Performance Evaluations

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Over the years, I have watched the average mark climb from a 4 to 6. If you don't believe me, average the marks of your crew for any given evaluation period. If that average is 4 or below, I'll eat the paper on which it's written.

By definition, half of the CG should average below a 4 and half should average above.

Even though the criteria for a 4 is a "good Coastie" doing his/her job, most of us would be highly insulted to receive a 4 in any catagory. I think that this inflation of performance evaluations has happened for a few reasons:

1. We have become a service afraid of confrontation. It is a much more pleasant experience to counsel an individual on his/her marks, when they are all 6's and7's.

2. We are using the eval as motivation for future performance rather than as a record for past performance. We are afraid that the individual will be insulted, his/her morale will drop, and their performance will deteriorate because of the evaluation.

3. We assume that other commands are marking high and we do not want to place our people at a disadvantage. Sort of a circular logic thing going on here.

4. We don't want to be hypocrites. How can I give accurate evaluations, when I know that my supervisors are inflating my marks?

5. We want to compensate those individuals that have placed themselves in jobs that are more difficult than the norm. Do I really want to give the best basketball hander-outer in the CG a 6, and then give my XPO a 5 in the same catagory?

6. Past evaluations play a role. Have you ever stepped into a new job where your subordinates are getting high marks, but your assessment of them is significantly lower? How do you justify dropping an individual from a 6 to a 4 when their performance has not changed? You would have to state that the last supervisor was not doing his job properly. And, again, we are afraid of confrontation.

7. We ignore the subordinates clause. The criteria for a 6 in many of the factors involve exceptional performance by the individual's subordinates. Ironically, an individual that has placed himself in a significant supervisory position should be less likely to achieve a high mark in these cataogories than an individual that has few or no subordinates.

My recommendations for improvements are as follows:

1. Lessen the impact marks have on advancement. Instead of using the current system, simply have 1 point added to the multiple if there was nothing below a 4 and the individual received a SAT. Remove that point if any of the criteria was not met.

2. Assign points to specific duties that require more responsibility. For example, if an individual is a sitting XPO or EPO, add a point.

3. If an individual does not have subordinates, do not allow anything above a 4 in those categories.

4. Subject marks of 7 to review by a second party outside the chain of command.

5. HQ needs to devise a way to monitor the average of performance evals. If that average creeps above the 4 range, than decide to chastise the marking community or revise the marks themselves.

6. Insist on written supporting comments. If a supervisor, marking official, or approving official cannot articulate the reasons behind a higher mark, then it is probably not deserved.

And, I'll make a prediction. This post will get a lot of looks and very few replies. Why? Because we are responsible for most of this problem. All of you are at least supervisors and many of you are marking and/or approving officials. The eval system can work properly only if we make it so. I bet most of you are just too comfortable with your 6's and 7's to want to make a difference.

Care to object????

[DCC Mitchell Penneau]

Senior: I have to agree with you on just about everything you posted.

1) I am not sure if it is a matter of being afraid of confrontation when giving a 4, I give them, but many times it is a matter of giving a member a slight advantage, or that is what I hear a lot when I see a member getting all marks of 6 and 7, and that is a problem. the fact is that if people were really 6 and 7 coasties we would be exceling in everything we do, but most are not in this catagory.

I will also say I do inflate marks at times for my best performers, and before anyone makes any negative comments I have to say I do this for a reason. I know that I am doing this and that it is really not the right thing to do, but when I see an E-4 at the unit getting marks of all 6 and 7 for just doing the job it really makes me mad, when something is said about it well the powers that be circel the wagonsa nd fight, again not right. So why do I sometimes inflate marks for the best workers.

Almost all other commands do it, and by not doing so I would be doing a dis-service to my people, mark play an inportant part in the final score for advancment, again any type of inflating of marks is not the right thing to do, but to keep my people in the "running" I do what I can.

So no objection here. Ok now what can we do, I know that we are not going to get many to change there opinions and get them to correctly and objectivly fill or the marks. I think we need to change the whole marking system. First of all there is NO such thing as a 7, no one knows everything about there rate and no one is to the point where thay can not learn anything more.We have to keep objective and not use such things as the "halo effect" and other such mind sets. I really do do my best to be objective, and mark fairly but as I said I can't always do this because of the outcome that would follow for my people.

[DCC Mitchell Penneau]

Senior: I for got to give my opinion on you very last statement.

I bet most of you are just too comfortable with your 6's and 7's to want to make a difference.
As I said I do not believe there is a 7 coastie, and I do object to gettin ga 7 because I am far from perfact, and know there is always room to improve, but by the time the makrs get down to me they are already in the system and only need a signiture, and answer this honestly, would you appeal a 7 ?
I do believe that the marks of 6 I get are earned, but I keep a log of everything I do for myself as a referance when asked for supporting documentation, I also keep a log for each of my people, helps wehn mark time rolls around. It is a bit of extra effort but in the end well worth it.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I agree that our enlisted employee reviews are not the greatest, but they certainly are not the worst. The way we mark our people is better than some of our military counterparts.

I think the issue here is whether we (as supervisors, marking and approving officials) want to do the right thing. It's easy to mark someone against the written standard; we shouldn't feel pressured or feel that we're not doing right by our people if we mark them as they should be.

Dennis said: We have become a service afraid of confrontation. It is a much more pleasant experience to counsel an individual on his/her marks, when they are all 6's and7's.

I don't see this. Some people avoid confrontation, but I don't think we have become (a service) afraid of confrontation. If you can clearly articulate why you gave a particular mark, there shouldn't be any confrontation.

Dennis' Recommendations: Lessen the impact marks have on advancement. Instead of using the current system, simply have 1 point added to the multiple if there was nothing below a 4 and the individual received a SAT. Remove that point if any of the criteria was not met.

Not sure if this would make the process any better. I think you would end up with the same result. Nearly everyone would get this 1-point. People, who don't receive a SAT, shouldn't be taking the SWE.


Mitchell Said: Almost all other commands do it, and by not doing so I would be doing a dis-service to my people, mark play an important part in the final score for advancement, again any type of inflating of marks is not the right thing to do, but to keep my people in the "running" I do what I can.

This is the problem! I do it because everyone else is doing it. Maybe we should all do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Maybe then those around us would take note and follow our lead.

[OSCS Jimmy D. Belcher]

Very interesting topic seeing as I have had two appeals take place in the last two months from my end. Both sets went above me and were increased by the Command. I feel as if I am marking persons as the regs require. The member has the right to appeal them if they feel they are low. Even though bullets are not a requirement they really do help because remembering six months of work from numerous personnel is not the easiest thing in the world. If the enlisted force puts out very good bullets to their supervisors then you can actually justify a mark above a 4. If not then you have to go back six months and try to remember these things yourself.

Every one of the points you brought up seem to have some type of merit to them. We have all probably received marks in our past which we feel should have been higher. It does put a strain on the enlisted force when their marks are lower than the rest of the Coast Guard and I do believe there are a quite a few commands which inflate marks to help their personnel along the advancement cycle.

[BMCS Mark Stauffer]

I really enjoyed all your posts. This has been a hot topic of mine for quite some time. I think that the power of marks should be reduced in advancements. Perhaps a solution to the inflation of marks is to either give the member a SAT or UNSAT in categories. A member with 3 or more unsat marks would be ineligible to participate in the service-wide. As long as numbers are associated with marks they will always be inflated. I mark people for what I see. If they deserve the 7, I will give them a 7 without any questions. If the same person deserves a 3 in a category that is what they get. I had a supervisor one time that would base his evaluation on the last set of marks. If the person did the same job then he might give the same marks and increase a couple. Not the way to do business. If we want to develop our subordinates into the fine Coasties we expect, then we have to provide them with marks that reflect their performance. If we don't, we are setting them up for failure in the future.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

There is one easy, direct way to correct inflated marks. We can insist that our marks be reflective of our performance. We all know that we are getting 6s and7s that we don't deserve. Imagine if all of the Chiefs went back to their supervisors and said, "Redo this. Change this 7 to a 5." Can you imagine the stir that would cause?

[DCC Mitchell Penneau]

Senior:I agree 100% with you, it would shake things up if even if a few of us would do it. I think it is about time that was a leaders do something to get the marks for all Coasties really reflect what they do and not inflate them so they have a higher marks factor for advancement. We all say the samething" we know they are inflated, but everyone does it" we have to stop this and it is us as Chiefs to set the exampel.

[MKCS Jon Menze]

I believe that a big problem with inflated marks is that people are inflating marks so that the person can competative for advancement. Is this right? I do not believe so. I have seen a lot of recomendations change (at the officer level) from not recommended to recommened. Some of the higher ups even change the marks so that their OER looks good. This is just one of the problem with the marking system. It is supost to be a system to judge someones preformance but a lot of the time it comes down to people marking others on how well they like them. I went to the leadership road show coarse not to long ago and one of the thing that they taught us was that a marking system only last between 10 and 15 years due to the marks getting over inflated. My understanding is that in the near future there will be a new marking system out (don't know when).

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

I've been hearing that there will be a new marking system for the past 10 years. Good luck with that. Even if it is true, the abuse won't stop.

I'll ask it again! Can't we change the abuse by stopping it at our level? Don't give or accept marks that aren't deserved! Whose with me?!

[MKCS Jon Menze]

Dennis,
I agree with you. Marks are suppost to be based on preformance but they are based more on how well you are liked by the person marking you and how you stack up to others. I have been trying to teach to the best of my ability to the people under my how to do the marks the right way but when the people senior to me change them to help someone be competative what can we do.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

"but when the people senior to me change them to help someone be competative what can we do."

Jon,
That's a cop out. Those senior people are as much in need of your mentoring as the junior folks. And, with the proper tact and a professional approach, they will be just as receptive. Even if they are not, its still your job to confront the bad practice...repeatedly. Eventually, a change will made, if for no other reason than to get rid of you.

Confront, confront, confront. You gotta do it.

[ETCS David Kroll]

I've been looking at a few threads today and all the replies by SCPO Endicott end in

"Confront, confront, confront. You gotta do it." It sounds like your fighting mad, or the typical old crusty Bosn mate! :)

Take it easy Dennis, deep breathe, there you go. :D

This is good anger management.
Dave

[MKCS Jon Menze]

Dennis,
I agree, they do need the mentoring and I do question it and usually get the same answer. I am not trying to make it look like a cop out but just stating that it happens all the time. I am with you all the way it that the system is screwed up. It is really frustrating to me when they tell you to do mark and then tell me they changed them to help them advance. I have seen people get upset because I didn't give them 7's on them marks and look at them and ask what they did to deserve them and pretty much tell me they did their job and a little more. I have also seen people get straight 4's and get upset and try to explain to them that there is nothing wrong with marks like that but those are more issues that are wrong because of the inflation of marks is that no one thinks 4's are any good anymore. I am still trying and will until I my last day.

