Cpl-Sgt Prom Board 2014

[4everAD]

Having the chance of acting rank is a lottery in itself. Many cases of acting rank are handed to people just because the post needs filling whilst the 1st TO is OOA etc. I've known Cpl's to get acting rank after less than 2 years seniority, are they really ready for promotion? Anyway my view is that 25 people out of circa 700 to be promoted is a joke, ok it's all down to service need but MANY people are currently pee'd off in the trade. Here's how I see it.....I work in careers atm and only 20% of the ITT (into training targets) have been met so far this year, NO ONE IS JOINING AS AN ICT TECHNICIAN!!!....this can only mean that SAC's won't get their tapes as there is no back fill through Cosford, I honestly think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

My bold, this is more of a problem than we realise, when promotion is so slow and limited in numbers then what happens IMO is this: The best try their hardest and do secondary duties etc and maybe half of them get promoted the other half take it as a slap in the face after all their hard work and maybe don't try as hard the next year "what's the point?". The other 90% of the rank/trade know that the chances of getting promoted are so slim that they don't bother going the extra mile/volunteering etc. Such low numbers off the board don't act as an incentive to try harder but more a "don't bother going the extra mile as it won't help you".
All just my opinion I know and I realise it tars people with the same brush and that people will always say "not me!" but I'm starting to pick it up in more and more peoples attitudes.

 

[Max Reheat]

Look at the promotion quotas for all the trades, we're back in the early 90's again. Not enough room at the top for everyone, that's the sad fact. No matter how good you think you are if you haven't gone that extra mile to be noticed then you're pretty much dead wood for another year. Also one good SJAR won't get you promoted, it'll get you to the board but you need at least 2 more decent ones backing it up.

 

[4everAD]

I can't help but think that the sjar system isn't fit for purpose, I would like to see a combination of the sjar based evidence with the 6442 numbers. That way an individual would have certainty that the board were looking at them but would need a write up based on evidence to get them the nod. This A/B/C grade thing doesn't work. For those of a younger persuasion you were given 2 numbers (1 to 9) in your assessment over three years you built up a score let's say 42, the board would announce that you needed 43 to be considered for promotion. At least this way you knew where you stood, and it wasn't reliant on some dodgy pre-boarding system. The main flaw under this system was you weren't really required to back the marks up with evidence so the narrative ended up as a bit of a description of the individual not what they did. This is where the sjar evidence based narrative plus the scores would hopefully make the whole promotion process more transparent.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

The main flaw under this system was you weren't really required to back the marks up with evidence so the narrative ended up as a bit of a description of the individual not what they did.

Yeah, thats what used to happen although I'm sure it wasn't supposed to happen. I do recall in the last days of the 6442 that stuff like 'Cpl Jones is a short, rotund JNCO......' was clamped down upon.

And for younger readers not familiar with the older systems, yes that sort of thing did appear in peoples annual report!

 

[justintime129]

Was the 6442 as good as people mad out . What about people being over assessed because there assessor knew joe blogs up the road was over assessing his lads. People who were worth 5s became 6s. 6s became 7s and 7s became 8s. I speak from experience dropping from 7 7 8, 7 7 8, 8 7 8 to 5 5 5 cos that's how my flt sgt at my new camp assessed. The question was had I been over assessed in the last 3 years. I redressed him but that was my death sentence. I

 

[Barch]

No matter which way a person is assessed there is always room for over or under assessing someone.

At least with the F6442 a lot of the ROs ability to construct sentences and the use of buzz words was not required.

Why should one persons ability to write impact on another persons career?

The assessment is an annual survey of peoples ability. Look at any online survey company to see how they gather their data and you will find the vast majority of it is done with Yes / No and rated 1 - 10 type answers.

Just for a change the MOD do it in a completely different way to any normal organisations and TBH it looks to me that SAC Bloggs' annual assesment would be better served for assessing the ROs not SAC Bloggs.

 

[Flybynight]

No matter which way a person is assessed there is always room for over or under assessing someone.

At least with the F6442 a lot of the ROs ability to construct sentences and the use of buzz words was not required.

Why should one persons ability to write impact on another persons career?

The assessment is an annual survey of peoples ability. Look at any online survey company to see how they gather their data and you will find the vast majority of it is done with Yes / No and rated 1 - 10 type answers.

Just for a change the MOD do it in a completely different way to any normal organisations and TBH it looks to me that SAC Bloggs' annual assesment would be better served for assessing the ROs not SAC Bloggs.

That's a good point! As an SAC I was far happier being assessed by a senior officer who knew my work than an SNCO who thought I was a scruffy, cheeky airman on principle, whether I was or wasn't. The worst were 'dead wood' sergeants who'd failed the JATCC, in some cases twice, and were hanging on for their pensions. Most Flt Sgts and WOs were fine, always allowing for the odd exception (who was usually an obsessive tw@t).

 

[iainrm]

6442s

6442s

If you you want to play with numbers you could have the computer reject a units 6442s until it fit what was the approximately the chosen bell curve.
That would fix both the high assessors and the everybody gets 5s dickhead.
The illiterate and/or lazy RO would have less impact.
I would also have a category for academic achievements which would be more useful for both the service and for the individual then many of the items seem to get mentioned.

