Promotion and PRF Information

[Azimuth]

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.

Isn't a feedback form between the rater and the ratee? You'd give "feedback" on the quality of how a feedback form was written? That's micromanaging IMHO. If you don't think I give clear feedback i.e. do my job, then don't make me a rater.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Azimuth

[MSCguy]

Disclaimer-I'm a direct appt medical dude and don't know much about you line guys; but out of curiousity what happens when you have to rack and stack guys across career fields? Does #4/20 pilots take precedence over #1/10 FSS because a pilot can fly and shuffle papers and the FSS guy can only shuffle papers?

[Liquid]

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

Good point Bendy. I told the raters I expected them to do and document feedback because I thought it was important. Making the raters provide the feedback form ensured compliance. It wasn't difficult to do. Not nearly as difficult as building rockets.

Edit for *ing iPhone keypad and bad eyes.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Liquid

[Bender]

...what happens when you have to rack and stack guys across career fields? Does #4/20 pilots take precedence over #1/10 FSS because a pilot can fly and shuffle papers and the FSS guy can only shuffle papers?

That's a good question. I don't think anyone is going to agree with your suggested explanation, but I'd suspect they'd tell you the number 20 is bigger than the number 10, then avoid (actually be unable to answer) the question using the "whole person concept" and "it depends".

But, all other things being equal...it's a good question. It's certainly a complication to have multiple different career fields on the same board.

Bendy

[Liquid]

Isn't a feedback form between the rater and the ratee? You'd give "feedback" on the quality of how a feedback form was written? That's micromanaging IMHO. If you don't think I give clear feedback i.e. do my job, then don't make me a rater.

Yes. Not micromanaging, verifying and assessing. How would I know if you gave clear feedback if I didn't check? We had problems with no feedback, inaccurate feedback and false feedback dates on OPRs. After the minor policy change that described the expectations and standards, the problems went away.

[panchbarnes]

Is there an "official" AF-wide policy for OPR/EPR/1206 abbreviations?

It seems like every unit, CC, sup has their own abbreviation/acronym policy that adds unnecessary manhours/work to the whole process. As soon as you get a new person in charge, there is a new policy based on their previous unit/AFSC experience/preference.

Is the board okay with a little bit of white space? Or is that a hidden message from the rater? If I can abbreviate target to tgt or level to lvl then perhaps I can squeeze more impact to the bullet. Do I really need to spell out msn or wks? Is spted really a legit abbreviation?

It seems like I'm always one letter too many for that perfect bullet... damn it!

[ThreeHoler]

18AF has a guide. So does HAF.

[Dupe]

The other services stratify everyone, but there are problems with their promotion systems as well. No system is perfect. Ours works.

Our system could work much better if the OPR matched what we're looking for. The board wants strats for the top 20% and percentiles for everyone else? Fine, put that on the form. So breadth, depth, primary job performance, deployments, and leadership are all valued traits: make blocks on the form. We want to ensure a senior rater gives only one #1 strat? Seems like a job for a computer. In a service that values data and numbers, I'm constantly shocked that there are no analytics applied to our OPRs.

We spend an insane amount of time training writers, reviewing OPRs, holding MLRs, and fueling the overhead to keep it all going. The AF as an organization has developed a whole separate process (review cycle & MLR) to deal with the failings of the first process. On top of that, if you're a member in the top 20% down to the top 70% (I.e...going to get promoted but not a school nod), the time spent crafting your OPR was largely wasted. We need a system enables extra focus at the cut-lines.

Sure, our system works. It could work much better if the tool (the OPR) were designed to specifically input the data boards cared about. Instead, we're using a canvas and paint brush to draw architectural drawings. I'm surprised more senior leaders aren't asking "why?" and "What do other services and Fortune 500 companies do?" It seems the "Our system works" line has been pounded in from SOS and beyond to the point where senior leaders are conditioned to not question the process. It's funny: I can tell where I stand percentile-wise for my PFT over time and across the AF, but I can't do the same with my OPR. Which is more important there?

There are better systems out there... there really are. Senior leaders would do well to ask "What data do we want from this process and how can that data be most efficiently be delivered?"

Somebody... please end the madness.

