Editorial: Raters need guidance

[CommunityEditor]

For 20 years, the Air Force has struggled with inflated enlisted performance reviews.

Leaders revised the job evaluation form twice, completely overhauling it in 1989 and then tweaking it in 2007. The bloated scores shrank a little both times, then crept back up.

Now, there’s a different tact by the service’s top enlisted airman: Hold the raters accountable.

Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James Roy told senior noncommissioned officers at the recent Air Force Association conference not to look to him to fix EPRs because he’s not going to — they are.

The answer isn’t another new grading sheet or an edict from on high, Roy said. It’s honest assessments. No more “firewall 5s,” the maximum score, unless an airman is truly among the best.

“You’ve got to make that hard call,” Roy told his audience.

Roy is right to hold raters accountable.

Raters are largely responsible for inflated EPRs; overly generous evaluations have become so common that many simply have lost sight of what truly is exceptional performance. That not only inflates the ratings of those not working to top standards, it dilutes the achievements of those who are.

Raters indeed can reform EPRs on their own. No more Mr. Nice Guy: When airmen don’t merit 5s, the raters need to mark them down to what they have earned.

Good leaders make tough choices, but good leaders also give direction and provide feedback.

Roy would help raters immensely if he saw to it that raters had much more specific guidance on performance standards. It would also help raters to have an online forum — similar to one for the Air Force’s mentoring program — where squadron commanders and senior NCOs could discuss their EPR challenges. The training that raters receive for that role is a start, but they need clear guidance and understanding of performance standards.

[DAG48]

If we want to make EPR's honest assessments of performance then we must do the following.

1. An individual's EPR needs to be taken out of the Promotion Equation, but should be used for determining retention of airmen, or adding good time to an individual's enlistment contract should they fail meeting retention standards for a specific period of time. All failure to meet retention standards Evaluations would be reviewed from outside that indiviuals Chain of Command.

2. Those who write EPRs should be periodically evaluated by an EPR Standardization and Evaluation Team, or EPRSET for short, from outside their base and chain of command.

3. Evaluators will have their EPRs based upon what was found during their EPRSET.

4. EPRSETs will determine who can continue to write EPRs. Failure to appropriately write EPRs would be a failure for retention.

5. This would apply to the Officer Ranks as well.

Sounds strange, but this is how the USAF managed to correct and standardize it's flight/maintenance errors, and safety problems from base to base, and wing to wing. It's how the Modern USAF came to be.

[CrustySMSgt]

Originally Posted by DAG48

If we want to make EPR's honest assessments of performance then we must do the following.

1. An individual's EPR needs to be taken out of the Promotion Equation, but should be used for determining retention of airmen, or adding good time to an individual's enlistment contract should they fail meeting retention standards for a specific period of time. All failure to meet retention standards Evaluations would be reviewed from outside that indiviuals Chain of Command.

Not that we haven't beaten this horse to death in numerous threads... but since you threw it out there, I have to counter... again, if you take PERFORMANCE out of the promotion equation, you're stuck with promoting people who may just test well or be book smart, but can't perform a task to save their life and can't lead if they were forced to.

And as far as using the EPR for retention, where do you draw the line? Do you retain "non-inflated" 3s... which should be "average"? Kick 2s to the curb? What EPR counts? Any of them during the enlsitment? The one on top? You've seen the arguments that a markdown is too severe, because it carries weight for 5 years... do you think if a low rating will prevent the Airman from being retained, supervisiors would be any less inclined to rate honestly than they are now?

I do htink you are on to something with some manner of holding people accountable for their ratings... just don't know what form that could take to be effective.

[Bael]

If this is going to happen, a "4" rating is going to have to stop ruining someone's chances of making E-8.

[CrustySMSgt]

Originally Posted by Bael

If this is going to happen, a "4" rating is going to have to stop ruining someone's chances of making E-8.

And their chances for getting a decoration.

I know it is a far leap in faith... and we'll probably never get there... the reality is, the top 3% all should be honestly rated firewall 5s... but that day will never come. So there has to be some wiggle room to allow for those who may have gotten a 4 further back, but accepted the honest rating and learned from it. I don't think a 4 on the last couple would make the cut... but if I saw a 4 3-4 years ago, and then 3-4 EPRs on top of that which demonstrated the message was received, I would be willing to give them a shot.

[imnohero]

I have 2 comments:
1) Crusty, you just said something that is the heart of the problem, a 4 is a "bad rating." 4 is NOT a bad rating, it's excels, promote ahead of peers. 3 is eligible for promotion. Until the perception of 4 and 3 as a bad rating that "needs to be overcome" is changed, inflation won't change. Same goes for the grades on the front, how is "excels" a bad rating?
2) Bael and Crusty, have an extremely valid point. If I don't have ALL firewall 5, I am "ineligible" for BTZ, awards, senior rater endorsements, quarterly awards, annual awards, etc. Not officially ineligible, because the AFIs for awards clearly state not to be any preconditions or grade requirements on awards, but "unofficially ineligible," as in the chiefs group won't back ANY award that isn't backed up by firewall 5. Even if the award if for a single achievement.