[MKC Mike Reilley]

Good day all. This is quite the topic. There are bound to be a few changes very shortly though in regards to inflated marks. With the new Physical Fitness and Weight Standards there is bound to be an impact. Especially for those seeking E-7, E-8, and E-9. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in regards to annual evaluations. I myself need to drop some weight and get into the excercise mode. I recently quit smoking which was no small task. I try to take it one day at a time. I am glad to see the new requirements but alas I know right now I would have trouble with the run and it ups. No question. Any comments??

[DCC Mitchell Penneau]

Lead by exampel. I know that this is a subject that has an impact on our service and members, but how to fix the problem??? Let me ask this, how many of you out there get 7s on your marks? Think about this, a 7 is the the top of the ladder, and is saying that you know it all and there is no room to improve, well none of us know it all and we can all get better. I routinely get 7s on my marks and I know that I don't deserve then I am going to do this with my next set of marks and I challeng all to do the same.I am going to appel every 7 I get and do it as per the PERSMAN, I am going to also forward a copy of the appel to the district CEA as well as MCPOCG. The way I see it the only way to fix the problem of inflated marks is to make a statement, a stand needs to be made and people in charge and at HQ need to listen.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

OK, Mitch. I'm with you. However, before we appeal those inflated marks, we have a duty to try and make the approving official lower them first.

I know for a fact, I won't be deserving of any 7's. But I'll go one step further. I'll argue against most of my 6's as well. And, if the approving official doesn't agree, I'll add my appeal to yours.

Could be we won't be getting any 7's or 6's and we're going to make ourselves look like idiots. Regardless, let's make sure that we pass on the experience here in the forum.

Anyone else want to step up to the plate? Performance evals are right around the corner!

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

Appeal my 7's???? Huh?

I'd love to help your cause. However, I am one (are there others?) example of how performance evaluations haven't hindered my ability to advance to Chief. I have never received a mark of 7 in any performance category. EVER! :( Check for yourself if you like. Most of you have command access.

I'm not complaining. Just stating a fact. I think my marks have been fair and decent through the years and I'd like to think that I had something to do with that... I had opportunities for input every six months and now every year. Unvarnished truth: If you give yourself a 7 on the support form and you have a lazy supervisor - you can expect a 7 when your marks return for counseling and signing. Why would you appeal the mark? You gave it to yourself, and then you supported it with bullets! I sense squirming throughout the Mess.

As far as advancement competition goes, thank goodness for the, somewhat, level playing field of the Service Wide Exam. Hopefully the SWE score and the other factors of the Final Multiple: sea service, TIR, TIG, awards, etc., throttle back any members that would have been advanced for the sole reason of being marked "softly."

[DCC Mitchell Penneau]

Dennis: I plan on arguing any and all 7's I get, and am going to make it official in righting if need be. The trend of inflated marks has to stop and the only way to get it done is for all of us to make it known that things have gotten way out of hand. As I said I will forward my appeal to the district CEA as well as the area and MCPOCG. I would hope that once this happens someone will notice.
As I said (not to talk myself up) but I get anywhere between 5 and 6 7's per marking period and have for the last several years and you know I have accepted them, but when I see an E-4 get 7 to 9 7’s on there marks then I know things have gotten so far out of hand something has to be done. I mean a 4 is average and face it most coasties are average.

[BMCM Steve Cantrell]

I am reading that most everyone disagrees with receiving a "7". Do I also take that to mean that because you feel so strongly about those 7s that you do not ever give any "7"s to your subordinates? Not that I disagree with anything that has been said about the inflated marks, but I would love to read the written appeal that is sent up because you want to argue a "7"! :eek: I am a little concerned that because some of you feel so strongly about receiving a "7" that you over compensate by giving your folks lower marks. If we all are not doing that, then we are certainly hurting these young folks. We have some stellar sailors out there and in my opinion, some of them deserve a "7" once in a while. Now getting 7-9 "7s" that Mitch mentioned earlier is a little tough to swallow for an E-4. Marks will ALWAYS be driven by the personality of the supervisor/marking official. There is just no way around that. I would guess that most supervisors and marking officials are pretty fair when it comes to marks and mark against the WRITTEN STANDARDS, it's the select few that give inflated marks that we should strive to weed out. If we as CHIEFS(supervisors) give a mark of "5" and the approving official changes that mark to a "6" or a "7", then we should be in that approving official's face about it (I think Dennis mentioned that earlier). We have a responsibility to the member and to the approving official to do that. Just my 2 cents and thanks for the great thread on a very sensitive subject with us all. :)
Steve

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

I have to say I do agree that marks can be inflated from time to time but I also have to say I disagree with Mitchell about there is no 7 performers. Is it true that we can always learn something about our jobs? Yes but that is not the only category in the marks and when I do marks on my people it doesn’t take a few minutes to do. I read the description of what each mark represents every time I do marks for each category. It takes me usually around an hour to do a set of marks. I believe in taking care of the guys that work for me so if that means spending time on writing a statement on why I feel they deserve a 7 I don’t it because it’s my job. Having said that I also have no problem giving someone a 3 if they deserve it also and when there counseled I explain to them why the got the marks they received and what I expect from them to raise that mark on the next marking period. Also we as the supervisor are suppose to be doing a mid marking period counseling session for our people we are marking so they know were they stand so they can improve before they get marked. If were turning out 3’s and 4’s were are not doing our jobs. It’s our job as Chiefs to train and teach our your people to be the best we can and to excel in everything they do. But there are those times when the horse is led to the water and chooses not drink so they end up receiving a low mark or going to mast and receiving a 2. Regardless as Chiefs we can and should make the difference. So how about everyone read the description of what a2 & 7 is and if that’s what the member did, spend the time doing the write up that they deserve.

[BMCS Gary Chalker]

Ponder this: Agree 100% with marking against the written standard. Lets compare the following and ask, who will probably get higher marks?

1. BM1 XPO on a PB working for a 25 year old LTjg.
2. BM1 XPO on a PB working for a 38 year old BMCS/BMCM.

My money is on number 1. ;) Why? The OIC will hold that BM1 to a much higher level because they have been in their shoes and know the job inside out. That JO's first command will succeed only if the XPO lets him, and a happy XPO...

Marks are tough, and a MK1 on a 210 is going to be marked differently than an MK1 EPO. Should they? Yes. Should there be a "extra" point on the SWE for those who have took the highly demanding jobs? Other than BMs, I think that would be a good idea, particulary for MKs. The fix? I think someone in this thread said changing it to SAT/UNSAT. Not a bad idea. :rolleyes:

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

If a member meets and surpasses all of the criteria in the 4, 5, and 6 blocks of the performance category... then by all means click on the 7 and take 5 minutes to tell the world why the member deserves a seven. If you have your finger on the pulse of your department/Command, you know who's exceeding the 6 and who's just squeaking by. There are 7 performers out there and there are 2 performers out there. It's up to us to document them accordingly, through our own eyes.

I agree with you Gary on the PB issue. Ltjg vs. BMCS/BMCM. But doesn't my C.O./Bos'n mark me (EPO) differently than the BMC (XPO)? He's been an XPO, but not an EPO....Hmmmm? How is that different than the O vs. E on the PB. Just food for thought from a different perspective....

Jo

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

That's a good point, Jo. Once you get into the command cadre positions you are often marking or being marked by someone who does not share the same experience/career path.

I do a lot of assuming when it comes to the technical evaluation of the MKs in my unit. If things aren't broke, or don't stay broke long, then they must be doing a good job. I can, however, evaluate leadership/management effectively, and that is a big part of the XPO/EPO job description.

I still take exception with the practice of awarding higher marks to an individual simply because they are command cadre. I we want to reward those people (and I think we should) then there needs to be an additional catagory or area in the performance eval to recognize a job like that specifically.

And, overall, I still believe that we tend to award 6s and7s much more often than 2s and 3s. According to the law of averages, that should not be so.

Just my opinion.

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Greetings all,
Being the new guy, I should warn you that I am opinionated! No, really, I am a no s**t out spoken Bosun that loves the right soap box :)
First, I must make a few too many people mad to get all those 7's you guys are getting. Guess it's good I can write a good test :rolleyes:
Second, I have only given a few 7's, they were partially explained in a post about awards where the CO told me to not to submit awards so the events in question could be included in a "end-of-tour" award.
I personally am cautious about giving 6's. The easiest way to explain this to the mark-ee is to read the text for a 6. A sailor who does an exemplary job over and above what is expected should get a 5. To get a 4 they must be consistent which I take to mean for the entire marking period. A 6 requires not only consistency, and doing extra, but ensuring others perform as well as you do.
I love being a BM and teaching others what I have learned, but that's my job. If I am consistent I should get a 4. If I put in my off duty time to accomplish the same it's a 5. When I can help one of my BM1's or BM2's to be a good teacher, it's more like a 6. I don't see the grey area, maybe I'm an ^%#$&^%$ like my wife says :p

I will take Dennis up on the challenge thing, If I ever see another. Jo, I think I'm one ahead of you, and I was a young fella doing the job of the XPO for a few months in the interim while the position was open. I am back in the cutter fleet mentoring and being marked by a Ensign so we'll see how that plays out...

Ken

[OSC Bill Putnam]

As a supervisor I view 4s as adequacy, not average. If I've got someone who is consistently getting 4s then I need examine my leadership and find out why I haven't been able to motivate him/her to a higher standard. I certainly do not believe that a 4 is an average mark meaning we have to have someone get a 2 in that particular competency for everyone that gets a 6. That seems ludicrous to me. Aren't we an organization that expects excellence?

The Professional/Specialty Knowledge has two to three criterion for receiving a 6. The first is a consistent demonstration of knowledge and skills. If you have set forth a job requirement for that billet and that person has performed that job description in an outstanding fashion and has been able to document that performance then they have achieved the first criteria. "performs all tasks" is the second part of that sentence. That seems self-explanatory to me and again, is easily documented. The second criteria here is "Developed and analyzed alternatives needed to solve difficult problems." Did something come up that stumped folks for a while and this person come up with a solution? Did they do that a few times over a marking period? There is not specified quantity. If you are requiring that be done several or many times we probably need to look at our process to find out why we continue having "difficult problems" to solve.

At any rate, if you have trained your personnel well and given them the tools to perform their jobs I counsel my folks to write their evaluation support forms to the 6 block. They won't have the opportunity each marking period to achieve that but if they see what the standards are then they know where they need to excel.

I don't want to work with or for folks that are content with a 4 mark. I think that is settling for mediocrity. There are specific competencies that address working on your off-duty time or extra hours. That should not be a condition for all competencies to get a 6. It is specifically spelled out on the ones that it is a consideration. The first 5 competencies in the Performance Dimension have no contingencies for working in your off-duty to achieve a 6. They have to do with "work" which is by definition when you are on the job.

