This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
a ^ ‘ • • not 4.0, but close. Knowing the CO was look fr^’ c°ncentrated on the grades and didn’t c>0Ce t0° closely at the write-up. (Anyway, somebody read him that the people in the Bureau never °Se write-ups. They only looked at the grades
erv°usly, Lieutenant (junior grade) Hal Adam- icer°n entere^ the office. He saw the commanding stack !eate^ behind his desk, flipping through the ■<p° htness reports in front of him. behjnj°^. morning, Skipper.” Hal closed the door
hind rnorning, Hal. I’m afraid we’re a little be- to „ e P°wer curve on the fit-reps this time. Have Voarsnem ‘n the mail tomorrow . . . Ah, here’s 0ver> j How about taking a seat and looking this you I &ave you a fine fit-rep, Hal. Let me know if ^ aye any questions.”
fit-relrst glance, Hal had to agree. It was a good ‘n p '
This student undergoing training at the Navy’s Test Pilot School is not the fictitious Lieutenant (j.g.) Hal Adamson you are about to meet. Hal wanted to be a test pilot so badly he could taste it, but it looked like an excellent fitness report was about to keep him from achieving this ambition—and perhaps drive him out of the Navy.
%
‘nBS / JUly 1981
67
and the ranking among peers.)
Hal saw he had been ranked number two out of seven jaygees. He felt certain that Wes Moore, the squadron schedules officer and the CO’s former copilot, was ranked number one. That knowledge bothered Hal somewhat. He thought his own job was more demanding but simply lacked the visibility of a job like Wes’s.
As he examined each grade, however, Hal was generally pleased with what he found. At least he was well above the pack. Then he spotted it: “Airmanship.” He didn’t have a 4.0 in airmanship. Hal couldn’t believe it. Without that 4.0, he felt his chances for test pilot school were slim. Hal’s expression registered his surprise and disappointment.
“Something wrong, Hal?” The CO’s voice startled him.
“Uh . . . no, sir . . . well, sir, I’m sort of curious . . . why was I marked down in airmanship?”
“What do you mean, ‘marked down?’ Hal, you’re only one grade away from a 4.0, and that’s hardly what I’d call being ‘marked down.’ You should be pleased with that grade. You know, Hal, airmanship is one area I’ve been particularly tough on. I don’t pass out a 4.0 to every rookie straight out of the RAG. That’s a grade you have to earn from me and, from what I’ve seen, you’re well on your way. Hal, you’ve been here less than two years. You’ll be a lieutenant soon, and when I write my detaching fitness reports six months from now, you should be in fine shape.”
“Yes, sir . . . well . . . thank you, Skipper. But,
I always thought my performance in the cockpit was my strongest point.” Hal didn’t feel comfortable pressing the CO, but he wanted an answer.
The CO’s face showed a sign of impatience. “Look, Hal, as I’ve already said, you’re a fine pilot, but I must have standards so I can measure everyone fairly. One of the standards I use is the time it takes a pilot to make plane commander. You took a little longer than usual, but in every other respect, you were fine. So ... I dropped you down a notch. But, as I said, you’ll have no trouble getting that grade up where it belongs.”
“Yes sir . . . but don’t you think there were some extenuating circumstances that caused me to take longer to make PC? After all, Skipper, during my last six months as line division officer, I didn’t have a chief or first class to help me. That pulled me out of the cockpit a lot. Also, I was the maintenance officer’s copilot, and you know how little he flew during the last cruise. Really, the only reason I didn’t make it on time was that I lacked the required hours. All the other qualifications were complete.” Hal won-
■ he
dered why he was making an issue of this since was sure the CO wouldn’t change the grade.
“Look at it this way, Hal. 4.0 means perfect. 0 were a little late making PC—not quite perfect. Cef tainly, I’m aware that circumstances weren t al'va^ on your side, but anybody can say that. I have to fair to others, Hal. Just give it your best shot now on and I know you’ll get that 4.0. Now, 4o P have any more questions?”
“No sir, I guess not.” Hal signed the fitnes* port, stood up, and handed it back to the COsorry I got so upset about the airmanship gra ’ Skipper . . . but, it means a lot to me. I’d like t0 to test pilot school after this tour.” ,
“TPS? 1 didn’t know that. Well . 'c "n" something badly enough, Hal, all you have work for it
. if you
to 15
. and you’ll make it. You’re an standing officer, Hal. It’s a pleasure to have y°u^ board. Just don’t get all worked up about that gra j I gave you a fine fitness report. You should be P
of it.”
