For years now, we have lived with and complained about inflated Enlisted Performance Reports that plague our rating system. It has been addressed as a failure of the rater to make the “tough call.” The finger is continually pointed at those first-line supervisors for lack of fortitude in being reluctant to provide markdowns or reduced ratings. Raters are seen as the culprits and the entity that needs to right this wrong.
I have to say, sorry, but I beg to differ. We, as leaders, own responsibility for the current state of our rating system. Leadership allowed ratings to get inflated; and through our reluctance to change perceptions have become a barrier to fixing the issue.
Raters have been conditioned by the feedback provided by leaders through the years, either verbally or implied. The onus is on leaders to have the philosophical change in how we view reports and to communicate that to the raters. Leaders have to be the ones to start making the “tough call,” and begin to accept that a markdown does not degrade the overall rating. A “4” EPR is “Above Average” and does not imply the Airman is a slug with problems.
Please don’t misread my message, I believe wholeheartedly in “Excellence in All We Do” as the goal and standard. In an organization with America’s finest, most dedicated and highly skilled men and women the rating system we should have, being labeled above average would still be pretty good and would warrant merit and not condemnation by one’s superiors. I’m not advocating for a lessening of standards, only realistic ratings and perceptions based on those ratings.
Why is a “firewall 5” EPR viewed so drastically different from a “5” EPR with a markdown? Are they not both “Truly Among the Best?” Why the enormous and impacting disparity? Leaders have escalated the negativity associated with markdowns to the point that a markdown overshadows the actual overall rating. Raters wouldn’t be so hesitant to markdown Airmen if leaders accepted and focused more on the overall rating.
Why do we disapprove or request letters of justification for decorations on Airmen with consistent ratings of “5” on EPRs, but with markdowns? Aren’t the “5/Truly Among the Best” ratings not justification for rewarding their performance? Again, what message have we relayed to our raters when a markdown is interpreted so dramatically unworthy as to negate recognizing three or four years of admirable performance with a medal?
Not too long ago I sat in a mentoring session where the briefer stated that “paperwork” should be on record in order to give an Airman a “4” EPR. Let’s examine that potential scenario:
“Airman Snuffy, have a seat. I’ve been observing your duty performance of late and I have noticed it has consistently been above average, this is unacceptable.
You have disgraced the unit and yourself. Here is your letter of counseling.
If your level of performance does not improve you can expect the next time we discuss this matter I will be presenting you with a letter of reprimand.” Really? Leaders cannot continue to spread the message that a “4/Above Average” EPR is simply substandard behavior or performance.
Raters have reacted to the message we deliver. We as leaders have to change our perception and begin to communicate a new message if we expect the rating system to improve and deflate. Our rating system needs an overhaul. But, it’s not a new performance reporting form that is the answer. Change lies with leadership. We need reality back in our system and to correct our perception of the meaning of average, above average and truly among the best. Trust and communication is key.
Twitter
Facebook
For years now, we have lived with and complained about inflated Enlisted Performance Reports that plague our rating system. It has been addressed as a failure of the rater to make the “tough call.” The finger is continually pointed at those first-line supervisors for lack of fortitude in being reluctant to provide markdowns or reduced ratings. Raters are seen as the culprits and the entity that needs to right this wrong.
I have to say, sorry, but I beg to differ. We, as leaders, own responsibility for the current state of our rating system. Leadership allowed ratings to get inflated; and through our reluctance to change perceptions have become a barrier to fixing the issue.
Raters have been conditioned by the feedback provided by leaders through the years, either verbally or implied. The onus is on leaders to have the philosophical change in how we view reports and to communicate that to the raters. Leaders have to be the ones to start making the “tough call,” and begin to accept that a markdown does not degrade the overall rating. A “4” EPR is “Above Average” and does not imply the Airman is a slug with problems.
Please don’t misread my message, I believe wholeheartedly in “Excellence in All We Do” as the goal and standard. In an organization with America’s finest, most dedicated and highly skilled men and women the rating system we should have, being labeled above average would still be pretty good and would warrant merit and not condemnation by one’s superiors. I’m not advocating for a lessening of standards, only realistic ratings and perceptions based on those ratings.
Why is a “firewall 5” EPR viewed so drastically different from a “5” EPR with a markdown? Are they not both “Truly Among the Best?” Why the enormous and impacting disparity? Leaders have escalated the negativity associated with markdowns to the point that a markdown overshadows the actual overall rating. Raters wouldn’t be so hesitant to markdown Airmen if leaders accepted and focused more on the overall rating.
Why do we disapprove or request letters of justification for decorations on Airmen with consistent ratings of “5” on EPRs, but with markdowns? Aren’t the “5/Truly Among the Best” ratings not justification for rewarding their performance? Again, what message have we relayed to our raters when a markdown is interpreted so dramatically unworthy as to negate recognizing three or four years of admirable performance with a medal?
Not too long ago I sat in a mentoring session where the briefer stated that “paperwork” should be on record in order to give an Airman a “4” EPR. Let’s examine that potential scenario:
“Airman Snuffy, have a seat. I’ve been observing your duty performance of late and I have noticed it has consistently been above average, this is unacceptable.
You have disgraced the unit and yourself. Here is your letter of counseling.
If your level of performance does not improve you can expect the next time we discuss this matter I will be presenting you with a letter of reprimand.” Really? Leaders cannot continue to spread the message that a “4/Above Average” EPR is simply substandard behavior or performance.
Raters have reacted to the message we deliver. We as leaders have to change our perception and begin to communicate a new message if we expect the rating system to improve and deflate. Our rating system needs an overhaul. But, it’s not a new performance reporting form that is the answer. Change lies with leadership. We need reality back in our system and to correct our perception of the meaning of average, above average and truly among the best. Trust and communication is key.