Dynamic Closeouts are a must. This is because too many AFSC's have too many different distenct challenges. The only way a Static would work is to re-write the AFI and make it look like the E's where they only need to have a rater for 1 day versus 120 days of supervision now. if you were to make them one day, the feed back we have been talking about would be worthless even more than it is already. Secondly, a lot of officers move thorough positions at a quick rate to gain experience. I.e. The CRO. The positions matter a lot depending on AFSC. Flyers have a lot more job's on their surfs than non flyers. Unless you plan on addressing that specifically, a static would not work. While Static works well for E's, and even that can be argued with the new roll out but we would digress. You can't static O's that are in constant training for years, i.e. Pilot's, CSO's, ABM, CCT, PJ etc.
Static closeout dates are great in preventing playing the strat game however they do not help with short notice PCSs and short notice changes in supervisors. Right now with annual evaluations we still run into these problems. I believe in a dynamic closeout, if we're working towards removing strats or making sure supervisors cannot game the system with their strats, dynamic closeouts allowing for at least a minimum days of supervision make sure that a supervisor has the time to get to know their ratee and give them a good assessment
I agree with Doug that Dynamic closeouts are a must. With the new system we are proposing it would be ineffective to objectively rate an individual on one day of performance and weigh that the same as an individual with 365 days of performance. We change jobs to often at random times for a variety of reasons (training, education, PCA, green door selection, etc.) to try and standardize a static closeout that wouldn't cause numerous officers to end up with OPRs that cover less than 10 days of supervision.
I agree with Tim the a static closeout would assist with the stratification game. Watching the enlisted folks go to a static closeout date was a bit painful. Once they got past the initial cycle, it wasn't that bad in the end. A static approach would work to mitigate a lot of the problems with stratification game.
I think it depends on the direction the OES takes. If things stay similar to the way they are now, with only minor changes, then I'm a fan of static closeouts. This would certainly go a long way to forcing accurate representation of where officers stand and remove opportunities for people to game the system. With the static closeout, the feedbacks could be required within certain timeframes, not necessarily required all on the same day. Something like a two week window 2-3 times a year with an accountability mechanism would still give raters flexibility and time to do thorough feedback, but give more structure and accountability to the process.
However, if the OES goes to a forced distribution system with rater profiles (like the other services) the static dates are much less useful. The dynamic closeouts would work fine in this system as long as there is still some rater accountability mechanism
Let's assume that under a traditional organizational structure, your rater for your OPR is a squadron commander (or equivalent) since this is the lowest level where, under the current system, you'd receive a stratification. Squadron Commanders usually don't move more than every two years. There could be some situations where maybe you PCS to a base right before the current commander leaves, but if that's the case, then you'd just wait to get an OPR until the following year, which simply means you'd end up having an OPR that covers a few extra moths instead of the ideal 12 months (even under a dynamic closeout, OPRs often don’t cover 12 months). With static closeouts I’d still have at least a 120 day minimum observation period for a rater to rate ratees.
Worst case scenario, an OPR covers 16 months, but that should ultimately lead to a better OPR since there should be more accomplishments to discuss (assuming a new process retains bullets or some type of narrative). Plus, having a longer OPR period wouldn't negate periodic feedback, which is supposed to be the foundation of the officer evaluation system.
To me, the biggest benefit to static closeout is that it gives raters a much better sight picture on how they want to rate all their ratees of the same rank against each other.
Static closeout dates work for EPRs because they're meant to be the technical experts, which means they don't move around as much or change jobs as frequently as officers do. I agree with Doug and David that dynamic is the best fit because of how much breadth and diversity of experience officers are expected to get. Plus, static closeouts would wreak havoc on OPRs during promotion windows. Promotees would either be weakened by carryover bullets from their lower rank or would end up unfairly strengthened from a work window encompassing more than 21 months.
I concur with dynamic closeout dates. Lots of reasons presented above, all valid. We shouldn't build a system that penalizes any individual for something they cant control. Greater accountability on raters for seeing that these get done was mentioned previously and I agree with, however, I don't believe we need a new system for this. This is more of a leadership problem, and should be addressed as such.
