[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.