The other thing I tell the people that I write Evaluations for is that just because you get to a certain numerical mark during one period does not mean that you will remain there the next. I believe one of the most valuable tools you can provide your personnel after those that are necessary to complete their tasks is that of effective mentoring in writing their support forms. Teach these folks how to write and to communicate what they accomplish. It will make your job as a marking supervisor immensely easier if you only need to read their support forms, compare them to the standards, verify the content and assign the mark.

Create high expectations and the fantastic people in this service will strive to meet them.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Bill,

"As a supervisor I view 4s as adequacy, not average."
When you do that, you attach your own agenda to the system. By definition, 4's are average (A Coastie doing a good job).

"Aren't we an organization that expects excellence?"
Yes, we are. I would argue that our "4" Coasties have a much better work ethic than most civilians, and even their counter-parts in other services.


"I don't want to work with or for folks that are content with a 4 mark. I think that is settling for mediocrity."
No one has suggested that an individual should be content with a "4." However, assigning such a negative stigma to a "4" will lead you to avoid assigning it as a mark, when it is absolutely appropriate to do so.

Your viewpoints and practices are not uncommon, but you are one of the reasons why the performance evaluations are spiraling upward, out-of-control.
We must evaluate our people against the written standard, with the understanding/acceptance that a "4" is a good mark.

If everyone is exceptional, then exceptional is no longer a valid term.

[ETCS Michael Backs]

They have been creeping upwards, well except mine :D, but the reason is the way they affect all the various programs and opportunities that people are interested in applying for.

How can you justify a really good, but not great, performer, who may in reality only rate a 4/5, but then is not even competitive when you see them ranked for a program because of other people who get inflated marks?

I really have only one perception about marks, something I've said for quite a few years, they are MORE a reflection of the person doing them, then the person receiving them.

IF you could tie in how the supervisor does the marks, into what people receive, then you would have a more objective system throughout the Coast Guard.

[OSC Bill Putnam]

Senior - I appreciate the feedback. I am certainly not promoting my own agenda when marking others. I carefully read each Performance Dimension and measure against those standards. My point about the 4 was that it is not published anywhere that 4 is an average of what is being obtained in that dimension across the board in the CG. If I give a 6 in a dimension I don't assume there is a corresponding 2 in that same dimension for someone else. That's what it sounded like I was reading in your previous post.

I am not spiraling any marks out of control. I take the time at mid-marking counseling sessions to let people know where they stand and some things I think they could do to excel to the next point.

I also stress that if they are diligent in writing their Enlisted Evaluation Support Forms and they have tracked their own performance then they can be in a situation to leave me with very little "guessing" about what they have or have not done. There are 22 Performance Dimensions x 3 Written Standard Blocks x multiple block criterion x personnel. That's a lot to keep in the "old hardrive" upstairs :confused: . I've never wanted to leave that to chance for any of my supervisors. I clearly document why I deserve what numerical value and I've asked those that I mark to do the same.

I have no heartache whatsover in assigning 4's. And I would agree with you that there has been a misplaced negative connotation assigned with that. I just stress that is not what we should be striving for. You're absolutely right. Our "4" sailors would be and have become outstanding employees in the civilian sector. Now I want them to strive to be outstanding in our organization.

Rest easy. No 5s and 6s being given away here.

Not to open another can of worms but perhaps we should look at why a 5 or 6 looks so different dependent upon the billet. Particularly in something like "Quality of Work" where to get a 6 you have to, among other things, "exceed expectations and/or standards for tasks". Obviously those expectations/standards change from place to place. There are corporate standards in our PQS but there are also billet and unit standards each place you go. It may take much more effort to exceed those at one place than it does at another. Thoughts?

Thanks again,
Bill

[OSC Bill Putnam]

ps - Senior I recant my statement about "settling for mediocrity". 4 is a "good" mark. In my quest and expectations of "excellence" I have sometimes relegated "good" to mediocre and I will re-think that.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Ah, Bill. Your coming to a gunfight without any bullets.

"My point about the 4 was that it is not published anywhere that 4 is an average of what is being obtained in that dimension across the board in the CG."

Look in the Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6A). Reference 10.B.6.a.6 and 10.B.6.a.7.

They state respectively, "A mark of 4 represents the expected performance level of all enlisted personnel."

In the chart below that quote, it states

"4- Average- Met all the written performance standards for this level and none in the 6 level."

[OSC Bill Putnam]

No, actually I did read that and here we come to the limitations of this form of communications. I suspect we aren't really saying different things here just differently.

I was submitting that even though 4 is considered the average. I don't have to have a 3 for every 5. In other words it's average in that, as you stated, it's the expected but it doesn't have to be average in that it's the overall value I'm trying to acheive. I'm not going to skew any sought average by having all 5 sailors and no 3 sailors, I just may have a bunch of above average performers. It doesn't mean we have to have a similar number of below average right?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Yea, I think I agree with that. You don't necessarily have to see the average in your unit for the average to hold true throughout the service.

But, consider this. If the average at the various units throughout your career have been above a "4," you have either been the luckiest SOB in the service or your making my case. The majority of CG units should be hovering around the 4 average. But, as I said before, I'll eat a printout of this discussion if your unit is anywhere near a 4 average. I suspect that if you take an average of your entire building (looked you up on global), you will find that you hover closer to the 6 mark. That's not because you attract great people. Its because we inflate marks.

[OSC Bill Putnam]

I suspect you're right Senior, and regretably I'm not going to be able to poll this building. Not sure my boss is going to give me the latitude to take on a project like that. :p

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I'll, have to be honest. When I sit to do marks, I have in mind whether the sailor is a performer or not. As I was taught as a young supervisor, You start everyone at a four for every factor. Read those standards. If the person met all criteria then read those for 6 and so on.

If I feel iffy about a 4 I'll give a three, rarely a 2 or less except on NJP, but I have re-marked after NJP and assigned 3's depending on the offense and the sailors performance.

If I have someone that puts forth effort, I'll tend to look deeper to raise a 4 or 5 that I would for someone that is lazy.

Leadership comes into play by not setting people up for failure. The QM/BM1 is an excellent example. Reports to a Station and is given the same timeframe to qualify as Coxwsain as the new BM/BM1. Do-able? yes, but should that be the expectation. Do you mark the QM lower for not meeting the goal? The BM higher for meeting the same goal?

If I have someone that does their job consistently but does not grow or learn, they earn a 4. I averaged some numbers, and the percentages were approximately:
3 - 10%
4 - 40%
5 - 30%
6 - 20%

Dennis, I don't know how that stacks up with your average, but even the "hard-a$$" here may prove your point. No chat-munching necessary. :)

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Our evaluation period ends on Thursday and I'm sure most of us have submitted our bullets. So, I was curious how many of you that mentioned "Not Accepting" your 7's are actually planning on doing this?

Are there any Chiefs out there who are not going to accept a 7 on their evals? I'd like to hear how that goes for you.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Deane, thanks for reminding us of that particular challenge. I too am interested to see who, if any, step and take this challenge.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have never paid particle attention to my own marks. I didn't appeal them when I was getting twos and threes, I won't be appealing the sevens either.

[MSS2 Harry March (MSTC)]

What is your take on marks for those Petty Officers in rates where the service wide is waived?

I can mark a Petty Officer with all 4's or all 7's and if I recommend them both for advancement, they are both put on the same supplemental list and eventually advanced. I was finishing my marks on E5's today and realized that the only mark that really mattered is the recommendation for advancement. My hard working PO’s may care on how there marks are, but the PO’s that just do the bare minimum (4’s) are just as qualified as my outstanding PO’s. Should I “not” give my recommendation for a PO that averages 4’s vs. 5’s and 6’s? I do not see how I really can since a 4 equals average and average is not “bad performance”.

In the past, you could recommend advancement for a PO but give the PO average marks knowing that only if they applied themselves on the service wide would they advance. Now with the supplemental list it falls more on the marking official to really determine if the PO is qualified to advance in rank.

Maybe this is a good thing because it forces confrontation with our poor performers. I think someone was saying confront confront confront…

Enough of my rant….. :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Harry,
I would argue that you can have a member who gets all sixes and sevens and you could still not recommend them for advancement. They could be the best third, second, or even first class that works for you, but you feel that they lack the maturity, responsiblity, reasoning, experience, or job skills to advance to the next higher pay grade. Remember you are marking them for performance in their current pay grade, you're recommending them for their potential to succeed in the next one. They can appeal the marks, not the recommendation.

[OSC Bill Putnam]

Senior -
You just drove home a great point. In fact I have just submitted an Employee Review where I put Not Recommended for the exact reasons you just mentioned, member is very good in the position he/she is in but I don't feel nor have they demonstrated the "capability of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher paygrade".

The challenge: I think most commands are reluctant to buy off on that. It reflects poorly on the CO if someone is not recommended. And I would add, on myself, as I now try to pinpoint why this member is not ready (personal initiative or poor organization training?).

This becomes much more subjective than the rest of the Employee Review doesn't it. Especially without the benefit of EOCTs, MRN/PMEs required.

The Personnel Manual in chapter 5 states "A recommendation for advancement shall be based on the individual's qualities of leadership, personal integrity, adherance to core values, and his/her potential to perform in the next higher paygrade."

Now if we give a Not Recommended we have to communicate how a member did not meet that basis in Chapter 5.

Thoughts?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Yep, that "not recommended" block is a two-edged sword. It cannot be appealed, but you have a moral and procedural obligation to fully explain why you made the negative recommendation.

When you have a guy good at his paygrade, sometimes its just intuition that leads you to believe that he isn't ready for advancement. That's hard to articulate and even harder to get your bosses to buy into.

I got no answers for you, but I share your pain.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I have the benefit of being the approving official so I don't have to explain my decision to anyone but the member.

I would say go with your gut. If you feel that the member, though good at their current position, doesn't possess the qualities that you feel as though they need at the next, say so. They may need time and experience in their current pay grade. They may be stretched to their current limits with the amount of subordinates they currently have and you don't feel as though their ready to take on more. They may not yet possess the technical or administrative skills required of the next pay grade. They may not be seeking additional responsibilies at the current time. They may be going through things in their personal life that makes you think that they won't get ready to handle added responsibilities. If you gave me specifics I could look at helping you articulate them.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Why is "Not Recommended" a "negative mark". It does not apply to any particular area like the rest of marks do. It simply states that the member, for whatever reason, is not ready to advance. This is what has created what we so lovingly refer to as "juniority". A new BM1 that reported 91 days ago and is due for marks may not be recommended. Is that a negative thing? Is he ready to be a Chief? Doubtful. I would personally rather see the catagories broken down into the SAT / UNSAT realm. Forget the numbers. If there is going to be a bonus for advancement, then give it to those that are filling more diffucult jobs. Ie. Command Cadre positions. This would provide and incintive for people to excersize their leadership and go after these positions. Of course it might be harder to get a SAT, but then again we will probobly inflate that too, wont we?