“Yes, sir. Thank you, Skipper.” Hal turne' leave. j)ot
As he left the office, Hal thought about test P^ school. He wanted to go there so badly he could c . it. He wondered whether this fit-rep would kn^ him out of the competition, and whether the board would meet before his next fitness r_e” -s reached the Bureau. Hal had planned to subm1'^ letter of application in a month or two. He n0^ ried about the endorsement the CO would giv,e „ gf
a
d to
Hal liked the Navy. It was a good life, challenges and opportunities. It had always surp
him, but even his wife Jackie enjoyed Navy
life-
what if he didn’t make TPS? The world w°u
ldnc
\V»S
end—other things would come along. young, only 26. Who knows? If the Navy work out, maybe the airlines will be hiring agal(1^)fl The CO sat at his desk watching Hal Ad^1^ leave and wondered what had happened t0 0 u over the years. When he was a junior officer, n° argued with the CO over a grade on a fitness reP u In fact, you rarely saw your fitness reports un eSS[j0se
t0
does'11
In
went back to the Bureau and dug them out. days, you accepted what you got and straighten out any deficiencies you thought you ^ He also thought about Hal and test pilot sC j
3rornise
The young officer had shown great piu**— ^ would probably make a good test pilot. Tf|er£^_i|i,l- nothing to worry about, though; if Hal didn t TPS, he’d recover. He’s the kind of dedicated y° ^ officer who’ll be in the Navy for a long, long C1 ^0 The CO glanced at his watch. “Damn! Alm°s minutes behind schedule.”
answ r^e ak°ve typical? Unfortunately for many, the the er 1S ^CS’ Quite a ^ew problems are apparent in whichtUat'0n ^USt descr‘bed —some regarding events j-, , happened, but more regarding events which ^ ^ happen. What are they?
Supp e lr*terview lasted perhaps 15 minutes—hardly ^ \[Clent t0 rev*ew a year’s performance.
Hal’ atternPr was made to thoroughly examine strong and weak points, and no plan was de-
vH°ped
^ t0 help him overcome his deficiencies, pro/ °bviously played no part in the fitness report } -j.pSS Until the report was in its final form. aric| 0^C° bad no knowledge of Hal’s personal goals
SchooJ th,
'jectives. That Hal wanted to attend test pilot Was a complete surprise to him. Simply put,
me cn ,1 —1--- —1—
l doesn’t know his officers.
strajn ^enera^ atmosphere of the interview was con- specifj ' Hoth officers were hesitant to freely discuss ^ p|1CS ar*d rhe areas on which they disagreed, nggap "ness report and interview had an obvious, care *Ve ebbect on Hal’s morale and attitude toward a ^ p/'n tbe Navy.
ter^pt ^ USed Perf°rmance criteria which, in an at-
cerst0 be fair, he applied equally to all of his offi-
of fL Wlthout any consideration of the fact that each cnem '
mi
► Thademands-
Among authorities on management development, there is a widely held—and I believe accurate—view that unless each of us is willing to engage in what is often an agonizingly painful self-analysis, we will not develop any degree of self-awareness: “What am I really like? What are my weaknesses? What are my strengths?” Without this knowledge as a foundation, how can our self-development efforts bear fruit? And, without self-development, we will never even approach self-fulfillment. Certainly none of us will ever be totally self-fulfilled, but we should not cease striving toward that goal.
Very few of us, however, take the time to subject ourselves to the process just described. We tend to approach personal development in a rather haphazard manner, concentrating on short-term goals and only occasionally thinking of our long-range objectives. We make little attempt to see whether these goals
Perfi
is
°rmir
a unique individual, with unique needs,
set nc jm§ vastly different jobs, each with its own
■ ur den
the h/ ^ re^at*vely inexperienced pilot would expect
possible grade in airmanship reflects a anCe *“tn we all know: reported levels of perform- ► the °bten far above actual levels of performance. hisVls*bility” of an officer’s job, the nature of asub atera^ duties, or even his personality can have Ulti tant'al effect upon the commanding officer and indjvjj ^ distort the perceived performance of the
There
The fitness report should he prepared and signed by the officer’s immediate superior, i.e., normally his department head or executive officer. Since . . . an individual’s immediate superior knows him better than the commanding officer, this change should ensure the report more closely reflects the officer’s actual performance.
