Welcome to Team Eagle
Facilitators for the Crowd Campaign Team can be reached at socritchey1950@gmail.com
Team ROEs:
In order to receive credit for being apart of the Think Tank individuals must achieve min 5 points.
Those that contribute the greatest value will earn recognition and distinction.
Achieve points during each stage:
- Pro Blogger: Contribute consistent content/analysis (i.e. commenting, reviewing, following)
Android: Get Google Blogger from Google Play for quick access
Iphone: Get the mobile version through the link http://www.crowdcampaign.blogspot.com/
- Patton Point: (Stage 2/3) Being apart of a team that completes a COG/COA;
- Each completed COG/COA's is 1 point.
- Part of the team means you contributed in a meaningful way to COG/COA development.
- Determined by the Steering Team or individual who initiated the COG/COA
- The Scholar: (Stage 3) After creating 3 effects, drill 5 levels deep on each effects implication.
- 1 point for each effect that is drilled down 5 levels.
- All individuals who contributed to the implications wheel will receive a point.
- Implication Wheel MindMap
- Team Player: Facilitators will identify those that contribute significant value to the discussion.
- Possible 1 point per week
---------------------------------------------------------
PP/Speaking Ability? Join the Steering Team:
- Team provides guidance to the crowd.
- They will keep the crowd updated with timelines and deliverables.
- The Steering Team responsible for crafting presentation to AU/CC & HAF/A1.
The Method: Crowdsourcing and Joint Planning
- Week 1-3: CrowdSource Problem/Create COG/COAs/Identify the Steering Team.
- Week 4: Steering Team will shape presentation using JP5 template provided.
- Week 5: Presentation to Senior Leaders (Lt Gen Kwast AU/CC & Brig Gen Kelly HAF/A1)
BLUF:
ReplyDeleteThe current AF performance evaluation system fails to select the most qualified individuals to positions of increased responsibility and detail operational efforts.
OPR, officer, performance, evaluation, performance_rating, standardize, Air Force
ReplyDeleteGiselle, make sure you are commenting in the right location. Should be under Problem Brainstorming post.
DeleteSubjective, unrepresentative, not standardized
ReplyDeleteCurrent OPR writing processes create records that do not truly reflect the actions and accomplishments of those being rated, and lack of standardization means that the subjective wants of each leadership chain produce reports that look/sound/read differently.
DeleteUnstandardized, Subjective ratings versus merit, lack of continuous education, no equivalent WAPS standard
ReplyDeleteThe Officer Evaluation System is unstandardized because of the stratifications and push lines that supervisors have to make. These comments are all subjective and based on the rater's opinion and has no parameters of what makes them qualified as being promotable, other than a rater/senior rater's perspective. I think it would be beneficial to hold Officers to the same standards that we hold Enlisted members to by taking skills test and professional development test to show our knowledge, expertise, and dedication to our profession, similar to how Enlisted members have the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). These tests would be primarily leadership and management based instead of technical based, but would generate a score that reflects an Officer's skillset in his/her AFSC.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete360-degree_Feedback, Unstandardized
ReplyDeleteThe Officer Evaluation System is not a perfect system. Leaders who are geographically separated from their subordinates will find it very difficult to provide meaningful feedback and therefore accurately record one’s individual performance. One potential solution is to obtain information from those the subordinate leads and their peers. Nowack and Mashihi (2012), refer to this process as 360-degree feedback. Defined, 360-degree feedback is feedback from multiple sources, usually the boss/rater, subordinates, self, and peers (Bracken & Rose, 2011). For the geographically separated leader could look to the subordinate’s peers, followers, and the individual subordinate for the information necessary to provide meaningful feedback and record performance. The key is to have everyone complete a standardized evaluation questionnaire (McCarthy & Garavan, 2001). Once complete, the 360-degree evaluation questionnaire system would compile the information for the rater to quickly analyze and input into the officer’s performance report, and used to provide meaningful feedback.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs it has been stated, the OPR system is overly inflated. STRATS are far too often made up, to make sure a LT the DG'd out of an early source is already being primed for Flag rank before they actually ever commanded anyone. Also, far too many cmndr's have made up strats that hold no merit during a PRF writing session. Also, once someone has been rated top10% they have a percieved "protectected" status. I.e. As long as they don't screw up there start will remain in tact no matter their work. Also, the exec path. Everyone looks at the only way to make it is be an exec at every level, as that will always get you the #1 of xx on an OpR. There needs to be define rules on how to start I.e. AAD not req below O-4, and PT test only matter if you pass or fail. 90 or above holds no merit as the only reason we have that, is it isn't possible for the FAC's to test everyone in the AF every 6 months.