[OSC Bill Putnam]

The Not Recommended is a "negative mark" by definition of the word "not". It's only negative though in that it negates the Recommendation. It is not used in conjunction with the performance.

Again the performance as an E5 is average and above average in most of the marking competencies but that isn't what the recommendation addresses. How will curent performance translate to "potential to perform in the next higher paygrade"?

For instance (and this is not the lone determinent I am using) if an E5 only takes the time to submit 7-8 bullets on their Enlisted Performance Evaluation Support Form how does that bode for their ability or willingness to either write bullets or conduct evaluations when they become an E6?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Here's some more food for thought.

I was looking into my career path opportunities and what would pay the best on the retired check. In doing my research I saw how far back they look at your marks when considering a person for Warrant.

In talking with an EMC on board who is in the ballpark of making either Senior or Warrant this year, he said I should be "politicking for 7's" and that until you have a majority of your marks as 6's & 7's you don't have a chance.

I need some real world advice (sea stories welcome) about how this really works vice what M1000.6 says.

Am I setting my BM1 up for failure if he decides to go warrant 2 years down the road and I marked him realistically? Should I have been more angry at receiving 5's and 6's myself?

I honestly think this is getting out of hand, but don't know how we can fix it. :confused:

I am on the global as well.

Ken

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Ken,
I think the only way to truly know is to get someone that has sat on a CWO board to talk. Unfortunatly, they are sworn to secrecy. I have heard that they may be given a list of qualifications or certain amount of people with certain types of backgrounds that they need to fill ie. SAR, ATON, SURF, LE... I don't know how much marks play into it. I am sure a good degree. my personal experience, and I am not to proud ot share in public, is this. I put in for CWO this year. My command thought I had a very good shot at it, as did I. I have had very good marks for several years. I have a background in D-13 Stations (SAR), D-7 WPB (LE), Construction Tender and ANT XPO (ATON / Leadership), 2 U/W OOD letters... I ended up far down the list. I am not bitter, don't get me wrong. I am now in what I consider to be the best job in the Coast Guard. I was just wondering the same thing when the list came out. What are they looking for? Maybe I was not "specialized" enough. I could fit into many holes, but there was always someone "more qualified" than I was for that particular hole. It may vary from year to year as well. With the new shake-up of the CWO ratings, it may play a difference also. I may put in for it again when I am going to be tour complete here, but we will have to see. It would be nice to know so that we can plan our careers better and give better advice. I was always told to be "well rounded" so that is what I did.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ken, I was told that you need to average all sixes and two sevens per marking period to be competetive for Warrant Bosn. I don't know how accurate that really is. I think that if you pulled the marks for the people on the list that would be pretty close to being true. I think that marks, being the most subjective factor, plays too high a part in any advancement process.

Jim, I don't understand how they arrive at the final mix either. The year I was on it, I got there as an alternate. I compared my service to others. I found people who never certified OinC or held A DWO letter ahead of me on the list. I also saw people who fared far worse than me on the BMCS list, or didn't appear at all, ahead of me. I think that people who have a degree fare well, can't verify that.

As for the way I mark people. I blame the CG and the 93' RIF. I used to have not problem giving threes to people who occasionally forgot to shave or need to be reminded to get a hair cut. After the RIF when they discharged people who didn't average above 3.5 over two marking periods, I stopped using marks as a training tool and started giving people the benefit of the doubt. I don't give three sailors a five, six, or seven, but I might give them a four, depending on the circumstances. A couple of years back I overheard a phone call as an OinC of a station called in to his watch stander to verify that all his marks were sevens. If you were getting straight sevens wouldn't you already be at work ?

[BMCS Shawn Vredenburg]

I'm gonna get long winded here, so get ready.

What pisses me off about the recommended/not recommended is that PSC is countermanding commandant policy. I'll cut-n-paste an E-mail I sent regarding PSC's Advancement Newsletter they published this July. If anyone didn't get PSC's newsletter let me know and I'll send it to you.

Here it is:

The Personnel Manual, COMMANDANT instruction M1000.6a, was signed by T. T. Matteson, Chief, Office of Personnel on 6 January 1988. This is COMMANDANT policy, not a PSC, Area, District, or Group instruction (policy).

Change 37 to the Persman, dated 21 Oct 2002, states that the mark for recommended means "The member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade" and that this should be chosen "regardless of the member's qualification or eligibility for advancement."

This is pretty black and white. If I don't believe PO3 Dooblatz IS (not was, soon will be, or might someday be) fully capable of performing the duties and responsibility of a PO2, then COMMANDANT says I am not to NOT mark him recommended. Under current COMMANDANT policy, the only other mark I may assign him is not-recommended.

PSC reads this a different way. In their literature, they say that I should recommend PO3 Dooblatz if "there is a reasonable chance that with little guidance the member will be qualified prior to the next marking cycle". Then, if it turns out that PO3 Dooblatz is on the advancement list and is about to be advanced, and I don't feel like he's ready, I am supposed to then remove him from the advancement list.

PSC's policy is not in alignment with Commandant policy! Read it again; it's black and white. The Commandant's policy states that members who are "fully capable of satisfactorily performing the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade" should be awarded a mark of recommended. PSC says the mark of recommended should be awarded to those with a "reasonable chance that with little guidance the member will be qualified prior to the next marking cycle." These are TWO different and conflicting policies!

The COMDT policy makes a lot more sense (and should take precedence). If Dooblatz isn't ready, I mark him not recommended. When Dooblatz earns my confidence, then I can change my mark to a recommended (via letter if it's between marking periods...but for some strange reason that doesn't apply for "A" school applications).

Back in the "old" days, you could pull down a manual, read the policy, and follow the policy. These policies, at least at the Comdt level, were usually signed by the flag officer responsible for the program. Today it seems like policies are written in E-mail and branch-notes that might (or might not) be signed by an O-6. There are something like 320 O-6's in the Coast Guard, each with their own little kingdom...that's a lot of different policies to follow! (Didn't you get the E-mail explaining that policy?? No...I was trying to follow the WRITTEN COMMANDANT POLICY...what a novel idea that was!)

There is another good example of this in PSC's document. PSC (somewhat) correctly states that "only the CO that gave the NR (not recommended) can change it. If the member transfer's out the new command can not change the recommendation. If they feel it is warranted they must contact the old CO to get it changed. If the old CO has retired they have to locate them. If they have died the member is out of luck until the EER cycle comes around"

Once again, this is in direct disregard for what COMMANDANT policy is! COMMANDANT policy, in the Persman (10.B.11) doesn't say anything about chasing down the last Approving Official, calling him at his retirement home, or visiting a psychic. It says "Any approving official who has reason to believe marks assigned by another Commanding Officer are erroneous shall write to Commander, (CGPC-epm-1) describing the circumstances. This letter shall include any supporting documentation and a recommended course of action."

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Shawn,
Your right, and this isn't a new argument. What is new, though, is this open forum discussion about the issue.

I've seen the PSC literature, subsequent emails regarding it, and have participated in past arguments regarding the "recommended/not recommended" block. But, as long as we argue these points in our little secluded groups, nothing will get accomplished. This is the kind of forum that will make the change.

Get your peers to contribute to this thread, and find a senior officer to write us a guest essay on the subject. I guarantee we'll have more chance of a productive change in policy interpretation here then anywhere else.

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Something that has always bothered me is the wording of the Not Recommended block.

If PO Gooblatz is working at getting squared away, but isn't there right now, I have the choice of darkening a bubble that says that he is either "fully capable" or "not capable or not willing" to do what is necessary... there isn't a bubble for the "progressing" person.

Sorry, but that has always just burned my butt.

If they changed "Progressing" to allow the person to test or be put on a supplemental list in the meanwhile, but prior to actually advancing the command would have to put out a message either allowing it or disallowing it - that would POSSIBLY work. However, the way it is now it is completely unfair to both the member AND the evaluator.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

"OK, Mitch. I'm with you. However, before we appeal those inflated marks, we have a duty to try and make the approving official lower them first.

I know for a fact, I won't be deserving of any 7's. But I'll go one step further. I'll argue against most of my 6's as well. And, if the approving official doesn't agree, I'll add my appeal to yours.

Could be we won't be getting any 7's or 6's and we're going to make ourselves look like idiots. Regardless, let's make sure that we pass on the experience here in the forum.

Anyone else want to step up to the plate? Performance evals are right around the corner!"

My marks are in and there are no 7s. The people in my chain-of-command and I discussed my performance and agreed on at least that much. The 6's were a different story. I got quite a few that should have been 4's. But, the main argument centered around my position as an OIC. My CO rationalized that my position warranted higher marks than an E-8 in a non-OIC job. I argued that the eval system does not distinguish between billets and doing so erodes the ability to evaluate against the written standard.

What do you think? Should I be getting higher marks simply because of my billet? If you are a BMCS in a non-OIC billet, should your marks be lower than mine?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

We will never see eye to eye on this one. Your billet should absolutely make your marks higher. You have greater responsibilites. People on ships should be marked higher than people at MAA billets in all fields that apply. Those in the marking chain should be evaled higher than those that aren't in that mark. The BM3 coxn at a SAR station should be marked higher in all related fields than a BM3 at an MSO.You should be evaluated higher in any mark that involves subordinates, than someone who has none, (providing that you're doing your job.) I'll go one step further, BMCSs who are not seeking OinC billets should be marked accordingly as well, and it shouldn't come as a shock to them.

[MKC Jo Ledbetter]

From the persman Chap 10.B.6.a (item #5).... "All raters shall mark each evaluee against the written standards, not against others in the same rate or rating."

I didn't see anything about Command Cadre receiving higher marks for filling a billet. Perhaps we should leave that to the SDAP Chapter...

I do think the opportunity to excel at certain performance factors is more prevalent in an the position of EPO, XPO, OIC, etc., but you should be marked after the performance and not before.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis Said...What do you think? Should I be getting higher marks simply because of my billet? If you are a BMCS in a non-OIC billet, should your marks be lower than mine?

YES. An OINC billet comes with more responsibility. An OINC compared to a Non-OINC in an equivalent paygrade should get higher marks. Every category might not be higher, but the majority should be. I had a CWO tell me once that an OINC starts out with all 6's and either goes up or down from there depending on how they perform.

The bottom line is if you’re content with mediocre marks, great! You're the one who has to live with them. I guess you just need to be careful what you wish for. I know if a subordinate of mine kept telling me that he/she deserves a 4 (or whatever), eventually I'm going to believe them...and hook them up.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Stuart- I agree with everything you wrote. In fact, I'd say all of the command cadre (OIC, XPO, and EPO) should have that advantage in the eval system.

