New OER Means Fewer Boxes, More Accountability

[Richard]

And the real question remains - can a new Army officer eval overcome old school promotion board mentalities? Gluck auf, y'all!

And so it goes...

Richard

New OER Means Fewer Boxes, More Accountability For Raters
Army.Mil, 21 Mar 2013

By December, officers will be rated under a new evaluation system -- one that is designed to both strengthen rater accountability and reflect current Army leadership doctrine.

The new system will affect officers in all branches and all components of the Army, said Maj. Gen. Rick Mustion, commander, Army Human Resources Command. Additionally, he said the new Officer Evaluation Report, or OER, system will be preceded by deployment of mobile training teams Army-wide to help officers become accustomed to the new system.

One change to the OER is emphasis on a clear delineation of responsibilities between raters and senior raters, Mustion said.

"Raters discuss performance, and senior raters discuss potential," Mustion said. Right now, he added, that distinction is not being made.

There will also now be three separate evaluation forms based on grade. Those three "grade plates" include one for company-grade officers, warrant officers and chief warrant officers two; one for field-grade officers as well as chief warrant officers three through five; and one for "strategic leaders," which includes colonels and brigadier generals.

The Army will also implement a rater profile for the company and field-grade officer plates; emphasize recommendations for future operational and career broadening opportunities on the field grade plate; redefine the senior-rater box check; and limit the use of intermediate raters to special branches and dual-supervision situations.

Gone from the OER will be the "outstanding performance, must promote," "satisfactory performance, promote," and "unsatisfactory performance, do not promote" boxes. Instead, raters will now choose from "excels," "proficient," "capable" and "unsatisfactory," Mustion said.

The online tool that will allow officers to rate other officers will limit the number of "excels" ratings they can offer a particular grade to less than 50 percent. During an officer's career, the system will ensure the rater rates less than 50 percent of captains, for instance, as "excels." Such information about a rater's rating history will be part of his or her "rater profile." Right now, raters do not have a "rater profile," while senior raters do.

For senior raters, the "above center of mass," "center of mass," "below center of mass, retain"," and "below center of mass, do not retain" blocks will be replaced with "most qualified," "highly qualified," "qualified," and "not qualified" check boxes.

With those ratings, a senior rater will also be limited to less than 50 percent of rated officers being marked "most qualified."

Mustion said the Army has no intention of restarting senior rater profiles with the change to the new system. The "mass"-based ratings will transition to the new "qualified"-based ratings.

For company grade officers, what Mustion calls the "Rubik's Cube of attributes and competencies" will also disappear. The current DA Form 67-9, included about 16 "yes" or "no" check boxes for a rater to answer an array of questions about an officer's mental, physical and emotional characteristics; their conceptual, interpersonal, technical, and tactical skills; and, among other things, their ability to communicate, make a decision, or develop their subordinates.

In place of that matrix of yes and no check boxes, raters will instead evaluate an officer in six distinct areas -- and it won't be multiple choice to complete the section.

"What our raters will do is write three to four sentences, documenting the officer's performance, not potential, in line with each of the attributes and competencies," Mustion said. Raters will be asked to write about an officer's character; "presence," which includes professional conduct; intellect; leadership ability; ability to develop subordinates; and ability to achieve their mission.

For field grade officers, raters will instead provide narrative commentary that demonstrates an officer's performance regarding "field grade competencies."

"It reverts back to a narrative description, similar to what we have today, except it is a documentation of performance in line with the attributes and competencies," Mustion said. "What it reflects are those things that our field grade officers and warrant officers should be able to accomplish."

Mustion said among those attributes are the ability to adjust to an ambiguous situation, for instance, and the ability to manage resources.

CAREER BROADENING

A key part of the new OER system will be to ask raters to make determinations about what an officer is capable of, and what suggestions there might be for how the officer can be better developed -- both for his or her sake, and for the sake of the Army.

Mustion said the Army is asking leaders to identify future and broadening assignments for officers who are rated.

"In our Army we have a lot of requirements that are outside the operational Army," he said. "We have opportunities that range from fellowships here in the [Pentagon,] to teaching at ROTC, to the operations controllers at our National Training Center, to joint staff positions -- which are very important to building officers that can operate at the strategic level -- and that's the construct of broadening."

