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.
The
(pg<j CUrrent Marine Corps performance evaluation system I957 t served the Corps in essentially its current form since l9gj' The few changes, including the most recent update in have' Were evolutionary. During this time, our sister services As made several major, often disruptive changes to their PESs. f°rev°0^ aS our system has been, it cannot be expected to last beet, C,r'. fortunately, the groundwork for a new PES has already Ev, aid by the 1984 recommendations of the Performance Jat'on Task Force.
ab0er ^e past several years, there has been increasing concern p01 well the current PES can continue to serve the Marine Itrj I s needs. This feedback comes from studies at Headquar- ti0n’ U\s- Marine Corps (HQMC), articles in military publica- an(jS’ d*Scussions at professional military education institutions, fromany “happy hour” forums. Some of the concerns collected 7,, lbese sources follow.
t0oi e Selecti°n Board Dilemma: If fitness reports are the main Se'ection boards use for making promotion decisions, are CUrrent inflated reports useful? Table 1 illustrates the di
lemma facing current selection boards.
Unofficial Discriminators: Selection boards must produce a selection list. If reports are so much alike because inflation has pushed nearly all marks into the outstanding range, boards must “read between the lines” and use “unofficial discriminators that are not part of the PES. The latter can include jobs held, time in one’s military occupational specialty, reputation of reporting seniors or reviewing officers, type of duty stations requested on fitness reports, tours away from the Marine Corps, and board members’ personal knowledge of officers being considered for selection. In a small service like the Marine Corps, some of these factors should indeed be considered. But when they become the paramount discriminators because inflated marks rob the official system of its discrimination, much of the fairness that should characterize the PES is compromised.
High Above-zone Selection Rates: In 1982-1986, there was a significant rise in above-zone selection rates. This could be interpreted to mean that inflation so homogenized the records of inzone promotion candidates that each board made some bad calls.
| Table 1 1982 Marine Corps Promotions | ||
| % Marked | % Marked |
|
| Outstanding | In Top 2 Block | % In Zone |
| In Reg | Of Gen Value | Selected For |
| Duties | To Svc | Promotion |
Capt | 84% | 90% | Capt to Maj—72% |
Maj | 91% | 94% | Maj to LtCol—62% |
LtCol | 92% | 95% | LtCol to Col—52% |
Col | 94% | 93% | Col to BGen—10% |
► An attempt to avoid or mitigate______ „
situations: A reporting senior knows that the Marine repu
the
below
seniors will adhere to the new, stricter marking gt111 _
others will not trust the system or their fellow reporting
. ... . ... . . o.wtinn .
:niofS
evaluaK'
usually cannot discriminate, and thus the individuals
fid-
Marines above the grade of corporal have a personal sta c fitness report system. Many Marines would be uncom ^ with an unknown commodity. Yet there are severalte bu* ments in favor of a new PES, which must not only work ^
must be perceived as fair and effective by the Marine- ^ evaluated. Our junior- and middle-grade officers are f0r a in our current PES; morale is being hurt. The timing i
and then lieutenant colonel will have served in the Marme totally during the inflationary era. From second they will have consistently received outstanding marks ofy ings. Our current system may not have enough discrim ^
power left to keep the selection board presidents from m sj.
up their hands, claiming that their mission has become i " ble to complete. ne\V
If the decision were made to implement a revolutionary js PES, a recommended system that could solve these proh ^ 0f available. This proposed new PES stems from a long se' ^ 0f research and study efforts. In late 1982, the Deputy c ' Staff for Manpower formed a study group at HQMC t0 ,aneariy PES problems. Its findings and recommendations led m
As a result, some truly deserving officers are passed over. The next year's selection board, using its new set of unofficial discriminators, determines that a significant number of deserving officers were passed over. This board “corrects” the oversight of the previous board by selecting these passed-over officers. This causes the in-zone selection percentage to go down, and the problem becomes self-perpetuating.