Jo- Your absolutely right. Nothing in the eval system indicates that certain billets should be marked higher.

And there lay the problem. We cannot massage the eval system to make it do what we want. If COMDT changes the criteria to mark OICs higher, I'll be a happy man. But until then, I'll mark against the written standard. And, if I'm going to do that, I'm also going to have to insist that I be marked against the written standard. It's the only ethical thing to do.

Deane- Content with lower marks??? Please....
It's disturbing that you think marks hovering in the 5 area are low. That's what a good set of marks is supposed to look like.

But maybe I really am the dumbest guy in the room. I can't conceive of operating at the 6-7 level, year-in and year-out. It would exhaust me. If you guys are really that good, I'm in the wrong fish pond.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jo- not disagreeing about when the mark should be awarded, I just think the command cadre doing their job start higher. Kinda like what Deane said. Also people in that leadership position have to demonstrate abilities in every field. There are people of an equal pay grade that have no one working for them, document nothing, evaluate no one, demonstrate no rating knowledge, develop no one, and are never given the opportunity to demonstrate stamina or adaptability. They are always given a mark in those fields though.

Dennis- I couldn't tell you that I actually deserve the marks I'm getting and keep a straight face. But I have no ethical crisis. I don't write or recommend my own marks. My marks are a reflection of my command's assessment of me. I look at it the same as the results from my RFO or MLC Compliance. I wouldn't appeal my marks regardless of what they were, just like I never refuse operational tasking, I go by the word passed down to me. What good marks are supposed to be and what they are is an apples and oranges debate. Deane's view of your marks isn't disturbing, it's accurate. The fact that we've gotten to this point may be disturbing, but we're here, and have been for some time. I understand that you're standing on principle, but your stand has you sitting behind the bell curve. I have made it my personal principle not to correct other people's high opinions of me.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis said...Deane- Content with lower marks??? Please....
It's disturbing that you think marks hovering in the 5 area are low. That's what a good set of marks is supposed to look like.

Dennis, you should be content with lower marks because you have lobbied for them. That's what you wanted.

I just wonder what your marking chain thinks of your stand on this? Are you getting your lower marks because they think you deserve them or because it's what you want and they're exhausted from debating with you?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Your missing the point. My marks aren't low. They're well above average. They just aren't comparable to the inflated marks that you are obviously getting. Even Stuart admitted that he didn't deserve those kind of evals.

My marking chain is giving me the marks that they believe I earned. But, that too, is not the point. They freely admit to assigning weight to my position as OIC when deciding my marks. They also admit that this is not how the performance eval was meant to be used. They just don't want to put me at a disadvantage with guys like you, who are getting these higher marks based on their billet.

It is a never-ending circle that brings me back to my original point. The only people that can realign the eval system to its true intent (marking against the written standard) is us.

Take a stand with me, Deane. Let's do the Chiefly thing and fix this obvious abuse of the enlisted performance evaluation system. What do you say?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I'm not missing any points...I just don't agree with you.

Like Stu, I have no ethical crisis with my marks. Like Stu, my marks are my supervisors assessment of my performance. I provide bullets...they provide the evaluation.

Now, work with me on this one. Maybe I deserve the marks I get? Maybe I clearly meet (or exceed) the criteria for each of marks? Is that so far-fetched to believe? Feel free to look my marks up and you'll see that I get good marks...but, they're not the best in the CG. I'm probably right in the middle compared to other OINC's that are at small boat stations like myself.

Ask anyone who knows me, I don't have a problem taking a stand on things that I believe in. Sorry, I won't be joining you on this one.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

I cant stand to look at a good argument and not chime in. I mark by the written standard and expect to get marked by the written standard. As an OIC I also expect to have more opportunities to excel in areas that the MAA would not have. The command cadre gets to deal with all kinds of issues that others don't. Therefore, they have the opportunity to earn higher marks. Don't blame the member for getting good marks, blame the rating chain. If the non-operational person gets lesser marks than the operational person, then so be it. It provides incentive to go to those units that will bolster the career.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

I can't tell who you're agreeing with, Jim.

I agree with your comments regarding opportunity. That's a good way to look at the advantage of a command cadre position.

However, we seem to get those marks whether the opportunity presents itself during the marking period, or not. We're being given 6s and 7s simply for being on OIC- not because we seized an opportunity in that billet and did something that justified the high mark.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I also think that the marks go with the rate, not neccessarily the OinC position. Most if not all Chief's I know have those comparable marks. Granted the only people I ever saw get straight sevens were OinCs, but I've seen people in support billets with no subordinates or real responsibilities get marked higher that me. Dennis, you're marks may be higher than the written standard average, but they fall far short of those in your peer group. Thats the average that matters when it comes to advancements. This is a battle that you can't win. You can't possibly change everyone's mind. The people that you get to join you can free the pride of standing on principle, but they will feel the sting of the final multiple. If I actually thought that anything could be done I would join you. I'm just far to cynical and too much of a realist to believe it can.
Dennis you only have check the marks of the other Chiefs that fall under your same rating chain to find that you haven't even changed your supervisors' minds. I'm willing to bet that even your local peer group has higher marks than you. Look at the marks of the people who do your RFO, only sit down first.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

The current system that we have works in theory. Unfortunatly, the world does not work in theory. Look at the marks sheet. Much of the verbage is the same from the non-rate to the MC. Leadership competencies obviously change but lets look at the others: Intergity and Loyalty; Those are character traits that need to be evaluated, not positional opportunity items. Respecting Others; here is an opportunity for someone to excersize their leadership to create a culture of mutual respect. That may rise with the paygrade, and as positional influence comes. Using resources is a good one. As the MAA I was able to water down the lysol making it last longer, and utilize the dope smoker awaiting discharge to clean the crapper twice a day instead of once. Where as an OIC may have many more balls in the air that he has to juggle. Resources become much more important to getting things done in an effective and efficient manner.
Do I think an OIC or Senior person should get better marks because of their position or rate? NO Do I think that the OIC and often times a senior person has the opportunities to EARN higher marks. YES.
On a side note, have you seen the new DHS MAX-HR? Performanced based pay. Looks like summer of 2008, the USCG may be changing how it pays it's people as well. I wonder if that only applies to civilians or if that is Active duty component?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Stuart- Agreed. Everything you said in your last post was accurate. I can't fix this by myself and I won't change everyone's mind. Even my own chain-of-command is basically opposed to my position. But, at least they're thinking about it. And, I haven't made any converts on this board. But at least we are discussing it.

I respect your right to choose your battles. And, if your attention is focused elsewhere on another "good fight" so be it. But, it was you that said

"As Chiefs we have been given a great responsibility to correct all that is deficient in our sight."

You didn't mention that we should only address those things which we know we can win.

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

I agree with some points brought up in this thread and disagree with some. I do not think that the actual billet(s) you are filling should directly affect your marks. What matters is how you perform in that billet, are you performing the duties that go with that billet? If you are performing those duties, are you doing the bare minimum or are you actually trying to go the extra mile and trying to improve how things are being done? When I was stationed at D13, I had a member in my section who was a poor performer and I marked him as such. My immediate supervisor brought the marks back to me and asked me if I hated the individual and I had to explain why I marked him so low. When we were still doing the "Paper" marks, I would gather all the bullets from the member being marked (i.e. e-mails from the command or customers that the person assisted, attaboy messages, etc.) and put them with the bullets that I had collected. I would then type up my personal remarks concerning the individual and then submit them. When my last command went to the "electronic" system, they told me that they no longer wanted to see the bullets. Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't the bullets help justify the marks that you are giving the individual? I try to mark the individual as close to the written standards as possible and when I give a member a higher mark, I ensure that I can justify that mark and can explain how his/her performance is superior to that of his/her peers.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes Dennis I did say that, and if you can come up with a way to correct the deficiency that the evaluation system is, please let me know. Getting some people to share your pain isn't the answer. A written standard is too speculative, too open for individual interpretations. The marks don't represent your work or productivity. They represent what others think that you did or what you told them that you did. As varied as their individual writers have become, marks should bare no weight in advancements. Neither should awards as some people are written up for everything while others get little or nothing. The evaluation system itself is deficient. It hasn't become deficient, it always was. There is no fair way to evaluate everyone across the board, unless you want to go to the three point system I mentioned on another thread. With that system you have clearly documented justification for lowering someone's marks. The system that we have is equally unfair across the board. I have no problem fighting the good fight, but there is no reason to become a martyr if you die in vain.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

The simplified reason many marks are inflated...because the authorizing official lets them go...

Yes lets throw some blame toward the supervisors for passing the buck along the way...But only one person can "make the decision in the end", that authorizing official...

Those is senior leadership positions should not be allowing this to happen plain and simple. All it takes are the marking officials to require the appropriate ammount of support for the given mark and the system will fix itself. If we are still having problems because the senior officials are allowing inflating marks to make themselves look good then we have a serious problem with our senior leadership. Yes everybody sees things differently and has different takes on what they read into CG policies and procedures, but if you're the authorizing official at that unit you SHOULD be aware of exactly what the CG expects when it comes to evaluations.

Strat sends...

[BMC John Phillips III]

The simplified reason many marks are inflated...because the authorizing official lets them go...

Yes lets throw some blame toward the supervisors for passing the buck along the way...But only one person can "make the decision in the end", that authorizing official...

You know, I have heard of this "inflated marks" before but have never seen it first hand. Until now, well I haven't seen it still but heard about it and I have to tell you, I am disgusted. I won't go too far into details other than to say a Chief that submitted his warrant package received a very good set of marks (the marks were inflated so that the member get a higher eligibility score). Somewhere between 10-14 7's. That bothers me, because I feel like it takes away from the 7's that I feel I have earned. This is the first time I have felt this, I guess it's because I am applying for Warrant at the same time. (and yes I understand the scores don't come into play as far as final placement, but why should someone even place if they didn't earn it?)

Anyway, here is an idea that my friend shared with me and I think it's a good one. He says that PSC should do audits, kind of like Fincen does with credit card purchases. I know that some authorizing and approving officials might see this as second guessing, but if the 7 is deserved it should be well documented with specific and worthy examples of exceeding the 6 block.

Any thoughts?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Marks inflation as a topic has been discussed many times.

Even when a CDR at HQ posed a question, concerning afloat -v- ashore evaluations, she had no proof, just a perception.

I was told by an O-6 once that it's silly to have all these additional instructions when the COMDT has a perfectly good set of instructions to follow. That also includes the rules of the game for evaluations.

Why do some want the extensive documentation? Because they don't get off their a$$ and see what their people are doing. It's that simple. Step away from the desk and walk around.