are other problems too, but I think at this addr»l--avin8 identified some of the areas which need
Point u
' H;
Jressin * •
Portia ir 's worthwhile to define the fitness re-
SNcifiej S^stem s purpose—not the purpose as the pUrln rbe governing instructions but, rather, tvith th/°Se aS Perce‘veH by the officers who work system and upon whom the system works.
p
aPprais / ldeal,y’ tbe f*tness report is a performance inform , t0°l- As such, its purpose is not only to
,r°tm
aHce i *§ber authority of an individual’s perform- derives1 a^S0 t0 inform the individual. From this the 0^p anotber, more important purpose: to provide a0d w‘rb an accurate inventory of his strengths effortsnesses, without which his self-development r,are Hkely to be ineffective. It is in this area
the
Current system fails—and fails miserably.
and objectives are complementary or contradictory. As a result, we rarely approach our full potential as human beings.
The Navy cannot develop its officers and enlisted personnel. It can train them, but training is applied externally. Development must always come from within; it must be self-development. The Navy, however, does have a threefold responsibility concerning personal development:
^ To create a climate within which self-development is desirable, because it is rewarded ^ To provide opportunities for self-development y To provide each individual with regular, accurate performance appraisals, so the need for selfdevelopment is recognized
With this in mind, then, I perceive the purpose of the officer fitness reporting system in the following terms:
Y To provide higher authority with performance in-
July 1981
69
obstacle
spite this, if asked to state the greatest
the continued success of their commands,
A commanding officer—or any manage^ ^ leader—is essentially a multiplier. He can do °n ^
present system (except under unusual circumsta^ the commanding officer is the designated reP yjc senior and therefore signs the fitness rep°rt if
formation for use by promotion and screening boards
► To assist higher authority with the task of officer assignment by providing information on an officer’s desires and suitability for particular types of duty
► To provide a cornerstone for each officer’s continuing personal development program
It is this third purpose which is most often forgotten and toward which this article is primarily addressed. The recommended solutions to the following problems are designed to improve the quality of performance appraisal, make each officer more aware of his actual performance, and provide him with the necessary tools for self-development.
Problems: The greatest problem with the fitness reporting system is that it is generally treated so casually. In most commands, an officer’s fitness report is forgotten for 11 months and sweated over for 1. It is usually regarded as a necessary evil (certainly evil, though not particularly necessary), which consumes a tremendous amount of precious time rather than the greatest management tool—and motivator— available to the commanding officer.
Fitness report interviews rarely last more than 30 minutes, perhaps 13 of which are spent discussing the specifics of the report. Little, if any, time is devoted to the preparation of a plan of action to enable officers to correct their deficiencies.
Does the blame lie with commanding officers? In part, yes. Officers should also blame themselves for
To expect the commanding officer to arrange this number of people into an accurate order of performance is ludicrous. It simply cannot be done; hut more importantly, it should not even be attempted, since such comparisons among individuals performing jobs are simply not valid.
not insisting upon a more thorough discussion. The real fault, however, lies with the system—a system which, by its very nature, encourages a minimum- effort approach to performance appraisal. Why does this attitude exist? Primarily because fitness reports are perceived as stand-alone items, not part of an ongoing process of performance appraisal and personal development. The most many officers can expect is a
brief annual performance review. The review concen trates on past performance with little or no emp11 on possible future performance. It is usually <J°n ducted after the report has been prepared in its form, leaving the officer no time to rectify deficiencies—hardly an effective motivator.
The present system includes no formalized Pr^ gram requiring frequent and regular coaching 0 officer by his reporting senior. It includes no sta^_ ardized method for the joint identification of Pc° lem areas by the officer and his superior. It *nC ^ no vehicle to aid in the development of a foll°w^ plan of action—in writing—with specific object for overcoming deficiencies. Finally, it includes consideration of the officer’s personal goals and o ) tives and the steps he must take to attain then1 ^
m°st
commanding officers will probably reply? ' Where will I get the good, qualified, ca . motivated people?” All other problems ou^jt. limitations, aging equipment, increased COIj1nljt. ments with decreased assets—while certainly 11 ing, can be significantly lessened by having che ,^s people, with the right attitudes and qualified1
doing the right things. 0f
,anagef
do only-------- --j I —- - — - . pv
much himself; most of what he accomplishes m ^ done through others. To a large extent, his per ^ ance is measured by the quality and quantity ^ ^ work performed by those under his command- ^ then, do commanding officers devote so little 0 ^
time to the performance appraisal and person velopment of their subordinates? Many will say -s simply do not have the time, but this argum unacceptable. They do not have the time £ they do not delegate. They do not delegate ij, they do not trust the competence of their su nates (or have not developed themselves enoug let go of the last job). And, they do not truSl^e competence of their subordinates, because they not spent the necessary time helping them u ^ At some point, the commanding officer must this cycle and make the time.