Dynamic Closeouts are a must. This is because too many AFSC's have too many different distenct challenges. The only way a Static would work is to re-write the AFI and make it look like the E's where they only need to have a rater for 1 day versus 120 days of supervision now. if you were to make them one day, the feed back we have been talking about would be worthless even more than it is already. Secondly, a lot of officers move thorough positions at a quick rate to gain experience. I.e. The CRO. The positions matter a lot depending on AFSC. Flyers have a lot more job's on their surfs than non flyers. Unless you plan on addressing that specifically, a static would not work. While Static works well for E's, and even that can be argued with the new roll out but we would digress. You can't static O's that are in constant training for years, i.e. Pilot's, CSO's, ABM, CCT, PJ etc.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStatic closeout dates are great in preventing playing the strat game however they do not help with short notice PCSs and short notice changes in supervisors. Right now with annual evaluations we still run into these problems. I believe in a dynamic closeout, if we're working towards removing strats or making sure supervisors cannot game the system with their strats, dynamic closeouts allowing for at least a minimum days of supervision make sure that a supervisor has the time to get to know their ratee and give them a good assessment
ReplyDeleteI agree with Doug that Dynamic closeouts are a must. With the new system we are proposing it would be ineffective to objectively rate an individual on one day of performance and weigh that the same as an individual with 365 days of performance. We change jobs to often at random times for a variety of reasons (training, education, PCA, green door selection, etc.) to try and standardize a static closeout that wouldn't cause numerous officers to end up with OPRs that cover less than 10 days of supervision.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim the a static closeout would assist with the stratification game. Watching the enlisted folks go to a static closeout date was a bit painful. Once they got past the initial cycle, it wasn't that bad in the end. A static approach would work to mitigate a lot of the problems with stratification game.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the direction the OES takes. If things stay similar to the way they are now, with only minor changes, then I'm a fan of static closeouts. This would certainly go a long way to forcing accurate representation of where officers stand and remove opportunities for people to game the system. With the static closeout, the feedbacks could be required within certain timeframes, not necessarily required all on the same day. Something like a two week window 2-3 times a year with an accountability mechanism would still give raters flexibility and time to do thorough feedback, but give more structure and accountability to the process.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the OES goes to a forced distribution system with rater profiles (like the other services) the static dates are much less useful. The dynamic closeouts would work fine in this system as long as there is still some rater accountability mechanism
Let's assume that under a traditional organizational structure, your rater for your OPR is a squadron commander (or equivalent) since this is the lowest level where, under the current system, you'd receive a stratification. Squadron Commanders usually don't move more than every two years. There could be some situations where maybe you PCS to a base right before the current commander leaves, but if that's the case, then you'd just wait to get an OPR until the following year, which simply means you'd end up having an OPR that covers a few extra moths instead of the ideal 12 months (even under a dynamic closeout, OPRs often don’t cover 12 months). With static closeouts I’d still have at least a 120 day minimum observation period for a rater to rate ratees.
ReplyDeleteWorst case scenario, an OPR covers 16 months, but that should ultimately lead to a better OPR since there should be more accomplishments to discuss (assuming a new process retains bullets or some type of narrative). Plus, having a longer OPR period wouldn't negate periodic feedback, which is supposed to be the foundation of the officer evaluation system.
To me, the biggest benefit to static closeout is that it gives raters a much better sight picture on how they want to rate all their ratees of the same rank against each other.
Static closeout dates work for EPRs because they're meant to be the technical experts, which means they don't move around as much or change jobs as frequently as officers do. I agree with Doug and David that dynamic is the best fit because of how much breadth and diversity of experience officers are expected to get. Plus, static closeouts would wreak havoc on OPRs during promotion windows. Promotees would either be weakened by carryover bullets from their lower rank or would end up unfairly strengthened from a work window encompassing more than 21 months.
ReplyDeleteI concur with dynamic closeout dates. Lots of reasons presented above, all valid. We shouldn't build a system that penalizes any individual for something they cant control. Greater accountability on raters for seeing that these get done was mentioned previously and I agree with, however, I don't believe we need a new system for this. This is more of a leadership problem, and should be addressed as such.
ReplyDelete