PSC could run statistics for everyone in the evaluation chain to see if there are tendencies to mark high or mark low. That would open some eyes and others would be upset at the breech of trust.

Personally, I always remembered the bad and that bias was overcome by having a marking board, one where every Petty Officer in the grade above the individual being marked was asked for their observations. Granted I had the final say and sometimes their arguements didn't sway my opine. I never said what I thought the mark should be and I would say that the consensus was always within one of my initial thoughts. This board became training for those younger POs on how to evaluate, as we discussed words on the standard and what they meant.

Another tool, and it also has a margin of error of one in most cases, is to have the PO do an honest self evaluation. Other than the occasional egotistical types, those marks are within the margin of error. Just make the PO's understand that you won't hold their own evaluations against them. This could be the tool to use for those mid-point counseling sessions, where both the supervisor and the evaluee sit down with their evaluations and compare notes.

One can never completely remove the bias, and there always is a bias. Even if you marked people daily for the whole marking period to get the average, there would still be a slight bias to the evaluations. The board concept allows multiple biases to average out to zero, or as close as one can get.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

An additional note ...

My last MK1 [EPO], inquired on why he sat on the ET's evaluation board as he didn't know squat about the ET rating. I said he interacts with the ETs and he certainly has input on their performance on non-technical issues.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

It appears the 7.0 system as become what the 4.0 system was except with more paperwork.

I was at CGHQ when Vince put out his marks system. We had a couple conversations about them. I was not pleased with some of the lanugage used and overall found it no better or no worse than the old system. People were still going to inflat the marks for thier favorites and lower them for those not. The marks will be higher ashore than afloat because of cultural differences of the duty.

I also believe is a chief assigns marks they should not be changed by anyone. This sets up doubt about the person in charge and creates unrest. I know. I had a PO1 of mine go behind my back when I dropped his marks so he would not be competitive for CPO. He was technologically deficient and a poor leader, but I figured in another year I'd have him squared away. The WEPSOFF raised his marks (he whined about personality conflict) and then allowed him to transfer while I was away on leave. He later made CPO and wound up destroying the equipment of which he had charge costing the CG hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some time later I had the JO apologize to me for going over my head in that decision. However, it was too late, but he did learn something.

So, what is better about the "new" system over the 4.0 system? Is it more fair? Does it more properly evaluate subordinates? Is it a better administrative tool?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Anyway, here is an idea that my friend shared with me and I think it's a good one. He says that PSC should do audits, kind of like Fincen does with credit card purchases. I know that some authorizing and approving officials might see this as second guessing, but if the 7 is deserved it should be well documented with specific and worthy examples of exceeding the 6 block.

John...I'm unclear on how this PSC audit would go down.

Can you clarify how the audit would work?
What type of EER's would get audited?
What would happen when an AO got this audit?

Please clarify.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Bill,

The evaluation system is aligned with the Polytonmous Rasch model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytomous_Rasch_model). At first I thought it like the Likert scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), but Likert doesn't have the middle ground of neither excellent, nor poor. To be sure, one would have to ask Vince.

It was a big move when we converted to this system. In the old system you were compared to "others" that the supervisor has known, whereas this one you were suppose to be compared to the written standard. As we can see, both had their flaws and the inflation can be seen.

I've viewed the written standards as a yes or no answer. If you got the affirmative on everything in one box, I moved up, if not I moved down. It's painfully obvious that Wray's statement calling the five a glorified four is easily obtained by not having at least one characteristic of the six.

I've done the same with the old 4 point system ... reading the standards. I did that during one of my "evaluation boards" and when I announced the mark people were shocked ... it was low, real low. They had a sense of what was the right catagory, but didn't like the scaling of that catagory. The emotion of sticker shock became the source of inflation in that discussion.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Can you clarify how the audit would work?
What type of EER's would get audited?
What would happen when an AO got this audit?


Well remember it wasn't my idea, it was a friend's, but I can give a quick run down of how I think it could be done.

PSC would review marks that were submitted final - as they do now. They would be looking for unusually high or low marks as the red flag. Once red flagged (or this could be done even randomly) they would compare that set of marks with past marks. All EER's would be subject to review by PSC. When an AO was auditted, there wouldn't be any thing for them to do unless PSC deemed it necessary. Any marks that require written documentation should have them. They would then read the remarks to see if the criteria was met or not met in a low mark factor. If the documentation did not match the mark, the AO would be able to submit better documentation or change the mark.

I don't know if that seems like too much work...and remember I was always a fan of our current marking system. I am just shocked about how easily it can be misused or abused.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

When an AO was auditted, there wouldn't be any thing for them to do unless PSC deemed it necessary. Any marks that require written documentation should have them. They would then read the remarks to see if the criteria was met or not met in a low mark factor. If the documentation did not match the mark, the AO would be able to submit better documentation or change the mark.

And now you want people to be better wordsmiths consistent with how someone who reads your comments at PSC.

That could lead to abuse because your skills might not be as honed as someone else, and your people will suffer for it or vice versa.

When they had that RIF in the early 90s, it sent a message loud and clear. If you want people to stay in the CG, they can't average below a number. That artifically raised some marks to ensure the possibility of re-enlistment. Some may have got a 3 instead of the two they deserved. Now with the scrutiny of wordsmithing skills, some may give that three or six just to not have their deficiency in worksmithing called into question.

If the data exists, and I'm sure it does, one can view the average mark seen by member ... as they progressed through the rating. Does one expect the mark to rise with the progression in the paygrades when held against a common standard? Some will say no, and others will say yes. I tend towards the yes catagory as one becomes more proficient in the workings of the CG. This is not a point or two jump but certainly a tenth or hundredth point jump in the average. This is not marking inflation, although some will see it as such. There are hose that believe a four is the average Coastie. Well, the data exists and they can average all the marks so we can see if a four is the average Coastie. Will they every publish such a thing? I doubt it.

So far no one has proven that marks inflation exists. The perception is there, but no studies have proven or disproven the perception. There is antidotial evidence when one moves from one marking official to another, but I've haven't heard nor seen a study.

I know I've given very few sevens over the years and very few ones or twos. I also know that once a seven is achieved in a catagory, it's hard to drop from a seven in that catagory in subsequent markings, assuming there wasn't a performance decrease in that catagory.

It would be interesting to see the "average" Coastie. Any takers on the number for the average Coastie? I'd guess about 5.4, considering the perception of marks inflation. Five point four because we are averaging E2 through O9. Then if the CG wants the average to be about four, they will need to drop everyone's mark 1 point.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I don't know if that seems like too much work...and remember I was always a fan of our current marking system. I am just shocked about how easily it can be misused or abused.

Why is that so shocking? It's a system that requires input from people, any time that happens it opens it up to abuse. I'm not saying that I agree with misuse, I'm just not surprised.

On the surface, I don't like the this audit idea. I know it's not a perfect system, but it's not bad enough to go to this extreme. Maybe some oversight by the CSC/CMC would be appropriate?

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

PSC would review marks that were submitted final - as they do now. They would be looking for unusually high or low marks as the red flag. Once red flagged (or this could be done even randomly) they would compare that set of marks with past marks.

This is the same system used by colleges and universities for oversight of their professors and instructors. I had to submit grade reports (marks) for the express purpose of seeing whether my grading was too lenient or tough.

The marking system is what happens when educational psychology meets the real world. Let's face it, not every one assigning marks has the personal or educational skills to reason out appropriate assumptions of other people.

Once again this should be an item of instruction (and it may be) at the CPO Academy. Joe explains that the old system was based upon people the marker had known, but is the new system actually any different? The descriptions are generalizations and those using them will base the interpertation of these descriptions upon their personal history and experience.

In the civilian world we use, essentially, the same system. However, nine times out of ten, those doing the marking do not have the leadership skills to make the evaluations a part of the person's overall program. I get mine once a year. They are always the same and my boss has no idea what to do with them.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I think the only thing that auditing (?) marks would do, is make some people think twice before inflating marks. I can justify why I give my people the marks that I do. If someone didn't like my explanation, I could add to it. I wouldn't change the marks that I give people, I'd just change the way I support it.
What I would like to see fixed is the policy some people have where they blanket "not recommend " people based on their time at the unit or time in grade. Or the units that raise someone's marks right before they transfer the person. I'd also like those people who give someone several 3s in a single marking period and still recommend that person for advancement try to explain that one. And while I'm at it, I'd like to know how someone can feel go about giving someone else several sevens in the discipline marks after they take them to mast.

Edited to add, Sorry bill, you posted while I was typing. Teaching the right way to do things at the CPOA can only fix so much. Most of the people who attend aren't going to be the Approving Official. The two other people involved in someone's marks can do what is right, but if the AO wants something else, that's what is going to wind up being the end result. Some sort of mandatory training for AOs seems to be what is needed.

[BMC John Phillips III]

I think the only thing that auditing (?) marks would do, is make some people think twice before inflating marks. I can justify why I give my people the marks that I do. If someone didn't like my explanation, I could add to it. I wouldn't change the marks that I give people, I'd just change the way I support it.
What I would like to see fixed is the policy some people have where they blanket "not recommend " people based on their time at the unit or time in grade. Or the units that raise someone's marks right before they transfer the person. I'd also like those people who give someone several 3s in a single marking period and still recommend that person for advancement try to explain that one. And while I'm at it, I'd like to know how someone can feel go about giving someone else several sevens in the discipline marks after they take them to mast.

Master Chief, I think you just hit the nail on the head. The system of checks and balances at PSC (or somewhere) would make people think twice before inflating marks. That's all I think we need to accomplish. I will add though, it might keep someone from getting an extremely poor set of marks, but we already have an appeal system in place for that. Could you imagine a Chief appealing his marks because there were too many 7's? I would, especially under the scenerio I presented.

I totally agree with the bold text from you quote. If people would just read the comments in Recommended or Not Recommended, they could justify one way or the other without having to feel bad about it. On the flip side, the Recommended also says it doesn't matter if the person has time in or test, pqs or anything else done. It just means that they are capable of performing at the next higher pay grade.

As far as the CPOA goes, well that helps Chiefs but not Officers that have never been a Chief or to the Academy.

BMCS Smith, I guess it's just shocking to me cause it's the first time I have seen or heard of an example like I gave.

ETC, you don't need a degree to say this person did this...if the person did something that exceeded the 6 mark, you shouldn't have to search a thesaurus for words that explain it. It should be obvious, it should be "note-worthy."

GMCM, you are the first person I have heard put it like this, it makes perfect sense to me - "The marking system is what happens when educational psychology meets the real world. Let's face it, not every one assigning marks has the personal or educational skills to reason out appropriate assumptions of other people."

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Inflated marks have always been a problem... when the current system came out, a "4" was considered a GOOD mark... we were all told to read each block, and mark accordingly...

Those above the supervisor were the ones that had the responsibility for reviewing & approving evaluations....