“Zero-defects” Mentality: If Marine officers and staff noncommissioned officers (NCOs) perceive that PES inflation is so high that one bad fitness report could seriously damage their chances for augmentation, promotion, selection to warrant officer, or good assignments, major harm will result. There is an increasing perception that, owing to inflation, selection boards are looking for reasons not to select individuals. This encourages individuals to become so concerned about making mistakes and receiving poor marks that they become reluctant to try bold, innovative approaches. A “zero defects” mentality kills aggressiveness and breeds out of our leaders those very traits they need to be successful in combat.
Careerism: From the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) down through the chain of command, the insidious invasion of careerism into the Marine Corps has been decried. Careerism is usually attributed to those who are overly concerned with their own fitness report markings, the jobs they get, or their relationships with their reporting seniors. Current realities fuel perceptions that if a Reserve lieutenant has one bad fitness report, he will not be augmented; or if a captain does not have a consistently strong record, he will not be selected for major. Today, anyone who wants to make the Marine Corps a career must be concerned about fitness reports and duty assignments. Do we need to change the type of outstanding young officers and NCOs we are acquiring today, or change the system that fosters such perceptions and concerns?
The element common to all of these problems is PES inflation. Some causes of inflation are:
- A reporting senior’s often mutually exclusive roles as evaluator and motivator: A commander has a vested interest in seeing that his officers work hard for him and get along well with their peers. By marking officers less than outstanding or ranking some officers below their peers, the commanding officer (CO) runs the risk of degrading teamwork.
- Distrust or lack of confidence in the system: Many reporting seniors start with the question, “Do I want this Marine promoted?” Then they write the report to support their answer.
- The up-or-out promotion system: Reporting seniors know how painful it is if an officer is not promoted or a staff NCO is not reenlisted, so they will inflate their fitness reports.
- The competitive and infationary spiral: Reporting seniors want to take care of their own, and thus mark higher to keep pace with the perceived higher (inflated) marks of the other reporting seniors.
uncomfortable intnf^e$ 0n
can see his report in short order. If the marks are L"',“ onal expectations of the evaluated Marine, an uncomfortable p relationship could develop. riodV:
► Institutional and individual feelings of Marine sup ^ Marines believe that solely by virtue of being Marines “outstanding”—and should be evaluated accordingly- ^ Does anything more need to be done about inflation. ^ the current PES had a facelift in 1985 and many very vv°v-ceable improvements were made; and it has several more se ^ ,0 years. But another answer is to develop a new, differen restore realism to personnel management. imp°r'
If the PES is indeed changed, two considerations are^ ^e|. tant. First, for a lasting remedy, a new mindset has to oped by reporting officials. A completely new systenJnaC|e to establish a fresh environment. Second, if attempts are ^jog control inflation within the current system, individua jng reported on will be invariably and unfairly hurt. S°me bul and will not comply with the new guidance. Selection by the reporting senior who complies are unjustly
- ff a >ot ol
Making a revolutionary change in the PES require- ^
thought and justification. Adopting a new PES would aH
Marine Corps a significant amount of organizational tra ^
fortai
new system. j( ,yill
Once a decision is made for a revolutionary new Pt- ^n0thor take at least two years to implement it. And it will take ^jf, two years to build up enough new fitness reports to have a ,o icant impact on the selection process. So the time to o ^ change a PES is while the old system is still working- bJ ^0(11 a until the old system goes bankrupt, you cannot beneh ^lCes new system for at least four years. One of our sister learned this painful, traumatic lesson the hard way. The Corps must avoid this “education.” viari,’eS
The recent requirement to place in numerical order all ^ marked outstanding in “general value to the service ef, some measure of discrimination to the current PES. H some consider such rankings to be ineffective because di - ^ individuals doing dissimilar jobs are being compared W1.. jyS- other. Further, others believe that such rankings are actua functional, because such direct and personal competiti°n mines an organization’s harmony and teamwork. ^jof
In the near future, officers competing for selection to ^
on-
signed duties'^? S^°rt narrative on how he performed his as- superj,
’ asses;
( -darine
d'rect j
"IflCer _ - — ...ip uuiv^i, III,, n.pui 11115 ^mui . 1 111.1
'be Mari CSSCS Marine's potential for future contributions to
quality for each evaluated Marine.