 

[Norman the Storeman]

What about an exam based system? If you think you're ready for promotion take the exam or pass a JMLC type course. Those with top marks or grades get promoted on next board. Gives more control to the individual.

 

[briggfairy]

what about a combination of an annual score which if you get the required amount you could then apply for your chosen posting at the next rank up?

a bit like applying for a job in the real world where you have to tell your management why you should be given the new role, it could even be done in house without the need for a manning board every year if unit management were happy to take on the extra burden.

that takes the career out of the hands of the RO's and puts it firmly back in the hands of the subject.

if your not interested in promotion or don't put the effort in during the application process you won't progress.

 

[justintime129]

what about a combination of an annual score which if you get the required amount you could then apply for your chosen posting at the next rank up?

a bit like applying for a job in the real world where you have to tell your management why you should be given the new role, it could even be done in house without the need for a manning board every year if unit management were happy to take on the extra burden.

that takes the career out of the hands of the RO's and puts it firmly back in the hands of the subject.

if your not interested in promotion or don't put the effort in during the application process you won't progress.

But in the real world how many people can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

 

[busby1971]

What ever system you have it will quickly be manipulated and will never be totally fair, because this system and the last are based on the opinion of someone who is to close to the individual to be totally subjective, and might not be the best person to judge others.

Annual reports could be simplified to give a basic trade and leadership competence, an exam could be used to judge knowledge, tick these boxes rise to the top then you have a station board where potential, behaviour and attitude could be gauged.

The above wouldn't be too onerous, by over time will be manipulated just like any other system.

 

[Barch]

If you you want to play with numbers you could have the computer reject a units 6442s until it fit what was the approximately the chosen bell curve.
That would fix both the high assessors and the everybody gets 5s dickhead.
The illiterate and/or lazy RO would have less impact.
I would also have a category for academic achievements which would be more useful for both the service and for the individual then many of the items seem to get mentioned.

The computer would only be used for ranking all the F6442s - the board then filters those that they see fit.

What is the dickhead comment all about?

 

[Barch]

What about an exam based system? If you think you're ready for promotion take the exam or pass a JMLC type course. Those with top marks or grades get promoted on next board. Gives more control to the individual.

We did have promotion exams once upon a time. If you didn't pass the exams (Trade and General Service) straight 9s and spec recs wouldn't get you promoted.

 

[Barch]

What ever system you have it will quickly be manipulated and will never be totally fair, because this system and the last are based on the opinion of someone who is to close to the individual to be totally subjective, and might not be the best person to judge others.

Annual reports could be simplified to give a basic trade and leadership competence, an exam could be used to judge knowledge, tick these boxes rise to the top then you have a station board where potential, behaviour and attitude could be gauged.

The above wouldn't be too onerous, by over time will be manipulated just like any other system.

Or you could simply have all the subjects supervisors / managers report for that individual and an average taken.

 

[justintime129]

I doubt there'll ever be a fair system. Doing the exam would be a good idea but you could only take the exam after a certain length of time. If you didn't get the required marks then you wouldn't be allowed to resit for 2 years. This way it would be up to the individual to decide if he was capable and ready to pass the exam, maybe your line manager would also have a say in if you were ready to take the exam.

Speaking from personal experience I went from a camp where I was the only one in my section, doing various secondary duties and doing my job to a high standard to a big supply depot in the midlands where I was one of many.

 

[Barch]

I doubt there'll ever be a fair system. Doing the exam would be a good idea but you could only take the exam after a certain length of time. If you didn't get the required marks then you wouldn't be allowed to resit for 2 years. This way it would be up to the individual to decide if he was capable and ready to pass the exam, maybe your line manager would also have a say in if you were ready to take the exam.

Speaking from personal experience I went from a camp where I was the only one in my section, doing various secondary duties and doing my job to a high standard to a big supply depot in the midlands where I was one of many.

And therein lies another problem, assessing people against their peers instead of laid down standards.

 

[Flybynight]

We did have promotion exams once upon a time. If you didn't pass the exams (Trade and General Service) straight 9s and spec recs wouldn't get you promoted.

That's true - they started in !963 when I was around. Assessors often used them as a base datum from which to work, which did me no harm and a lot of good (my results got me zobbed - wot larks!). Whoever stopped them should be lynched.

I and another were summoned to Shawbury to take the practical part of the trade exam. We were detached for a week but CATCS only wanted us for one day, which meant in effect almost a week's extra leave each plus buckshee flights from and to RAFG. Happy days!

 

[Flybynight]

But in the real world how many people can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

An experienced unit professional lead manager should know the difference - it's what happens in the NHS and in the arts. A bunch of general managers met together to re-design the wheel would be most unlikely to have the right perceptions as they thumbed through a stack of files.

PS _ OK, before someone says it, as the general managers squinted at data on the screen in front of them.

 

[Realist78]

How about a system that has (100?) questions (have to be cleverly worded mind) where it is a simple (does the individual do...) Yes/No, no grey areas and go from there.