ReplyDeleteGreat comments Doug the inflation, lack of quantitative data and chaff that really signifies nothing but take time to both compile and analyze. That being said, make sure that you are commenting in the right location or your comments may not be seen. The next post is where you should be replying.
DeleteHere are some of the trend responses I have received from soliciting information from my peers as well as current & former Sq/CCs & DOs. Two Sq/CCs have upchanneled and sent me feedback from their Wg/CC. I have queries out to COMPACAF & 7AF/CC but nothing back yet.
ReplyDeleteTrend responses -- # who wrote this in some fashion:
- Strats need (1) standardization, (2) restrictions, and (3) uniformity -- 6x (4x Sq/CC or higher, 2x peers)
- Eliminate "everyone's a winner" -- 8x (3x Sq/CC/DO, 2x retired Maj+, 3x peers)
- Need to focus on job performance (including in award process) -- 5x (4x peers)
- Eliminate bullet formatting, reduce number of lines -- 9x (5x Sq/DO+, 4x peers)
- PRFs are redundant and a giant waste of time -- 4x (all Sq/DO+)
Misc other responses with some weight: feedback is broken or non-existant; "someone's impression" gets you promoted (process is too subjective, not objective enough); the awards process is a "joke"; too much weight (for promotions) is given to PME & PME takes the 'best' out of the fight for too much time; eliminate anything other than job performance (for 1206's as well as reports); segregate out Ops & msn support for boards; 360-feedback; & "look at the Army & Marines' systems, they are better".
That is what I have, let me know any questions or clarification. I owe you any additional follow on responses I receive.
Below is a paste of the email response I received from Brig Gen Robinson, 7AF/CV.
Delete----------------------------------
Psycho,
Thanks for the question. These are important topics, and you can make a difference. When I was a Squadron Commander at Edwards AFB, ACC A1 asked for our feedback on the OPR form of that time, which had two sides. Our input was to have a one-sided evaluation with acronyms spelled out on the back. No one ever reviewed the front of the form, so in essence, it was time wasted for information that no one would use. I don’t know if they made the changes we see in the current form due to our input, but the ability to give feedback is important.
My suggestion would be to combine some elements of the PRF onto an OPR so we would no longer need to write PRFs. All of the data from a PRF is in the OPRs, so the only new information we’re providing is the stratification on the bottom line in relation to the overall cohort up for the same promotion board. The Navy has a sort of forced distribution on the bottom of their evals (fitness reports, or fitreps in Navy parlance). I believe this is used at the board. We could still allocate DPs like we do today and use the MLR process for aggregate and carry-over DPs, which I believe is a very fair process. The promotion recommendation post MLR could be transferred over to the electronic records for the promotion boards.
IIRC, the block on the bottom of the fitrep had something along the lines of do not promote, promote with peers, promote ahead of peers, and promote now, similar to our new enlisted system. The form had a top line indicating how many of each type of promotion recommendation were available, which varied on the size of the cohort, and was allocated on percentages. This is similar to what we’re doing on the enlisted evaluation system now, but knowing the numbers available for each category helps to tell the story. For instance, what if you had two outstanding Majors in the same year group, but only had one “promote now” to give? You would be able to see that, and the fact that your #2 Major wasn’t a promote now but had a world-class OPR would make sense, since you would know the rater only had one “promote now” to give.
I would continue to allow stratifications like we do today for officer evaluations…I’m not a fan of that aspect of the enlisted system.
The Navy also does trait averages, which are pretty neat, but I think we could do enough with the forced distribution and doing away with the PRF. We might need to have a static closeout date to make all of this work, which is fine. It would avoid the usual question of when you could reuse a strat again (is four months to soon?).
Bottom line, I would look for a way to avoid writing PRFs, and I think the forced distribution system might help with that. I think you could also do away with the PRF altogether without adding forced distribution, but I believe it would be a useful addition.
Please let me know if you need any more information, and I am curious to hear what your group recommends.
BTW, please say hello to Brig Gen Kelly for me…we were Wing Commanders over in England at the same time.
Cheers,
Phoenix
KYLE W. ROBINSON, Brig Gen, USAF
Vice Commander, 7th Air Force
Chief of Staff, Air Component Command
DSN: 315-784-7006; Comm: 011-82-505-784-7006
Psycho this is great information that we should use to vector our COAs. It touches on all the issues with the promotion system that we have identified. Let's create some COAs with this information in mind. Can you begin one or two in the COA Development section? In the end, the briefing may be ways to implement a few of the COAs that we identify in a concerted way.
ReplyDelete