Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueYing
I can understand why leadership wanted this to happen. Too many non-deserving NCOs still get inflated scores. It's a fact. Whether it be the good ole boy system or a rater who just doesn't want to put in the time or effort to do a good eval.
I do, however, agree with just about everyone else's assessments. In units like yours, one already has to be above the standards. You cannot punish someone for that once they are in the unit.
I also have another scenario. I'm in a fairly new Reserve unit. We are building up strength. Right now we have four Sergeants First Class, all of whom (because of the size of the unit) have the same senior rater. At least three of them, if I rated them, would be rated most qualified. But, as I understand it, only two of them can get that rating. How is that fair to whichever one gets the short end of the stick, who busts his butt to exceed the standard, who takes care of his troops to not be rated what he should be rated? If a position opens up that third one, who may otherwise be qualified for it gets passed over.
It's a good idea in theory, but in actuality has many drawbacks.
|
If I am reading this right:
Quote:
|
A senior rater’s rating history will be maintained in a profile, and the automated system will not allow SRs to exceed the 50 percent restriction.
|
It's not just the immediate unit, it's all of the ratings for the history of the senior rater. So in theory for your situation you could, over the course of three rating periods, rate
SFC - A Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - B Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - C Most qualified twice, Highly Qualified once
SFC - D Anything other than most qualified all three times.
That would give you equality in your ratings for the three NCO's (and you could tell them what you are doing behind closed doors). The problem with it is that they will still end up rated marginally lower than the 50% of the rest of the army that got most qualified every time. Again, it leads to gaming the system rather than getting objective measurements against a standard.
I like the idea of 360 evaluations being included. Why can't they do something where the leader gets scored on a scale of 1-10 by the senior rater and also the subordinates. It could be a weighted average that results in the final scoring. Add that to objective things like PT score, Awards points, negative points for administrative disciplinary actions, marksmanship scores, Course and college completions with extra points for Distinguished and Honor graduate, combat points for missions performed in theatre. A wide mix of possible positive and negative scores would enable people to score highly on the NCOER if they actually did something during the period and would cut out slackers quickly. No carry over scoring. Points are only accrued if it happened during the rated period. That's just one way it could be done objectively. Yes, it sounds a lot like a microcosm of the promotion point system, but why shouldn't it be? Add in the narrative supporting documents and you have a real rating system that is fairly unbiased and would actually mean something when a board sits.
Whatever they do, it needs to be as unbiased and immune to gaming as possible.