Accusations against generals cast dark shadow over Army

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...c=nl_headlines

BMT

[Basenshukai]

"... The investigations have become an embarrassment for the Army, raising questions about how thoroughly the military has screened senior leaders before putting them in crucial assignments..."


I don't have a well-enough informed opinion regarding these specific cases. However, I do believe that our OER system needs to be dramatically revamped.

For one thing, how is it that a leader's performance and potential as such is gauged merely by those he DOES NOT lead - his superiors?

There needs to be a "360" evaluation where the subordinates' evaluation of their leader is heavily weighed in a balanced manner. Subordinates are the ones with the most significant contact with the "leader". When the boss is not looking (Rater / Senior Rater), it is the subordinates who are present when the leader succeeds or fails, is morally straight, or corrupt, etc.

I have seen leaders that are masters of showing the boss exactly what he/she wants to see, but fail miserably where performance is concerned. In my 14 years of service, I have seen a few LTCs (BN CDRs) with less knowledge of their own doctrine that captains under their command and with less common sense than an E-4.

Yet, when it was Powerpoint Time, they were masters at prioritizing that even over live-fire ranges so that a boss will get the right "message".

What I have found is that ultimately Soldiers do not like to fail. And, they will do their best to succeed in spite of a poor leader. Unfortunately, this propels that leader forward, in spite of his/her failures as such.

A "360" OER would eliminate that gap in the evaluation, in my humble opinion.

[Richard]

Dempsey, Odierno, Ward, the new CDR AFRICOM, that former COL who was relieved of command of the 173rd ABN BDE - if that's the 'cream of the crop' rising to the top, we've got issues.

As far as evaluations go, I used to tell my subordinates that if I couldn't sit down and write out an honest evaluation of their performance and potential without having them tell me what they'd done, I had not done my job and had no business rating them...and the same applied to them when evaluating their subordinates. I learned that one as a 2LT ODA CDR from our BN CDR who was a former SF NCO, a MOH recipient, and who practiced what he preached and expected nothing less of his subordinates.

Richard

[BKKMAN]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

"...There needs to be a "360" evaluation where the subordinates' evaluation of their leader is heavily weighed in a balanced manner. Subordinates are the ones with the most significant contact with the "leader". When the boss is not looking (Rater / Senior Rater), it is the subordinates who are present when the leader succeeds or fails, is morally straight, or corrupt, etc.

I have seen leaders that are masters of showing the boss exactly what he/she wants to see, but fail miserably where performance is concerned. In my 14 years of service, I have seen a few LTCs (BN CDRs) with less knowledge of their own doctrine that captains under their command and with less common sense than an E-4.

Yet, when it was Powerpoint Time, they were masters at prioritizing that even over live-fire ranges so that a boss will get the right "message".

What I have found is that ultimately Soldiers do not like to fail. And, they will do their best to succeed in spite of a poor leader. Unfortunately, this propels that leader forward, in spite of his/her failures as such.

A "360" OER would eliminate that gap in the evaluation, in my humble opinion.

The Army already has a website that the officers are using: Multi-source Assessment and Feedback (MSAF) 360

https://msaf.army.mil/LeadOn.aspx

I have already provided input/comments on one of the officers in my unit...at the moment, I believe that the officer being "360'd" is the only one that gets to see the input/feedback...I believe that there is a block on the new OER where the Rater indicates that the rated officer has either completed or initiated a 360 assessment at the time of the report...

My guess is that once they work the bugs out of the system, the MSAF 360 may begin to play a larger role in the evaluations system...