[Liquid]

I don't know if there are better systems in industry. The Army uses a two page performance report with many analytics you describe, including quotas. You check the top one of three attributes (mental, physical, emotional), two of 4 leadership competence skills (conceptual, interpersonal, technical, tactical) and three of 9 leadership actions (communicating, decision-making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, building, learning) to best describe the officer. There is a section to identify unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value to the Army. Height, weight, PT pass, promotion potential (best qualified, fully qualified, do not promote and other), # of officers the senior rater rates in that grade and comparison by senior rater of other officers in same grade (above center of mass, center of mass, below center of mass). It is written in paragraph form, not bullets. The Officer Record Brief includes a full length photo. Many of those in the Army complain about the unwritten codes, playing favorites with strats, MOS favoritism and confusing promotion board values. Something similar to the Army system may be better, but I doubt it. Our system works relatively well and it would be a significant administrative effort to completely change our performance reports. Not sure it would be worth the effort.

[Chuck17]

I don't know if there are better systems in industry. The Army uses a two page performance report with many analytics you describe, including quotas. You check the top one of three attributes (mental, physical, emotional), two of 4 leadership competence skills (conceptual, interpersonal, technical, tactical) and three of 9 leadership actions (communicating, decision-making, motivating, planning, executing, assessing, developing, building, learning) to best describe the officer. There is a section to identify unique professional skills or areas of expertise of value to the Army. Height, weight, PT pass, promotion potential (best qualified, fully qualified, do not promote and other), # of officers the senior rater rates in that grade and comparison by senior rater of other officers in same grade (above center of mass, center of mass, below center of mass). It is written in paragraph form, not bullets. The Officer Record Brief includes a full length photo. Many of those in the Army complain about the unwritten codes, playing favorites with strats, MOS favoritism and confusing promotion board values. Something similar to the Army system may be better, but I doubt it. Our system works relatively well and it would be a significant administrative effort to completely change our performance reports. Not sure it would be worth the effort.

This.

Fellas, I work with the army everyday. I have two former HRC (Human Resources Command) Branch Managers in my working group - and have received the full brief on their ORB more than once. The grass is not greener. In fact it is much much worse IMHO. They play even more ridiculous games with their reports than we do, and the ONLY thing that matters to their boards is the Above Center of Mass score from the senior rater.

Dudes I know it can be frustrating. It once was for the army too - and they went full retard in the other direction to fix it - making it worse. You know what the guys in my staff group worry about? Their full length official photo that accompanies their ORB - are their medals straight, does their face look fat, do they have a five o'clock shadow, are their foreign jump wings displayed correctly. THAT is what you're wishing for...? No thanks.

Queep is queep. Fight the fight. Notch the real threats, not the decoys.

Chuck

Edited April 29, 2014 by Chuck17

[deskjockey]

Allow me to sum up what Liquid just said. "It could be worse." This, for those who don't know, is the unofficial AMC motto. Don't like your deployment rate? "It could be worse, you could be flying a C-xx!" Missing your kids birth? "It could be worse, I missed the conception!" Etc etc etc...for 12 years I've heard it.

I think this is the root of our problems...the guys flying the line are saying "it could be better". Those at the top continue to say, "it could be worse". And the implied statement is. "So I don't need to fix it because so and so has it worse".

[Liquid]

Allow me to sum up what Liquid just said. "It could be worse." This, for those who don't know, is the unofficial AMC motto. Don't like your deployment rate? "It could be worse, you could be flying a C-xx!" Missing your kids birth? "It could be worse, I missed the conception!" Etc etc etc...for 12 years I've heard it.

I think this is the root of our problems...the guys flying the line are saying "it could be better". Those at the top continue to say, "it could be worse". And the implied statement is. "So I don't need to fix it because so and so has it worse".

No. What I am saying is it is more difficult to make better than some think it is. Many times when we try to make it better we actually make it worse. The Army system is one example of this. EPRs is another.

[zach braff]

Part of the PRF/OPR/EPR issue I've witnessed is every time there's a workshop/lesson/mentoring/whatever on writing, it's always about how to write the strongest report. You learn all the techniques to make someone stand out as a winner, but those events rarely/never address how to write for the average (not bottom of barrel but not top 20%) to get across that they are top 40%, 60%, 80% etc.