As I recall, anyone that was not recommended for advancement required additional comments....

The system while not perfect appears to be somewhat ok... it will never be perfect, much like the weight program...

Wray.... :cool:

[BMC Ken Gouge]

Not too long ago I would have been very opposed to any kind of audit regarding marks. That is why we have the appeal system for low marks.

Fast forward to some things I've seen and heard recently. There is no appeal system for average marks, and no recourse for someone who get's 4's and 5's compared to someone across the parking lot getting 6's and 7's that do the same job with the same results but have 2 different Commands.

There is also (by my training and experience) NO reason for someone to receive 7's in the double digits. I'm sorry, but by the written standard you have to do an exceptional job to have earned a 6.

If someone is receiving 10 or more 7's they must bleed blue, have no family or no other life except the Coast Guard, and I would then be concerned for their mental well-being and tell them to take some leave and go on vacation.

I think I have recently changed my mind, and think the results of a Coast Guard wide audit that is cross referenced between types of units, the performance and results of those units, the ammount of non-operational equipment, the number of underway hours, maintenance hours, length of workday, PMS Completion, number of training evolutions completed, grades for any inspections, RFO results, Stan-Team results, Rates, Grades and anything else you can think of just to get an idea of where the ball is being dropped and how it can be fixed.

The fact that we have good performers being placed at a disadvantage because similar performers are at a unit that inflates marks should raise many red flags and require some answers.

(that's about a nickle's worth)

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

.

Edited to add, Sorry bill, you posted while I was typing. Teaching the right way to do things at the CPOA can only fix so much. Most of the people who attend aren't going to be the Approving Official. The two other people involved in someone's marks can do what is right, but if the AO wants something else, that's what is going to wind up being the end result. Some sort of mandatory training for AOs seems to be what is needed.

I agree, the AO should have some training, but perhaps if the Chiefs were consistent in their application then the AO would be more in tune with what their mid-line supervisors have to say.

This all goes back to a favorite theme that the JOs took over more of the daily functions.

I was onced asked by a new JO how I rated people. I took them on many levels for their grade as the marks (at that time) indicated. Average marks were 3.2 and not a bad one either. However, like today there was inflation and favortism.

I once gave a PO3 2.8 marks across the board. I wanted to ensure he would not reenlist. He was bum (a wife beater and a shirker) and I could have transferred him, but why do that? He appealed all the way to the D8 Commander (at that time it was Yost). He spoke with the admiral and the admiral told him after reading the file I had on the kid that he would not change or overrule one of his chiefs.

On the subject of what is and what is not exceptional, this is situational. There are times when exceptional is average. If everyone is working at the same level of expectional then it isn't exceptional. Just what is considered expectional may be generational as well and caused by higher levels of expectation within the masses of people.

I would ask what the levels of expectation are of the AO and work from there.

[BMC John Phillips III]

If everyone is working at the same level of expectional then it isn't exceptional.


I disagree. When doing marks, you don't compare one person against another, you compare that person against the written standard. So yes, everyone could be performing exceptionally and man would I love to be at that unit! :D

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

When doing marks, you don't compare one person against another, you compare that person against the written standard. So yes, everyone could be performing exceptionally ...

John,

If that is true, why do we hear complaints that one command is marking higher than another? Isn't everyone interpeting the standards the same? I know they are not, because some are playing the numbers game vice reading the standards. Your exceptional might not be the same as Wray's exceptional when reading the same standard. It should be. When I was training people on how to evaluate, a dictionary was handy to explain whatever words the trainee inquired about, so they know I didn't make up some line of $hit about a standard.

Why should multiple three's hold someone up? After all, a three is slightly below what some think is the good Coastie.

With twenty-two catagories, a few three's shouldn't be detrimental to one's career.

I can remember I gave a PO3 a three in one catagory and the detailer told me the member's future command was inquiring about that three. One three in twenty-two catagories. The PO3 was real good in the rating, a Certified Computer Technician from the International Society of Certified Electronics Technicians and a good troubleshooter. I don't even remember the catagory as it was fifteen years ago. The PO3 got out after I retired and never went to the unit that inquired about that three. His relad wasn't related to the new unit's inquiry either.

I've worked with alot of exceptional people, but rarely did they deserve more than a few sixes in a few catagories. They were anywhere between 3 and 7 as there are many catagories with differing requirements and some were interlinked with common standards, or at least like standards. There were a few of Wray's "glorified" fours, but not undeserved.

I would love to see this inflation perception put to rest. Just because one Chief has antidotal evidence of inflation doesn't mean it's CG wide.

[BMC John Phillips III]

John,

If that is true, why do we hear complaints that one command is marking higher than another? Isn't everyone interpeting the standards the same? I know they are not, because some are playing the numbers game vice reading the standards.
Why should multiple three's hold someone up? After all, a three is slightly below what some think is the good Coastie.

With twenty-two catagories, a few three's shouldn't be detrimental to one's career.

Joe, it's not that they are interpretting the "written standard" the same, it's that they aren't even using it!!!! (talking about some supervisors) but just to show where I have seen it, is in support forms where members are putting in numbers of what they think they should get and you counsel them on why they didn't get the 5 or 6 and you read the criteria and then they go, "oh, yeah I guess you're right." I know for a fact that the Responsibility factor is one of the most frequently misinterpretted. Anyway, I am going off track here.

How about 9 of those 22 marks being a 3, would you still give a "Recommended" then? I have also seen a member get an Unsat in conduct and still be recommended. Even if that is allowed, why would you recommend someone who can't earn a Satisfactory in Conduct?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

why would you recommend someone who can't earn a Satisfactory in Conduct?

John,

Are you saying three is a bad mark? The only bad marks I remember are ones and twos ... those that require documentation. If we work under the premise that a four is the ideal Coastie, a three is slightly less than ideal.

Being humans, the traits can run from three to six without documentating your reasoning, and yes, I agree people play the numbers game. The only time the subornate should be recommending a value for their performance marks is when they are appealing the marks they received, not before. It's tough for someone not to have the halo effect when evaluating themselves, but it can be done. That is part of the training to evaluate. The halo effect is just as bad as negative biases when evaluating. If one has the tendency to remember the negatives, that bias for a one time event could be just as harmful and needs to be combatted in the minds of those evaluating. I'm sure there are marking officials that still compare people -v- people, it's natural. Unfortunately, it's not what they are suppose to do. Some want their best people to get the best marks, and the intent of using the standards will fall by the wayside, suggesting the inflationary tactics of some.

Your recommendation for advancement doesn't hinge on what they receive on their performance marks. They could get all sevens and still not get a recommendation ... but there would be some explaining needed in someones eyes.

I don't remember exactly, but isn't an unsatisfactory mark in conduct one reason to not recommend for advancement? I believe that would be stated in CIM 1000.6(series). I could be wrong since it's been 13 years or so since I recommended anyone for advancement. I guess I could read it, but then I would be doing somthing those in the evaluation food chain should be doing prior to starting the review process.

What training exists in today's CG on how to evaluate people? I can remember it being in the MRN-E6 course back in the 70s ... I might even have the course book put away.

Do an experiment ... give one your petty officers the chance to do an honest self evaluation, following the guidlines outlined in CIM 1000.6 (series). You do the same. You might be surprised when you compare the results.

[BMCS Nick Pupo]

Joe, howabout this. You mention that one 3 should not be detrimental to ones career. Well they are, a BM cant even sit for the OIC review board, if they have recieved even one 3 in the past 2 years.

On a side note, what are some thoughts on this?
Officer's in Charge having a different set of marks than others in the same pay grade.
I know I'm opening a pandora's box, but wanted to see some ideas.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Nick,

That wouldn't bother me one bit as I would have fallen in that catagory.

The reality is, the CG is too cheap to have a special marking sheet for OINCs.

The BMs had ADCON/OPCON in one entity. I had seperate ADCON/OPCONs. That made for interesting marks as the OPCON always sent in their recommendations to the ADCON when evaluating the Loran OiCs. There were at least three in the OPCON office who reviewed those evaluations before sending them onward to the ADCON. I was under a Group WH when I was at Lorsta Nantucket, so the BMs and I had a common marking chain, and the Group Commander received the additional information from the OPCON.

Nick, I'm sure that fact, looking three years forward, has allowed some to make a fence sitting three a four. Policies like that can and do force marks higher than they should, just like the RIFs. I'm sure you, and others, when your sitting on that four fence leaning towards a three, think of that OIC board, before giving a three. It's human nature ... and I would be doing the same, given that situation.

[BMCS Dave Considine]

The reality is, the CG is too cheap to have a special marking sheet for OINCs.

Joe, we don't use marking sheets anymore, all electronic in people soft - you can still use the paper sheet to work off, but the actual marking forum is done on the computer.

Things have gotten even worse for OIC's getting marked with the advent of the Sectors. This marking period the marks the OICs are getting are much lower than when we were a Group. Not quite sure why, but the explanation was "moving toward marks equality, rather than inflated marks for OIC's." Maybe it's a legacy "M" thing, who knows! An extra few "O"'s were inserted into the marking chain when we went to the Sector concept. Bottom line is that if you look at what OIC's are doing in relation to the written standard they should be getting higher marks. We have to know Galley administration, personnel management, fifteen different computer programs, environmental compliance, financial management, oversee boat maintenance, etc. etc. etc. Hell I should get a 7 in Professional/Specialty knowledge just for remembering all the different passwords I need for LUFS, PCA, AOPS, CGCENTRAL, WSIII, CGPART, just to name a few.

I could give you points for every marking category but I think you know where I am going.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Dave,

I know where your going, and it could be said that as one gains experience with the CG, the marks would naturally creep higher from that experience alone. There will be a tendency, based on experience, that higher grades will get higher marks. The same is said for those who take the risks as OIC.

With the advent of Sectors, you get new marking officials, and it's also common that a new marking official will not give you as high as marks as you previously received ... since your an unknown quantity.

As far as my cheap comment. It doesn't matter if the marks were done electronically, a resource has to be dedicated to create the standards as well as spending money to create the electronic form. None of this is done in house. Then one would have to compute the points, with an entirely different weighted formula, for the servicewide competition. It's not like if you wear that device, your out of rating.

Do certified coxswains get marked differently than non-certified coxswains? I'm probably using the wrong words, I mean those who qualify on standard boats -v- non-standard boats. I'm sure the standard boat coxswains certification exerts more influence than the non-standard boat coxswain certificatoin. How much influence depends on the evaluation food chain.

I guess the OICs in your sector need to appeal those marks. Hell, I appealed a six one time, and you know if your going to appeal something, your going for a higher mark.

The sectors may not be aware of the details of your normal day.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Originally Posted by ETC Joe Jester (Ret)
(1)Are you saying three is a bad mark? The only bad marks I remember are ones and twos ... those that require documentation. If we work under the premise that a four is the ideal Coastie, a three is slightly less than ideal.