1983
Group wJI1C|/°rrnat'0n op a Performance Evaluation Action mand and ? ff?, comPosed primarily of Marine Corps Com- tirne for m3 V° ^e®e indents who worked on the project full- new i?e t ,lan Pour months. Their recommendation for a ti°n Task F ° Pormation °f a full-time Performance Evalua- 1983. This t??? tlle Manpower Department, starting in July CePt and dev ^ °rCe W3S bartered to review the new PES con- and endorsed ? 3 C0Urse <d action. After its work was analyzed thorities in th ^ °ne °* fading performance evaluation au- f°rwarded tnrSn1^’ t^lc task force’s recommendations were l'°nswerean Vn l^C sPr'n8 of 1984. Many recommenda- ‘f'eations. HPproved and formed the basis for the 1985 PES mod- l°r a new PE??^ ^ WaS dec'ded that the time was not right c°me to rpvi ’ ecause °f the continuing concerns, the time has
The task f6W a®a’n task force’s new concepts. ‘h^urrentPF^adV°f3ted a new PES that is designed to solve behavior tak ^Pr°blems, take into account predictable human SuPport the w advantage of modem data systems support, and ^ar>nes are 3036 ^orps' centralized promotion concept. If there is nothiPr°m0ted through a Process centralized at HQMC, Pr°Per sune -? more important in “taking care of our own” than A fair proni ,1S1°n <d l^e decentralized writing of fitness reports. |° CMc gu'^ '? Process demands that reporting seniors adhere iaformatin..1 .e lnes and provide consistent, accurate, and useful
Figure?- selection boards.
lights of th 1S 3 ?Py dlc proposed fitness report form. High-
In the nre 3S^ Porce s recommendations follow. reP°rting ?p?sed FES, the responsibilities of the officers in the rePorting off3'" Wou*d be significantly realigned. A Marine’s evaluates !CCr Vvould be his immediate officer supervisor, who Filing jn a°nhy lbe demonstrated performance of the Marine by F) and wrV ec*c"the-block section (similar to the current section
Igc rpL ‘
[SUD . ‘ ine second officer in the reporting chain is the °fficer as?'°r <d t*1e reporting officer, the reporting senior. This
'gainst all ^0rpS’ by ranking him on a comparative scale Sen‘°r has °dlCr Marines of the same grade that the reporting bpe’s ever known) and by writing a narrative on the Ma-
TheP tential-
0fficer i?°F'ng chain is modified slightly when the reporting hveen the3 'C*d grade officer. In these cases, the distance be- often so CV;duated Marine and the officer two levels senior is rep°rtin,?Cat *^at d precludes a valid detailed evaluation by the bothpel senl°r. Consequently, the reporting officer evaluates reviewin?rniance and Potent'al, and the reporting senior acts as a It is estj g 0rficer, much as the reviewing officer functions today. Original?1160* t'lat op ad fitness reports would be written as Mother yfdescribed—one officer evaluating performance and
Suclj °‘ficer assessing potential.
^ The r3 reP°rting chain has several advantages: rate inp eP°rting officers are in the best position to provide accu- 1 At | °rrnation on the performance and potential of a Marine. Piake s- St- tW° °fficers in the reporting chain are required to fe\v rev-niflcant contributions to the evaluation process. Very ^ The '?ng officers provide any input under today’s system. 3ssigns ,tlCer evaluating performance will be the officer who ^ Wh tasps and directly observes the Marine’s performance. Parativ? Peasible, the officer who evaluates potential and comates o ,.teaking will be one level senior to the officer who evalu- Vj "ormance. This senior officer would have a more mature •he j ’ 'be Marine Corps and would be removed from much of viSoratl°nary pressure that affects the immediate officer super- h fhe evaluated Marine.
Pects oCtl°n boards can easily focus on these two different as- ► The workload of evaluating Marines is spread more evenly among the officer corps.