I can draft a sh-t hot PRF, RRF OPR on anyone but I'd struggle to write for a good performer who isn't going to be a school select (but that I still want to keep moving).

zb

[Azimuth]

No. What I am saying is it is more difficult to make better than some think it is. Many times when we try to make it better we actually make it worse. The Army system is one example of this. EPRs is another.

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.

[Bender]

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.

It's like a circle. Not a square, not a triangle, but a circle.

Bendy

[Gravedigger]

Liquid I'm with everything you are saying except I would alter the rated vs non-rated promotion board idea. I think that works well for the Navy, but the Air Force is much more unique WRT career fields. In the rated vs. non-rated scheme, you still have non-rated ops competing against support, and within support, very few AFSCs speak the same language. A space ops officer that goes through IQT/MQT, takes evals that result in Q1/Q2/Q3, moves to OSS/OGV and gets a K or Q prefix, and has ops bullets looks a lot more like a pilot on paper than a force support officer. A 61S, 62E, and 63A might look alike, but compared to MSG-type AFSCs, they might as well be in another service.

In my opinion, the solution is to base promotions on career fields. Not all promotion rates need to be the same either. It would be based on sustainment needs for each AFSC. School selection would be sustainment based as well. For example, CROs/STOs might have 97% promotion, and 10% school. But it would be the CRO/STO senior leaders selecting these individuals. It would be sort of like an MLR, except each AFSC, or group of closely related AFSCs, would be responsible for filling the quota they are given by HAF.Pilots compete for promotion and school only against other pilots.

I hear Senior Officers say that they can read any OPR from any AFSC and make an informed assessment. That holds true for the very top and very bottom, but it's complete bullshit for the area that really matters. The gray area is what board members actually need to understand, and that gray area is vastly different across the Air Force. Who better to sort that out than senior leaders from that specific AFSC? We already do this for JAG, MSC, Chaplain...it's time to expand.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[panchbarnes]

People now want to fix the EPR system, unfortunately those that want to "fix it" were the ones promoted by it to senior leadership.

The EPR/OPR system is okay. It's more about how we determine our top airman/future O-6s.

For example, on the CGO side, you are usually not the top dog unless you:

1. have excellent PT score (meeting the standards is not good enough)

2. have masters degree (early)

3. have SOS in-residence (early)

4. have done exec duty (just don't rock the boat if you really want this)

5. have lots of hi-vis volunteer experience (this leads to qtrly/annual awards that translate to strats)

6. don't screw up in your primary duty

Meet the above criteria and you are a lock for a good strat or a strong push.

Not one of those criteria is about military leadership. You'll have a very limited AF career if your priority is being good at your primary duty and/or leading your peers/subordinates.

This is what's wrong with our promotion system and why all the good dudes/dudettes are leaving.

Edited April 30, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[BitteEinBit]

Liquid I'm with everything you are saying except I would alter the rated vs non-rated promotion board idea.

In my opinion, the solution is to base promotions on career fields. Not all promotion rates need to be the same either. It would be based on sustainment needs for each AFSC. School selection would be sustainment based as well. For example, CROs/STOs might have 97% promotion, and 10% school. But it would be the CRO/STO senior leaders selecting these individuals. It would be sort of like an MLR, except each AFSC, or group of closely related AFSCs, would be responsible for filling the quota they are given by HAF.Pilots compete for promotion and school only against other pilots.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

This is probably the best solution I've seen yet. You would THINK that is how we would do it all along, but we don't. That is the reason you have overages of officers in certain career fields and not others. Hard to see when you just deal in overall beans instead of specific beans. No doubt these are (mostly) quality officers, but if you can't crossflow your officers to effectively "lead" as experts in other AFSCs, those overages do nothing for the organization other than make it more difficult for the AF to place those quality officers within those AFSCs. Meanwhile, you may have a rated officer (for example) who may not have stacked well against the COMM officer who was the 2-star's exec, but is still a quality expert in the flying world who is shown the door because he/she wasn't promoted. I still need experienced IPs to actually fly, but said COMM officer will not be able to fill the shoes of the rated guy. So, I guess I'll just spend extra money to replace the IP...yes, it can be done, but it costs money and I may lose experience/knowledge in the process. That seems to be "just good enough" in today's Air Force. Wash, rinse, repeat. Its ok, we have unlimited funds.