Who should prepare the fitness report.
• uifflse
may—or may not—have written the report y f0r
But because he signs it and is totally respons1
its content, he will normally—when requ ^ ^
conduct the review with each officer repofte ^Ot
The review, therefore, is conducted by a person
70
Proceedings
1991
*n an aviation squadron. One is the
>adr
S'°n Schedules officer and the other, line divi- otfic
tiv,
'■Cly i^r i J ^ ^ ^
c°ntinuferent? It is essentially impossible, yet we ^ik,. ,C [fie attempt. In larger commands, it is not encounter 10 or 15 officers of the same
Wjt^a^ cases, is not the individual most familiar Tl^ 6 °®cer or his performance, by t^e fitness report should be prepared and signed de a6 0^*Cer's immediate superior, i.e., normally his fiCUirtment or executive officer. Since it is dif- know t0 .^en^ tfiat an individual’s immediate superior cl Ws fi'm better than the commanding officer, this nSe should ensure the report more closely reflects strarilcers actual performance. It seems rather per^e tfi‘tt while we hold officers responsible for the themrrnanCe tfi°se wotting for them, we deny forma resPons‘fi'fity for reporting on that per- i^jy k Ce' i-inder today’s system, a department head tough ^,as^ce<^ fiy his commanding officer to prepare a nient fitness report on an officer in his depart- t0 jjj' department head, however, is not likely since T t^le ^etads of bis draft with his subordinate may ^ e executive officer and commanding officer diScu ■ secluently make substantial changes. Such a adve n COU*d place the department head in an off] y position with respect to the commanding at ^east in the eyes of the subordinate. haye tfie designated reporting senior would
the I 6 e^ect °fi getting decision-making closer to ^vide ■at w^'c^ the work is performed. It would for lncreased job enrichment and responsibility Which ~^ra<^e officers as well as valuable experience Most rnany d° n°t obtain until later in their careers. acCump0rtantly, however, it should increase the by ^ °f fitness reports since they will be prepared of e wd° are most familiar with the performance
>l,2il,dual °?“r- I am not suggesting we fitnessetely rernove the commanding officer from the tionai report process. On the contrary, his tradi- all re necessary role as the person with the overtime b nsioility for the operation of his command *ty te Maintained. He should still have the author- frovid(.revlew each fitness report and be required to \^e a fi°rmal endorsement, form, standard should be used to measure per- Ser*ior ltle Present system requires the reporting °f therate eacb officer in comparison with others sh°uidSaMe grade. If true objectivity is our goal, it ^rpfQj e aPparent that this practice is highly coun-
. fionsid ,
foiatenaer case °f two officers, each a junior
. ,Cer. How can a commanding officer objec- ^Mpare the performance of these two people Mete]y d.r^ature and scope of their jobs are so continue
t0
rank. To expect the commanding officer to arrange this number of people into an accurate order of performance is ludicrous. It simply cannot be done; but more importantly, it should not even be attempted, since such comparisons among individuals performing different jobs are simply not valid. Additionally, an officer rated in this manner cannot help but recognize the inherent unfairness of the system. Constantly compared with others, he feels—and rightly so—that he is not being judged strictly on the basis of his own performance. Also, the competition introduced is not always of the healthy variety. Each of us
We must begin to consider performance appraisal and personal development as areas which cannot be separated. We must remind officers that they have a strong responsibility for encouraging the self-development of those working for them.
can certainly recall officers who, in an attempt to improve their relative position, have sacrificed the common goal of the organization.
What, then, is the solution? Quite simply, people should be measured against the job, not against other people. The responsibilities of each job and collateral duty should be thoroughly described. Objective and measurable goals should be developed for each area of responsibility. These goals should be put in order of priority and factors of accountability established. This entire process should be done by the reporting senior together with his subordinate, so the subordinate knows from the start what is expected of him. The officer can then be measured by comparing his performance with the specific requirements of the job, rather than comparing him with another officer doing completely different work.
This would go a long way toward eliminating much of the subjectivity which creeps into the performance evaluation process. Freed of the requirement to compare people with each other, the reporting senior can now concentrate on the most important aspect of an officer’s performance: how well he accomplishes his job. The “visibility” of a particular job also becomes less of a factor since each person is measured objectively against established standards.