A second task force initiative is to revamp the form itself. The new fitness report is easier to complete, and only information that is truly needed to support the PES is solicited.
Block 8 of section A is dedicated to describing the Marine’s assigned duties. There is ample space for the fuli billet title and a narrative description of the duties. Because of the small space available on the current form, undecipherable abbreviations are often devised. As a result, selection boards do not know what the Marine’s assigned job is. The problem is exacerbated when sec-
Figure 2 Section B: Performance Anchored Rating Scale
16a. Accomplishment of Duties
FR I 1AR I I ER 1 |FER
16a. Accomplishment of duties: Consider the Marine’s accomplishment of all duties, specified and implied, on a continuing basis. Evaluated in terms of Regular, addi
tional, collateral, and administrative duties.
Fails Requirements (FR)
Does not readily understand and scope of duties. Work output is of poor quality and usually late. Is unable to cope with unplanned situations and is one-dimensional in approach to problems. Does not fully use resources and fails to comprehend relationship of assigned duties to organizational goals. Needs constant guidance to stay on track.
Achieves Requirements (AR)
Readily grasps essence of assigned duties and produces output which is consistent and timely. Is able to cope with unplanned situations with sufficient flexibility to manage most problems. Property utilizes assets available to attain goals. Is aware of his requirements relative to higher level responsibilities and attains these with minimal guidance.
Exceeds Requirements (ER)
Thoroughly understands duties as assigned and adopts enlightened approach to their execution. Output is of consistent high quality and always completed prior to deadlines. Efficiently handles unforecasted problems with unusual flexibility and versatility. Continuously strives to make the best use of assigned assets to accomplish duties. Consciously supports larger organizational goals through the execution of his duties. Requires guidance only in exceptionally rare cases.
Far Exceeds Requirements (F^ifjedand Has complete grasp of all duties sp jre- implied. Output always surpass R0. ments in both quality and4ir"® exiqency sponds rapidly and correctly to ay? {0 ay Applies versatile and flexible app _urnes facets of duties, and consls;e2lai|V tasker- responsibilities without being form r Ingeniously obtains maximum f jeep
the use of available resources. q( understanding of the broader aspe'- ^eV0f duties relative to organizational 9°“ nization
reporting senior marks only the Marine being evaluated an ^ not rank him against other Marines of the same grade w
the
of
tion C contains no elaboration of actual duties or, at the other extreme, when extensive descriptions of assignments leave very little space to describe how the Marine actually performed.
A third recommendation is to improve section B of the current report, in order to:
- Orient the areas being evaluated to performance rather than personal qualities or traits.
- Reduce the number of areas being evaluated so that they are manageable for the evaluator and the halo effect of one mark on many others is reduced.
- Develop a standard set of gradations that replaces the individual set of values that each reporting senior now brings to the system (hard grader versus easy grader).
- Provide more discrimination in section B.
These objectives are accomplished by using the 12 check-the- block indicators shown in section B-l of the proposed report form. They are also achieved by using a version of a new performance evaluation technique, which the task force calls performance anchored rating scales (PARS). This system replaces the old “unsatisfactory-outstanding” scale, which was affected by inflation, led most Marines to believe that they are outstanding by definition, and was subject to individual interpretation by each reporting senior. The new system accepts that most Marines are outstanding, but discriminates which ones are more outstanding than others based on their performance. PARS develops a fairly precise Corps-wide definition for each level of performance in each of the 12 performance areas. These definitions were developed from surveys of Marine students at the Command and Staff College, Amphibious Warfare School, and the Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy of Quantico. To give additional flexibility and discrimination, blocks are provided between each defined performance level to give evaluators a choice, if they feel the evaluated Marine performed better than one defined level but not as well as the higher defined level. A sample of this technique is shown in Figure 2.