We all know not everyone can be promoted...but we also know that promoting an arbitrary number of officers (75-85% depending on the board) without regard to AFSC promotes a lot of quality officers, but not necessarily the right flavor of quality officer. They'll make good managers somewhere, but won't replace my quality IP who maybe isn't GO or exec material ( per current AF definition as listed in PBs post above). I don't care what your education background is...I want quality instructors producing quality pilots, so I value the experience in my squadron. Those aren't necessarily the phoenix touch and go IPs we seem put on pedestals.

Name one successful company on the civilian side who let expertise go just because they aren't management material, and I'll show you a company getting ready to fail....

Edited April 30, 2014 by BitteEinBit

[Gravedigger]

I don't care what your education background is...I want quality instructors producing quality pilots, so I value the experience in my squadron.

Exactly. That's the other huge benefit of promoting based on AFSC. Each community decides what is important to them. A pilot most likely doesn't need an AAD going up for major, but a 62E with a Masters is a lot more versatile and has more assignment opportunities, and is therefore more useful to the career field. For their promotion boards, AAD and acquisition code/level would be big factors. For almost every other AFSC, both of those mean very little.

Additionally, things that should transcend AFSC often do not. For example, in the flying world, going to WIC is extremely competitive and selective, in space ops, it's not. At my last base, the only 4 people that wanted to go to WIC were mediocre at best, but since nobody else wanted to go, they all went. Don't get me wrong, some really great dudes go to WIC, but all of them were great dudes before going.

Finally, by promoting by AFSC, you lessen the need for force management measures in higher ranks. If pilot manning is falling because airlines are hiring, make promotion for pilots 100%. If nobody is leaving a career field which could lead to a future surplus, drop it to 80%. It's really not that complicated. Although, I'm sure we would find a way to make it so.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Rusty Pipes]

Senior Officers say THINK that they can read any OPR from any AFSC and make an informed assessment. FIFY

My last two O-6 Commanders (both non-rated) were VERY proud of the fact that they have sat on promotion boards and have participated in MLRs, but when I showed them pictures of an F-22, F-16, C-5 and C-17 they both got every one of them wrong when I asked them what they were. If they can't even tell you what an F-22 or a C-17 looks like then the fact that you were a 4 Ship Flight Lead or SOLL II Left Seater as mid level Captain means absolutely NOTHING to them when they read it on your PRF with their 60 second glance. It's easy for any O-6 to pick out the top and bottom 10% from almost any AFSC, but when you have that group of about 10% that are right on the bubble of whether or not they are going to get promoted, the idea that the person voting on their fate doesn't know what half of their PRF even means doesn't help... and that goes for whatever career field you may be in! One of these two O-6s fully admitted that they didn't understand what most of the stuff on my PRF meant... and then said when it came down to it they looked for who had more #1 strats and who checked all the boxes. At least they were honest. I think promotion by career field is a better direction to go IMHO.

[Bobby]

My last two O-6 Commanders (both non-rated) were VERY proud of the fact that they have sat on promotion boards and have participated in MLRs, but when I showed them pictures of an F-22, F-16, C-5 and C-17 they both got every one of them wrong when I asked them what they were. If they can't even tell you what an F-22 or a C-17 looks like then the fact that you were a 4 Ship Flight Lead or SOLL II Left Seater as mid level Captain means absolutely NOTHING to them when they read it on your PRF with their 60 second glance. It's easy for any O-6 to pick out the top and bottom 10% from almost any AFSC, but when you have that group of about 10% that are right on the bubble of whether or not they are going to get promoted, the idea that the person voting on their fate doesn't know what half of their PRF even means doesn't help... and that goes for whatever career field you may be in! One of these two O-6s fully admitted that they didn't understand what most of the stuff on my PRF meant... and then said when it came down to it they looked for who had more #1 strats and who checked all the boxes. At least they were honest. I think promotion by career field is a better direction to go IMHO.

F'ing THIS!!!