PREPARING FOR THE NEW OER

The new OER system will start Dec. 1, 2013. All ratings that take place before that date will use the old system. Ratings with THRU dates after that date will use the new system. Mustion said there will be no close-out reports required before switching to the new system.

To prepare officers for the new OER system, Mustion said the Army will deploy mobile training teams this autumn. Additionally, he said the new version of Army Regulation 623-3, which explains the OER process, will be available 30 days before implementation of the new system. The regulation should be available from Army publishing sometime in November.

http://www.army.mil/article/99256

[SF18C]

To prepare officers for the new OER system, Mustion said the Army will deploy mobile training teams this autumn.

I thought the Army was outta money and could only conduct mission essential business! I can only wonder why VTC's won't work for this "training".

[Basenshukai]

To me, the biggest issue for both the old, and new OERs, is that in neither case is the officer's aptitude as a leader evaluated with input from those he actually leads: his subordinates.

The way things are now, a commander can be a complete moron, but because his men are workhorses, the unit will succeed. If unit success is a large piece of the pie (relative to how its commander is evaluated), and if the commander is an astute politician, then, he will get a great report card in spite of his significant shortcomings. And, part of the problem is that good subordinates (staff officers and NCOs, as well as subordinate commanders), will work hard because 1) they care about their unit, regardless of poor leadership above them, 2) know that their own professional success is tied to unit success. In the OER, the idea is that the rated officer's ability to lead is, in fact, evaluated. But, how can it be when the evaluators are always people that officer does not lead (his superiors)?

The OER seems to properly measure, and account for, every critical officer attribute, except one: LEADERSHIP.

[HoosierFolk]

MTT's for this?? I am sure that we can figure it out ok without any help because in the end, nothing seems to be different.

[The Reaper]

It will sure be a bullet on the OER of whoever changed it.

And it will not be any better or worse than the six or seven versions that proceeded it.

Agree with Bas, a 360 degree assessment is a much better evaluation tool.

TR

[Maytime]

I love it when I see text that was copied and pasted verbatim from a support form onto an OER. At least rearrange the words! I know leaders can't be everywhere at once, but come on, make an effort.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by HoosierFolk

MTT's for this?? I am sure that we can figure it out ok without any help because in the end, nothing seems to be different.

Not without a Powerpoint you can't!

[Dozer523]

I'll miss the Atlas blocking.
That really, really, really strong guy. I think I actually met him at a BN HQ.

[CDRODA396]

Originally Posted by Richard

... designed to both strengthen rater accountability and reflect current Army leadership doctrine.

Exactly what they said in October 1997 when they went to the then "new," now outgoing system that eliminated "Charles Atlas" and reduced the number of blocks Senior Rators could use since they were only using the top one anyway.

Its still a human based system...and I've always said the hardest thing to do in the Army is accurately assess poor performance in writing...very, very few willing to do so.

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

It will sure be a bullet on the OER of whoever changed it.

And it will not be any better or worse than the six or seven versions that proceeded it.

Agree with Bas, a 360 degree assessment is a much better evaluation tool.

TR

TR, you know the drill! Everyone HAS to make changes! I doubt any Officer ever got 1-blocked for “successfully carried out the programs and processes of his predecessor”!

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by SF18C

TR, you know the drill! Everyone HAS to make changes! I doubt any Officer ever got 1-blocked for “successfully carried out the programs and processes of his predecessor”!

I understand the cynicism, but this is also not true. Yes, the cliche of changing something for the sake of a "one block" OER has been true on significant occasions. However, if that is all it took to get a "one block", everyone would have one. There are a great many officers in SF whom are honorable and among the best in the US Army. In SF, however, we (officers and NCOs alike) do a horrible job of raising them, encouraging them and truly grooming them for our Regiment's future. When I deployed my AOB, in my back brief to my boss, I specifically stated that I intended on using my predecessor's success as my base for future operations. There is nothing wrong with that. And, guess what, it worked. We were very successful and I got "one-blocked".

The problem with the current system, in my opinion, is that it is not designed in such a way as to honestly assess the rated officer where it matters most. As a result, there are critical instances where an officer games the system and gets ahead. That's a loophole we need to close and a "360 Assessment" would go a long way in doing so.