Which brings me to my point.

It is the CMSAF that is the leaders of ALL the chiefs in the AF, it IS he job to fix this, by telling the command chiefs to fix these 2 things. So I have a question for Chief Roy: Are you going to review the EPRs, unofficial policies, and leadership of your command chiefs and rate THEM accordingly, if inflation doesn't stop?

[swp]

By putting the problem of an inflated evaluation system soley on raters the CMSAF has passed the buck. While I do agree people need to rate their people accuratly, there is a problem with the entire chain of command, top to bottom. For example, in my Sq we are required to submit an MFR when we rate anyone less than a firewall 5. In my opinion, it should be reversed...we should have to explain a firewall 5. Even if a rater had to stand up in front of their rater and explain the ratings they gave, that would help. Then, the raters rater would know if their people are blowing smoke or not and could rate them accordingly, and so on. I mean what is the Additional Raters section for? In my experience the first line supervisor puts all the bullets in and the ad rater just signs the report.

[Eastwood]

Originally Posted by imnohero

It is the CMSAF that is the leaders of ALL the chiefs in the AF, it IS he job to fix this, by telling the command chiefs to fix these 2 things. So I have a question for Chief Roy: Are you going to review the EPRs, unofficial policies, and leadership of your command chiefs and rate THEM accordingly, if inflation doesn't stop?

You have made an excellent point!! I was really disappointed in his response, it's his job to draw the line and set the standard. Not what I would expect from a seasoned enlisted leader.

[CrustySMSgt]

Originally Posted by imnohero

I have 2 comments:
1) Crusty, you just said something that is the heart of the problem, a 4 is a "bad rating." 4 is NOT a bad rating, it's excels, promote ahead of peers. 3 is eligible for promotion. Until the perception of 4 and 3 as a bad rating that "needs to be overcome" is changed, inflation won't change. Same goes for the grades on the front, how is "excels" a bad rating?
2) Bael and Crusty, have an extremely valid point. If I don't have ALL firewall 5, I am "ineligible" for BTZ, awards, senior rater endorsements, quarterly awards, annual awards, etc. Not officially ineligible, because the AFIs for awards clearly state not to be any preconditions or grade requirements on awards, but "unofficially ineligible," as in the chiefs group won't back ANY award that isn't backed up by firewall 5. Even if the award if for a single achievement.

Which brings me to my point.

It is the CMSAF that is the leaders of ALL the chiefs in the AF, it IS he job to fix this, by telling the command chiefs to fix these 2 things. So I have a question for Chief Roy: Are you going to review the EPRs, unofficial policies, and leadership of your command chiefs and rate THEM accordingly, if inflation doesn't stop?

It has obviously been a few years since you looked at an EPR form... 4 is above average, as is the first markdown. EPRs now record performance, not promotion potential.

It is not a "bad rating" but it also isn't a 5. There are lots of Airmen out there who are deserving of 5s... why shouldn't it be something that isn't just given away? Why shouldn't they stand out when competing for promotion and BTZ?

I have no hope we'll ever be completely honest in rating people... but I do have faith that we can at least bring a bit of reason to how we rate and recognize our Airmen. I don't see the day where 3s are the norm, and we adjust fire from there. So here's what I use as my general guidelines:
-Obviouly a 1 or 2 are easy ratings... you've been to jail, court martialed, or got NJP and suck all the way
around.
- 3s are given to those who on a good day are "average." Or someone with single incident resulting in NJP, but overall are decent perfomers.
- 4s are given to those who do a "good" job. Or to those who do a good/great job when pushed, but lack internal motivation and need to be told what to do, instead of having the initiative to do it on their own. MSgts with no CCAF/PME by the time they are TIG eligible are very likely to get a 4.
-5s are for those who are well rounded and have actually checked out the "little brown book" and do their best to live up to the responsibilities contained there. You've got to be on top of your technical game in the work center, as well as leading your peers on and off duty. The higher the grade, the higher the expecations.

But there is no cookie cutter formula when it comes to people. Some people's strengths outweigh their weaknesses and place them in higher catagories... just as some people's weaknesses may overshadow the strengths they do have.

There are far too many Airmen busting their ass, only to have their accomplishments lost in the masses of aerage performers getting the same ratings.

[Bael]

Crusty, you make good points. Damn good. Initially, I disagreed very much with your position on the enlisted rating system, but I'm really starting to see your side of things. But it will only work if we can get a very significant majority of raters on board with this concept. That is a major challenge.