How should an individual’s performance be rated? The present fitness report has far too many levels of performance at which to rate an officer. This has re-
l8s/ juiy lg81
71
suited in a form of “grade creep” whereby, for the most part, only the top three or four levels are used. In light of the previous discussion on rating an officer against his job, I suggest that only the following performance levels be used:
k Weak: the officer is performing at a level less than 1 have a reasonable right to expect.
► Satisfactory: the officer is performing at a level which I have a reasonable right to expect.
^ Outstanding: the officer is performing at a level greater than I have a reasonable right to expect.
Where this method has been used in the private sector, it has effectively solved the “grade creep” problem. With only three levels, the highest tends to be used rather sparingly—only when truly outstanding performance has been observed. It also allows the reporting senior to take experience into account. For example, assume a department head has two lieutenants working for him, one newly promoted and the other with eight years of total service. If they are performing equally well, the department head could be justified in rating the less experienced officer “outstanding” and the more experienced “satisfactory.” The former may be performing at a level which is more than his superior has a reasonable right to expect, given his limited experience. Because of his greater experience, more can be expected of the second officer. Since he is performing what is expected of him, but nothing more, he is rated “satisfactory.”
How should the performance review be conducted? This is the most important part of the entire fitness report process. Reviews should be conducted frequently and at regular intervals—preferably once each quarter but at least semiannually. The officer and his superior should come prepared to discuss the specifics of the officer’s performance so that remedial action can be prescribed. Short-range goals and long-range objectives—both personal and job- related—should be put into writing, as should the specific steps necessary to accomplish them. If handled properly, these reviews can have a substantial motivational effect. They show the officer that his boss has a sincere interest in him as an individual. They also give the reporting senior a tremendous amount of insight into his people and he will begin to see them as unique human beings requiring different treatment. He can show them that by^ improving their performance they will be more likely to attain the personal goals they have set for themselves.
Summary. No performance appraisal system is perfect, but this should not preclude attempts to improve a system now in use. The suggestions set forth
in this article are based upon personal experience the Navy and an examination of a number of mb successful systems now being used in private try. Keep in mind, however, that the technical pects of these systems did not make them success ^ rather, it was the attitude of the people using systems. To some, the recommendations I have ni* may seem radical. If by “radical” they mean a s'Sn^ icant change from the present system, then t^ie^ry correct. I believe that significant change is neCf 0[1.
if we want to both improve officer retention an
■ • . u • • fhe Navy-
tinue to motivate those who remain in cue
This change must begin with a change in att*tUe!(.
Certain things can be effectively accomplished 1
ecutive order from higher authority, but others
only be encouraged.
We must begin to consider performance apP ‘ and personal development as areas which canno^ ^ separated. We must remind officers that they strong responsibility for encouraging the
induS'
as-
development of those working for them.
We
have*
if'
inns'
:vefl'
sei
t < r(J'
start thinking of performance appraisal as a P tive maintenance system” for people. No manual, however, will be developed, because ^ person is unique. Officers, therefore, must their people and know them well. They must re
of
le aC’
that only by knowing the personal goals working for them, and helping these Pe0P' complish their goals, can they hope to erie
motivate them.
have
jit
When our subordinates recognize that we - t active and sincere interest in their self-deveiop
and are willing to spend the time necessary
them achieve their goals, they will respon
to
helf
d ace°r'
do
baJ
ingly. Remember, people do not like to ^j| work, but they do bad work. Why? Because "■ to communicate effectively; we fail to re-cogt112^^^ unique potential of every individual; we treat all alike when they are not alike; and f>ecaLl^tS of treat fitness reports and evaluations as instrum pain rather than the fantastic tools they are
Lieutenant Commander McCarthy was hr .
from the Naval Academy in 1967 and ‘fSjjCl)pt£f a naval aviator in 1968. He served in hi*
Antisubmarine Squadron 4, then recel gpneO1 M.S. degree in computer systems Hi
from the Naval Postgraduate School in ^ thc was an instructor in computer science-jp?)
i r lit TICC n Lli/Mja W*
Naval Academy before a tour on board the USS Okindul> as assistant air officer and air officer. He resigned n° g, service in 1978 and joined John J. McCarthy & ^SS°jng ^ Chatham, Massachusetts, management and sales tr,un^ consulting firm, as vice president. He is active in c Reserve with NR-NAS Brunswick 4291, which drills •
Air Station South Weymouth, Massachusetts.
72
Proceedings
/ juiv
181