Evaluating the Evaluation System

How many times have you heard it? “Our people are our most valuable asset.” Or “Warfighting first, people always.” The Navy’s current performance evaluation system, however, has failed its people. Its replacement, the Performance Evaluation Transformation (PET), brings great promise, but implementing it right the first time is critical.¹

The evaluation system shapes the force. Information in performance evaluations determines who stays, who goes, and the values the Navy holds dearest. Since sailors influence strategy, acquisition, recruiting, and so much more, the service owes it to itself and its sailors to implement the new system correctly.

Current System Shortfalls

The Navy’s current forced-distribution evaluation system ranks sailors primarily based on their time at a command, making performance—at best—a secondary consideration. “Sustained superior timing” is a ubiquitous concept in both wardrooms and goat lockers; it has stalled the careers of many great sailors through no fault of their own. For example, a commanding officer relieved of command for fraternization could alter the evaluation cycle for an entire wardroom, ending the upward progression of even the most promising sailors.

Performance oftentimes also takes a back seat to pedigree. Sailors are told in both words and actions that those who stray from the “golden path” of their particular community will be ranked below their peers, regardless of performance. This effectively means a sailor’s previous and next sets of orders can affect his ranking more than how well he performed in the job for which he is being evaluated.

Consequently, the Performance Traits portion of a performance evaluation, which allows the commander to rank a sailor in areas such as “Professional Expertise,” is dubious. In the words of former Chief of Naval Personnel Admiral Robert Burke, “The typical reporting senior reverse engineers that final trait average to make the final number work out, so the trait averages wind up being rather meaningless.”²

The Eval Transformation

The PET consists of two main evaluation events: coaching/self-assessment and performance evaluation. The coaching/self-assessment portion is available for review on the My Navy Portal website.

The performance evaluation portion, which has not yet been released to the fleet, supports talent management and enables commanders to rate their sailors from 1 to 9 on a “Potential Scale” for various performance traits. The commander has only a short time to choose a value, forcing a quick decision and preventing any circumvention of the process. As shown in Table 1, Variation 1 of the Potential Scale asks the commander to rate the sailor based on performance in grade; Variation 2 asks the commander to rate the sailor based on performance related to the sailor’s next grade. A final rank is calculated combining the commander’s values for each trait.

Let’s Get It Right

First, it is time to leverage modern database technology so the administrative portions of a performance evaluation auto-populate. Too much time is wasted preserving continuity with letters of extension; calculating Reporting Senior Cumulative Averages (RSCAs); altering reporting groups and the rankings within them while trying to react to promotions and selections; and writing blurbs about PRT waivers. The time leaders spend on these tasks could be better spent on constructive feedback to their sailors and on their shared, primary job of warfighting.

Next, the new evaluation system needs to be actionable. This applies to the sailor, the commander, and the promotion board. The sailor still should be able to write a brag sheet, but the length should be cut from the current 18 lines to 4 lines of 90 characters each. An 18-line limit lends itself to hyperbolic, run-on sentences that exasperate even the most assiduous administrators.

In addition, commanders should not be able to change a sailor’s brag sheet input (except for instances compromising good order and discipline). The brag sheet is a reflection of the sailor, not the commander, and if it is poorly constructed the sailor has only himself to blame. The commander should be able to see the brag sheet, ideally throughout the evaluation process, so he can use it to inform his decisions when ranking the sailor.

The commander needs to be able to comment about his sailors, but within reason. In the current system, sailors draft the comments, and the chain of command alters those comments to the commander’s preference. This is feasible on an individual basis, but when multiplied by 60 or more sailors for a periodic evaluation or detachment of a reporting senior, it becomes a time-consuming challenge. It also results in hackneyed phrases such as “the future of the fleet” and “rising star in the community” that devalue the remarks. Commanders should synthesize their own thoughts on two lines of 45 characters to communicate their thoughts to both the sailor and the promotion board.

Third, Variation 2 of the PET Potential Scale should not be adopted because commanders often are only one grade above the sailors they are evaluating. In that case, it does not make sense that a commander would evaluate a sailor’s potential for “two grades above,” which would be above the commander’s own grade. Adopting Variation 1 instead also avoids the risk of promoting sailors above the grade where they might perform best.

The promotion board needs to be able to make its determinations swiftly and judiciously. Again leveraging databases, an algorithm should be developed to present the board with a single, weighted average of the final ranking of a sailor by each of his commanders. Evaluations from a commander who has ranked 100 sailors in a particular grade should be weighted more heavily than that of a commander who has ranked only one. Of course, board members also would be presented with the command history of the sailor, punitive incidents, qualifications, and the two lines from each of his commanders to make a decisive, merit-based selection.

Shaping the Force

The new evaluation system needs to reinforce the Navy’s core values, which requires decoupling the system from timing and pedigree. To decouple from timing, evaluations should be done at consistent intervals. Based on information on the My Navy Portal, the Navy has it right: A coaching/self-assessment will take place six months after a sailor’s arrival at a command, and a performance evaluation will occur six months later. The cycle repeats until the sailor departs the command. This process places every sailor of the same grade on equal footing.

Decoupling ranking from pedigree is more difficult because—especially for the most demanding leadership roles—diversity of background and previous experiences do affect a sailor’s future performance. This is where the roles of the promotion board and the commander need to be separated; commanders should evaluate sailors based on their performance, and promotion boards should evaluate sailors based on their potential.

Commanders never should know the overall average of the final ranks they assign their sailors (their RSCAs). This prevents the new system from devolving into the old, where the final rank is more important than actual performance. To accomplish this, each evaluation should consist of a random number of traits evaluated. For instance, a commander’s first evaluation within a grade might have 11 traits evaluated, the next 13, and the next 12. This way, the commander would not be able to assign values to traits to achieve a predetermined outcome.

More important than any other aspect of the new evaluation system is that the traits evaluated reflect the Navy’s values. At a minimum, sailors should be evaluated on honor, courage, and commitment. Other values would need to be well thought out prior to implementing the new system. Table 2 provides some suggestions. Formulating, prioritizing, and algorithmically weighting this list is crucial. Certain traits are more valuable than others, and some are more valuable at one grade than another.

Whichever traits the Navy decides to include, they must be communicated at the deckplates. It is through these traits, and the commander’s evaluation thereof, that the Navy will broadcast its values and shape its future fighting force to embody characteristics worthy of the uniform and rewarding to the nation.

The Navy is moving in the right direction with PET, but it must continue to focus on perfecting the system. To do so, it needs to leverage technology while remaining true to its core values.