The task force report also recommends replacing the current “general value to the service” concept with a comparative evaluation (see section C-l). This evaluation is based on potential to assume positions of greater responsibility, assigns a Marine a single mark relative to all other Marines of the same grade known to the reporting senior, and uses gradations of comparative ranking that indicate relative position without indicating the quality or worth of the Marine being evaluated. Note that the
id d°fs
be working for the reporting senior. Also, the graph be marking boxes shows CMC guidance on how a typicm S Marines should be spread. £ ^at
This comparative evaluation technique fosters the tn ^^5 is repeated throughout the proposed new system: most t0 are outstanding and are promotable, but the organization c£ know the relative level of the evaluated Marine’s Pe • nfnent and potential so that fair and accurate selection and aSSI- p0s- decisions can be made. This technique should eliminate a y ^ sibility of manipulating comparative rankings and s courage a greater spread of marks by reporting seniors, ^(ire giving both the reporting seniors and promotion boar opportunity to discriminate among individuals.
In examining the PESs of other services, the task f°rc® njng that the only technique that has been successful in con gjj inflation without disrupting the morale of those being eva -j^js is the compilation of reporting officials’ marking histones-.^ consists of keeping a running total of the marks that rep ^s. officials assign to individual Marines on each report. Tnc- ateS- tories are kept separately for each grade that a rater eva ,j jS The history at that point (for the grade of the Marine evaluaat printed on each fitness report after the report is procesS^ HQMC. Two separate histories would be maintained °n report. jnarKS
The reporting officer index is the average of section v ^ (top mark = 7, bottom mark = 1) that a reporting °^lCeort is ever assigned to Marines of the same grade. After a processed at HQMC, the reporting officer index (5.0 f°rei pie) is printed in a dedicated block in section B-l of the Pr°^as6d fitness report. The number of reports that this index 1Sto upon is also printed. By comparing the reporting officer m i the marks received on an individual report, it can be dete ^ if that report was better, worse, or on the average vV,tnwC)lild reports written by the same reporting officer. This index ^ particularly support and protect the enlisted promotion PT°' which makes extensive use of a performance index—an a |,is of all the individual marks an enlisted Marine receives section B ratings. sjng)e
The reporting senior history is a running total of the g marks on comparative evaluations that reporting seniors ass individual Marines on each report. The cumulative totals o
a rePortin(>U UatI0n mar[1]cs are kept separately for each grade that the grade® '!CI|'10r eva*uates- The history at that point in time (for ness report' 6 ^*ar'ne being evaluated) is printed on each fit-
The reporti"1 SeCt!0n C_1 after the rePort is processed at HQMC. vided annual? Sem°r history wil1 be maintained at HQMC, proofficial mj.. y t0 eac*1 reporting senior, and annually filed in the Serves as a ' ary Personr|el file (OMPF) of each officer who If anoff rCportlng senior.
marking all'oTf '5, n<)t sPrea<Jing his comparative markings (i.e., umn), pe *cers ’n the “without peers” or “few peers” col- ch°ice of rece've a letter from HQMC offering him the lo comply with"r^Xer °n h'S reP°rting senior history, this time 'he unusual r- guidance. or explaining in writing to CMC The mart; lrcamstances that would justify his high markings. ► Give s3^St0des would:
1 see how 1 mrormation so
jt>s poten,-. 1 a Marine is doing at his current job and assess : Set a def ■ °r positions °1 greater responsibility m Action gn!tlve CMC standard for both the gradations of marks arin„.. ■ ~ and the spread of a tvDicallv outstandinc croup of
spread of a typically outstanding group of
brines
°f marks piv't*°K boards the tools with which to gauge the worth method to or"1 y different reporting officials (i.e., give boards a ^ Give HOMrm hard and “easy” markers) sary, direct ,e caPat>ility to monitor, analyze, and, as neces- j^port markin^s1^ ^anCC s P°^cies concerning fitness
they know?u.re*3?rt'nt’ °ificials to assign accurate marks because hes f0r ca!' HQMC will be monitoring their marking histo- wiU be jn(.,h lance with policy; their reporting senior histories HQMC; an(,U ,ed annually in their own personnel records at because'the' ' ^ 1111151 sPread their marks to preserve validity 'f they markf maddnS histories are now a matter of record—i.e., n°t be djo- CVCryone too high, their superior subordinates can- The ln"Lllshed from the less superior ones.
