I propose that the Navy revise the schedule of reporting dates for fitness reports and enlisted evaluations. The cycle should be reversed, so that juniors are reported on prior to seniors. This change would improve the quality of these critical documents significantly. Together with more rigorous counseling, it would improve professional performance throughout the Navy.
Effective evaluation of subordinates is a key part of supervisory duties. However, the current schedule of fitness report due dates calls for commanders, lieutenant commanders, and lieutenants, in that order. Similarly, senior chief and chief petty officer (E-8 and E-7) fitness reports are due two months before first-class petty officer evaluations, which are due four months before those of second-class petty officers. While the schedule meets advancement cycles and promotion and selection boards, reversing its sequence, so due dates ascend in order of rank, would be a healthy catalyst in improving report quality—and the leadership that produces quality performance.
If the due date for second-class petty officers' evaluations were two to three months before that of first-class petty officers, the chief petty officers, division officers, and department heads would have a clearer view of the leadership and counseling abilities of their first-class petty officers. And the system would proceed up the chain in the same fashion, providing better benchmarks for supervisors and commanders at every level and properly focusing their responsibilities on their subordinates.
Evaluation of officer and enlisted performance is among the most important administrative documentation we do. I tell my aviation maintenance technicians—who may not consider any administrative function to be critical—that the only documents more important than enlisted evaluations are the maintenance action forms that ensure aircraft safety. Beyond being the primary documentation for selection and promotion boards, the process of producing quality evaluations and fitness reports can in itself be one of the most effective leadership tools in the Navy—if done properly.
It is important to understand that the evaluation process is critical to selecting Navy leaders through various boards and preparing sailors and officers for higher responsibilities. Given that these cycles are continuous, the evaluation process should not be considered finished—as if evaluations and fitness reports are final score sheets. To treat them as such indicates a lackadaisical approach throughout a command's enlisted and officer leadership ranks. Each evaluation is important and should be discussed in depth no less than three times a year: first during the initial review; second, as part of mid-term counseling; and finally, in concert with preparation of the next evaluation or fitness report.
Review and counseling sessions often can be exercises in signatures rather than exercises in leadership. They are either congratulatory sessions that ignore significant areas for improvement or disappointing conferences that gloss over tough issues. Thus, the following points are essential to effective performance review:
- Start with strengths and accomplishments over the reporting period, including any that might not fit in the 18 lines allowed in block 41 of the fitness report and block 43 of the evaluation form.
- Discuss weaknesses in performance—yes, weaknesses. While focusing mainly on the positive in writing evaluations, we also have to honestly identify areas where people can improve their performance during the next reporting period. Our subordinates deserve to be told what they must do to improve. Failing to highlight limitations and weaknesses is a disservice to them, their shipmates, and the command. Granted, this is difficult—especially if the individual registers surprise or disappointment with your report. But there should be no surprises if commands provide thorough, consistent counseling throughout the year.
- Set realistic goals for the next cycle and review them at each succeeding stage of the process. This entails outlining how the reporting senior and others in the command are going to assist individuals in improving their performance and accomplishing more within their areas of responsibility. It could mean arranging a school quota, adjusting work schedules to accommodate personal problems, or fighting for an additional qualification. If you have no recommendations for the people you are evaluating, you have nothing to offer—and you have missed a crucial leadership opportunity.
- Throughout the process, be realistic regarding expectations and be careful with promises.
The administration department normally distributes evaluation and fitness report "shells" several months before they are due for the skipper's signature. That is the ideal time to instruct your officers and petty officers on providing rough inputs to you for their next evaluations. Supervisors have to take time to ensure the best efforts in the beginning of the evaluation cycle to get the best results in the end. Poor quality reports very well may reflect poor leadership rather than below-average performance on the part of those reported on.
During my time in the Navy, total quality leadership and any number of other philosophical initiatives have come and gone with little lasting effect. Changing the evaluation schedule and concentrating on a quality evaluation cycle—rather than due dates for irrelevant words on paper—would give real tools to the officers and petty officers striving to become better leaders.
Commander Snyder’s previous assignment was as officer-in-charge of Fleet Logistic Support Squadron 61 at Whidbey Island, Washington, a unit composed of 200 active-duty and reserve personnel. He is now a program manager for the Commander Naval Air Reserve Force in New Orleans, Louisiana.