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Rusty Pipes]

Cue Rusty with another anecdotal "....these 2 guys I know........THEREFORE....the whole promotion system is fucked" story.

It's true, not every single MWS/AFSC is represented at the board. Would that ever be possible? No, so of course there's going to be an understanding gap when it comes to records. As you said, it applies across all AFSCs. Even within the flying world, although we can VID most aircraft in the inventory, we still face the same challenges when comparing records. Do most fighter/bomber guys really understand what SOLL II is in terms of being able to apply it to job performance or promotion potential? .....I don't. Does a C-130 guy really understand what it means to be a F-15C MSN/CC or Sandy 1 in terms of promotion? Probably not.

So, to me, if I'm sitting on the board, here's the fix if that one piece of information ends up being the tie-breaking discriminator:

1) Re-read the bullet/PRF It's up to commanders and SR's to craft each bullet in a way that board members can understand/apply it. This is routinely fucked up, and if it's fucked up enough, it can make for a very weak overall PRF. In line with your later comment that said anecdotal O-6 couldn't understand most of the stuff on your PRF, well dude, sorry to break it to you but the people in your chain of command who have written/reviewed your PRF have failed you. They've written you a shitty PRF. I would recommend you intervene using all available resources prior to the PRF going final, or write a letter to the board. But yes, that's one of the classic pitfalls in this process.....too much cryptic jargon, lingo, and acronyms. People trying to jam too much into each line until the thing comes out reading like manderin chinese. Less is more. I was always taught and mentored to "write it so your Grandmother can understand it."

2) Ask another board member. A CAF/MAF dude as required.

3) Reference the board instructions.

You try to make it sound like these types (that can't ID a C-17/F-16) are:

--The majority of folks that sit on the board

--Single-handedly deciding the fate of the eligible officer

--Unable to have any cross-talk with the other board members if they have a questions.

All false.

But I like sport bitching as much as the next guy and the last part about AFSC-specific boards is interesting.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

OK, Hoss... I'll bite. Not a "2 guys I know... therefore the whole system is screwed up story". We all tend to live in our own little bubbles in the AF which isn't a major secret to anyone (even within CAF/MAF like you said), but even after working for multiple Generals, Wing and OG CC's and having been involved with probably over a dozen PRF rounds throughout the years... I was surprised by the fact that these guys had no idea what they were reading. I'm not saying they were not quite up to speed on some of the terms/concepts/acronyms... they actually had no idea what they even meant! Of course cross-talk with the other board members is happening when there are questions. The O-6 who flew F-15Cs his whole career could go through a PRF and might not know what a SOLL II Left Seat guy is in a C-17, but you could explain it to him in about 5 seconds so that he completely understands. When that same F-15C O-6 looks at the next PRF for a MX guy and doesn't understand half of the PRF... how long do you think it would take someone to explain it to him such that he completely understands? Especially when they probably spend only about a minute or two going through the entire promotion package. I'm not saying the whole system is screwed up... I'm saying that maybe it isn't the best idea to have the English teacher grading the Math exam!

We have countless pages on here of people bitching about AADs, PME, useless Strats and Christmas Party planning being used to decide who gets promoted, school, ect (guilty as charged)... but if the Board members don't know the relevance of the 4 Ship Flight Lead, SOLL II Left Seater or Supreme Level 9 Combat FOD Manager then what do they do? Hmmm... he has more #1 strats than she does. This guy got his AAD in 2009 and he got his in 2010! I think that stuff was originally used with good intentions as a tie breaker when everything else was even, but when the only way to compare me as a pilot against my peer who is MX officer is the queep then the queep just became my #1 priority! You're obviously never going to have a perfect system, I just think we would do much better by having Rated Officers doing Rated promotions, MX Officers doing MX promotions, etc. It would sure as hell keep me from failing my Math exam due to poor grammar! Something tells me that as a Hog Driver you would much rather have the Little Rock OG/CC scoring your promotion package than the MSG/CC from Hanscom... just sayin'

Edited April 30, 2014 by Rusty Pipes

[Homestar]

M

M bu

Indeed

[Liquid]

Indeed

Now that was some classic senior leader nonsense...damn iPhone

[Breckey]

Butt-posting on the Baseops App?