ssiifTh new PES would:
forp, y 1 e administrative completion of the fitness report Cari see C c°Hection of information so that selection boards
Offer a'f ^ cornParat*ve evaluation Ho r'esh opportunity to recalibrate the mindsets of officers
through use of the marking histories of HQMC ensure that individual officers comply with these standards • Giving reporting seniors a vested interest in complying with CMC standards, because their performance in this area will become a part of their personnel records at HQMC Any organization’s performance appraisal system will meet with criticism. Some officers vehemently object to marking histories because they establish control in an area that has never before been controlled, and because the histories smack of HQMC micromanagement. Nevertheless, the HQMC centralized promotion process demands that there be centralized supervision of fitness report writing to ensure that every Marine is treated fairly by the Marine Corps promotion system.
Other reservations about the proposed system concern the impact of the seemingly deflated marks that the new system would produce. Some say that if most individuals are being marked outstanding today, they think of themselves as outstanding and work at that level. Morale and work output, they say, might suffer from the greater spread brought in by a new PES. On the other hand, most officers would favor a system with more discrimination if it is fairer than the current system, and if one report with an adverse rating would no longer be fatal to their promotion opportunities. One of our sister services has been using the marking history concept for several years, and it has been accepted by the officer corps. Officers who are usually rated in the fourth block from the top in comparative evaluation are routinely promoted to 0-6.
Traditionally, the Marine Corps has attracted individuals who are aggressive, honest, and forthright. To nurture and retain the best of these idealistic warriors, the Marine Corps must foster teamwork. An individual should get credit for how well he does a job, not for what job he does. There has been so much concern expressed about careerism, “zero defects” mentality, and the limited discrimination provided by inflated fitness reports that the senior leadership in the Marine Corps must assess the situation. A new PES that controls inflation will provide significant, long-term benefits, restoring the confidence of officers and NCOs in the fairness of promotion opportunity within the Corps.
Colonel Mize has served in the G-3 Section, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California, since June 1987. He served as a member of the Performance Evaluation Task Force, HQMC, as an aide to the CNO, and in the Officer Assignment Branch, HQMC, from 1983 through June 1987. He has served as a company officer at the Naval Academy; as G-l with the 9th MAB in Okinawa; as company commander and G-3 plans officer with the 1st Marine Brigade in Hawaii; at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island; and as platoon commander, S-3A, and company commander with the 2d Battalion, 1st Marines in Vietnam (1970— 71). A 1969 graduate of the Naval Academy, he has completed studies at the Amphibious Warfare School and the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His decorations include the Bronze Star with combat V, two Navy Commendation Medals, and the Combat Action Ribbon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Satisfaction------------------------------------------------------
The Marine sentry waved the commander through the main gate at Pearl Harbor, but he failed to salute the officer. The commander stopped his car abruptly and backed up far enough for the corporal to see his blue Department of Defense sticker and asked, “Marine, doesn’t that blue decal tell you anything?” The embarrassed Marine simultaneously saluted and apologized. With a high degree of self-satisfaction, the commander returned the salute and crisply accelerated (in reverse) into the car behind him.
Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. O’Dare, U. S. Marine Corps (Retired)
[1] C»"”i»ce“rs
CaUse tbe °n icers to write accurate, uninflated reports, be- Hl alsoW'b believe that the reporting seniors on their flanks C°ntrol a ? *°rccd t0 wr>te honest reports—owing to HQMC ntarki„„ suPervision by means of the reporting officials’ ► Elhp? hlst°ries
easy” ate tbe inequity of getting a “hard” grader versus an ^ ^PreadrUder—as a resuh of the marking histories
- [) markings and control inflation by:
Sen-e °P*n§ the reporting chain so that the officer two levels inn°r to lhc evaluated Marine (who is less susceptible to am? I0nary pressure) provides the comparative evaluation
- qj P°tential markings
lv>ng marking officials definitive CMC standards, and