(2)Your recommendation for advancement doesn't hinge on what they receive on their performance marks. They could get all sevens and still not get a recommendation ... but there would be some explaining needed in someones eyes.

(3)What training exists in today's CG on how to evaluate people? I can remember it being in the MRN-E6 course back in the 70s ... I might even have the course book put away.

(4) Do an experiment ... give one your petty officers the chance to do an honest self evaluation, following the guidlines outlined in CIM 1000.6 (series). You do the same. You might be surprised when you compare the results.

Joe, yes, that is pretty much what I am saying and one or two 3's shouldn't hold up a recommendation in my mind. But who in their right mind can tell me that "a less than ideal coastie (to the 9th power)" is ready to perform satisfactorily at the next higher pay grade? You recommend that person and you are setting them up for failure.

(2) - that is why the audit seemed like a good idea to me. Even though recommendations cannot be appealed, show me a member with mulitiple 7's that does not have an Unsat or Mast (even though as Master Chief Slesh said, that's hard to comprehend) has received a "not recommended." I would red flag that one all day!

(3) EPME has training on it, but it's not rocket science, the criteria is spelled out very clearly. You do the things in this block you get this mark....

(4) Are you talking about on thier self and myself or both doing the same person? If it's the first one, that's exactly what I do. I have each of my crewmembers complete a self evaluation. I tell them they can put numbers in if they want, but I don't like to do it. I do tell them to provide me with SPECIFIC examples of how they met the criteria in the block they are hoping for. Again, it's not rocket science and I was always a big fan of the Eval system we have when it's used properly, mostly because I had never seen it misused or abused until recently (I live a sheltered CG life I guess).
__________________

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

(1) That's exactly what I recommended, both of you do the evaluation on the PO ... and if it's a well thought out evaluation, there will be very little difference. If there is, one of you may be viewing the PO with some rose colored glasses. Which one? I don't know. But I'm sure the two of you can identify the differences in the respective analysis.

I guess I'll have to look at the EPME training on this subject to see if my inquiry concerning training is covered.

Your correct it's not rocket science. However, if you don't know your own tendencies when evaluating, the problem will never be corrected. I'm not saying you as in John ... but the generic you.

Both of us must have lived the sheltered life in the CG. Antidotal evidence of inflation happening in spotted locations, doesn't mean it's CG wide. Of course, no one has ever identified the grade of the approving official at these inlfation locations.

I will say the perception is always alive and well. There has been no studies either supporting or denying the perceptions of inflationary marks.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

If this self evaluation is thorough and honest from both parties, I'm willing to bet that the PO will mark themselves tougher than uyou as the OinC would.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Steve,

That too is true. I found that the difference was typically 1 point, mine being higher.

John,

It came to me that the "recommended for advancment" for those carrying a three needs some clarification. I can't belive these words I'm starting the sentenance. Back when there was paper ... there, got that out of my system ... the marking chain underlined the characteristics the person was lacking (I believe ... I could have it reversed) as to why they didn't get the mark in the block.

This makes the three a wide open interpetation. Someone with one characteristic lacking in a four characteristic four box is closer to the four than the 2, so they could be recommended. Even if they had twenty-two three's, all with one characteristic lacking, someone could recommend them for advancement.

The reverse is also true, if they were lacking the majority of the characteristics, one could justify not recommending someone for advancement.

This makes the middle marks, three and five, as very ambigious. Some believe the three is a bad mark ... and it is, if it's closer to the two.

Personally, for me to mark someone recommended, and it's an entirely seperate mark, not related to the evaluation system, I'd have to verify they met all the requirements. Meeting those requirements in the PQS certainly raises their stock and accepting additional responsibilities gardners them the recommendation. Unfortunately, I don't belive that is the policy today. So, given that scenario, I certainly would recommend someone carrying a three, or nine of them (depending on the catagory), for advancement. Carrying three's that are glorified twos won't get a recommendation from me.

How are these electronic forms? Is there a radio box for each characteristic for you to check [replacing the underlining done on paper]?

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe, you had it backwards or right the second time. You would underline the criteria they have met in the four which leaves the criteria they haven't met. Which we can still do, only instead of underlining, you drag and drop or copy and paste - whichever you prefer. I am not sure if everyone is doing that still, but I am.

Also, in each of the 4 areas there is a minimum score required for being recommended.* I would have to look up what each is, but I can tell you that it would be very difficult to reach with 9 - 3's. I guess if you have a few 6's and 7' in the right spots you could still meet the minimum, but I am also a firm believer that a lot of the marks are intertwined, like Directing Others/Working with others/developing subordinates. Sure the written standard for each is slightly different, but if you are doing good or bad in one of those areas, chances are you are doing the same in the other two.



* which is another thing PSC could actually audit. I can get back to you with those minimum scores if you'd like.

[ETC Matthew Turner]

Actually, the minimum score in each of the 4 areas pertains to the conduct mark, not the recommendation. For example, a PO with 18 total in the professional qualities factor would automatically get a U for conduct. The chart is in persman 10.B.8.a, and the criteria for a U is in 10.B.2.

So let's see what persman says about recommendations for advancement:

The member is fully capable of satisfactorily performing
the duties and responsibilities of the next higher pay grade. The rating chain
should choose this entry regardless of the member’s qualification or eligibility
for advancement. If the member has met all eligibility requirements, choosing
this value constitutes an official recommendation for advancement. Personnel,
E-6 and above, must receive a supporting remarks entry clearly documenting
their present and future leadership potential for greater responsibility Article
10.B.2.a.(1).(d).

In other words, if they don't have sufficient time in grade, sea time or whatever, they can still be recommended even though they won't actually be able to take the SWE. Likewise, it is technically possible to give a recommendation for advancement even though the U in conduct will prevent them from taking the test.

If people are actually doing this (giving a positive recommendation with an unsat conduct mark) maybe it is because the U gives them a convenient excuse not to bring up the real reasons for not being recommended.

Edited to add...I am not saying I approve of this, just pointing out that I think it is possible to happen. IMO recommending someone with more than one or two 3's should raise a red flag at the least.

As for underlining/cut-and-pasting, it's no longer required with the electronic system, although I think many commands still want the portions that were formerly underlined to be entered in the comment box for each mark. By the book, the only things you MUST put in the comment boxes are justifications for 1, 2, 7, not recommended, unsat conduct, and future leadership potential for E-6 and above.

Matt

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

I don't need the minimums. I can download and read CIM 1000.6 if I really have the need to know.

I'm glad there is the option for copy/paste the portions of the block you need, making it congruent with the old paper copies.

I don't view the copy/paste as documentation as Matthew said. Documentation is a CG-3307, and yes, I remember they were required for one, two, or seven.

I'm sure if I've read CIM 1000.6 it would tell me to do what John is doing. I'm starting to wonder if some in the evaluation food chain needs to read the manual and take the training. :)

[BMC John Phillips III]

You're right Matt, there is a chart for the Good Conduct and Sat/Unsat but again, when would you recommend someone for advancement that has received an Unsat in conduct? Also check these little caveats in the PERSMAN, I copied and pasted them from BMCM Slesh's post under the alcohol thread, note the "or" in each case.


SWE ELIGIBILTY
COMDTINST M1000.6(series)
Ch. 5.C.4.b & Ch. 5.C.13.b CG Personnel Manual
Personnel who received an UNSAT conduct mark or a dimension average of less than 3 for the given factor on their last EER are ineligible to compete in the SWE.

ADVANCEMENTS
E2–E4
COMDTINST M1000.6(series),
Ch.5.C.4.e.5.b & Ch. 5.C.6 CG Personnel Manual Personnel who received an UNSAT conduct mark or a dimension average of less than 3 for the given factors on their last EER are ineligible to advance.

ADVANCEMENTS
E5&E6
COMDTINST M1000.6(series),
Ch. 5.C.6 and Ch.5.C.13.b CG Personnel Manual
For 12 months prior to the terminal eligibility date (01 JAN following the May exam), and for the entire period from recommendation to advancement, personnel in pay grades E-4 and E-5 must have no UNSAT conduct mark.

Of course they are all less than 3 average, so yes you could be recommended, but again, what I am trying to get to the bottom of is if 4 is a good Coastie and you get someone with nine 3's why would you recommend them for advancement?

I also have to admit we have kind of gotten off track of another thing I was trying to address which was inflated marks.

[ETC Matthew Turner]

John,

I don't think that I personally would ever send up a recommendation for advancement if there was an unsat in conduct. I am saying that my read of PERSMAN indicates it is theoretically possible. But those cases should be as rare (if not more rare) as the ones where a stellar performer in their current paygrade is not recommended for the next higher grade.

I am not suggesting that a person who gets both an "R" and a "U" can actually compete in the SWE. I am pointing out that there are plenty of other reasons that a person is ineligible to actually take the exam (such as lack of TIG, sea time, failure to pass EOCT etc) and yet they can still be recommended. The conduct mark and recommendation are technically unrelated, but I do agree with you that generally they should go hand in hand.

You're right...this is getting off topic, so that's all I'll say on it. But if you'd like to talk about it more in email I'm open to it.

Regards,
Matt

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

Not to drag this out too much longer, but, the minimums listed in the table ... how many factors are there in each of those catagories.

Take the Military Group ... a minimum of 6 for a PO. Are there two evaluation marks in the military group? If there are then the member could get two three's and still be recommended for advancement. If there are three ... then three two's can get you advanced.

Don't shoot the messenger ... those are the CG Minimums.

[BMC John Phillips III]

The conduct mark and recommendation are technically unrelated, but I do agree with you that generally they should go hand in hand.

Threads go off topic, no big deal. And I think we pretty much agree on how to interpret what the manual says. Just note that the good conduct (unsat) and the low marks do go hand in hand. If you don't meet the minimum scores for the good conduct, you receive an Unsat. If you receive and Unsat (at least in the three scenerios I quoted) you should not be recommended for advancement and in those three instances actually cannot either advance or compete for advancement.

Joe, you are correct the military factor has two marks and yes if you get a 3 in each and can still be recommended. All of the minimum scores are divisible by 3 for the total amount of factors in their respective dimensions. So it is an average of less than 3 that makes you ineligible for the good conduct and gets you an automatic unsat. Again, you are right, you could get a ton of 3's and still be recommended for advancement. I have to stand by what I said about setting that "3" sailor up for failure at the next higher paygrade.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

John,

I'm sure those who earned those three's also haven't completed their responsibilities under CIM 1000.6 (series) 5.C.4.b

And anyone who is recommending people for advancement needs to follow 10.B.7.2 ...

The Advancement recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with the EPEF, or EER ... maybe I'll get use to the new terms. :)