports that do not accurately reflect actual performance in an effort to inflate their potential for promotion, because that is what everyone else is doing.

If everyone is doing it, I'm not "inflating" his chances for promotion by doing it too. I'm keeping things consistent and making his chances for promotion fair relative to the pool.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin

[Danny Noonin]

In the end, "getting the bigger picture" and "It depends" are always shitty vague answers. It doesn't make them untrue, just unhelpful.

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

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin

[Bender]

"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.

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

So, you're saying "it depends" is a good answer if I really understand what you mean by it this time? Good stuff. I don't disagree, just thought it would be nice if you just said what you meant by it, this time...forgo the "it depends". It always depends.

I can't believe I wasted so much time on this. I'm out. You can argue amongst yourselves now.

That's a problem. We aren't arguing; well, I don't think so. We're having a conversation in a public forum for the betterment of all. You type A personalities can't help but see it as arguing, which is kind of amusing. That way someone can always win. Makes leadership kind of tough.

Sorry for wasting your precious time.

Bendy

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Danny Noonin]

So, you're saying "it depends" is a good answer if I really understand what you mean by it this time? Good stuff.

I'm saying that you cannot define a top tier strat simply by the pool (e.g. captains vs CGOs) because it's more complicated than that. The factors that complicate it are too numerous to fit into a nice little "tier 1, tier 2, etc" rule set, so I'm saying that you have to look at each case individually to see what strat our of what pool will communicate the message you are trying to communicate, whatever "tier" that may be. Does that make sense? You seem to have suggested that the gray area left by an "it depends" situation is bad. I'm saying it's not. It allows freedom and flexibility to communicate a variety of messages by accounting for a variety of variables. By purporting to provide a bit of mentoring on the process using an oversimplified rule set, I think that Champ could unintentionally mislead some young pups who would latch on to a black and white list like that and perpetuate a myth. So I chimed in.

That's a problem. We aren't arguing; well, I don't think so. We're having a conversation in a public forum for the betterment of all. You type A personalities can't help but see it as arguing, which is kind of amusing. That way someone can always win. Makes leadership kind of tough.

Sorry for wasting your precious time.

Valid. I didn't mean to come across like that. You'll notice by the time stamps I edited it away before you even posted.

[Bender]

Does that make sense? You seem to have suggested that the gray area left by an "it depends" situation is bad. I'm saying it's not. It allows freedom and flexibility to communicate a variety of messages by accounting for a variety of variables.

Of course it does; I think you have very good inputs and I'm glad you made them. I agree with your comment the "tiers" are an oversimplification, but you have to fight that off with complete information, not a vague answer. Because if someone doesn't know what you mean or guesses wrong, I think it could be a very bad thing. So, agree to disagree a bit there, but the inputs are solid even if you do argue like a little girl sometimes.

Bendy

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Danny Noonin]

Of course it does; I think you have very good inputs and I'm glad you made them. I agree with your comment the "tiers" are an oversimplification, but you have to fight that off with complete information, not a vague answer. Because if someone doesn't know what you mean or guesses wrong, I think it could be a very bad thing. So, agree to disagree a bit there, but the inputs are solid even if you do argue like a little girl sometimes.

Bendy

You know dude, for someone who said this isn't an argument yet has quibbled non stop about every one of my posts, you sure seem to take a lot of personal shots. Notice I haven't taken any at you.

Stay classy Bendy.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Danny Noonin

[Bender]

You know dude, for someone who said this isn't an argument, you sure seem to take a lot of personal shots. Notice I haven't taken any at you.

Valid. ...and that had not crossed my mind. Is this because I said you argued like a little girl? That was phrased as well as I could to make it clearly a joke. I hope I didn't offend you. Oddly enough, I don't think I would joke like that if it was an argument.

Bendy

ETA: Quibbling does not a conversation make. Just get it right the first time next time and we won't have to go through this. You can add an imaginary little smiley face to the end of this if it makes you feel better.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Bender

[Dupe]

All this argument proves is how really f-ed up our system is.

Senior leaders: I know you're reading. Why can't we just have an honest system? One that tells folks where their performance really is and offers the member a chance to change that positioning (for better or worse).

[Learjetter]

All this argument proves is how really f-ed up our system is.

Senior leaders: I know you're reading. Why can't we just have an honest system? One that tells folks where their performance really is and offers the member a chance to change that positioning (for better or worse).

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.

[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