Need for More 360 Reviews in CAF? (split fm Trudeau Popularity)

[Humphrey Bogart]

360 reviews have their place but not in every circumstance and not in every organization.

I know some people that are weaponized assholes and are also highly effective operators who drive results. You don't have to be liked to be good.

 

[Halifax Tar]

360 reviews have their place but not in every circumstance and not in every organization.

I know some people that are weaponized assholes and are also highly effective operators who drive results. You don't have to be liked to be good.

This to me is the real danger of 360 reviews.

Also leaders have to make tough calls, and in our business they may have to make tough calls that are unpopular. I don't want to see our promotion system run by populism.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This to me is the real danger of 360 reviews.

Also leaders have to make tough calls, and in our business they may have to make tough calls that are unpopular. I don't want to see our promotion system run by populism.

It's not a popularity contest. Trust me when I say I'm probably one of the least popular people in the town I live in now. When you're the Sheriff, not everyone is going to like you.

 

[Kirkhill]

I suspect there has been, since ancient times, two "classes" of soldiers: the 'warriors' (and the 'gentlemen warriors' who led them into close combat) and the "professionals." I'm sure that every Roman centurion knew, roughly, how deep and wide each layer of a road had to be, but the big roads and the aqueducts were built by trained engineers and the Romans also had specialist to operate the catapults and so on. The gunpowder age added to the "professionals" status; some Scots lords, for example, had more artillery in their private arsenals than King Henry VIII had in his entire army. Gunners, sappers and miners and other specialists were the core of the "standing army" while the bands of warriors - led by gentlemen - were called up as needed.

Many of my gunner friends who were FOOs in a combat team do not believe they played "second fiddle" to the infantry or armoured corps soldiers who marched (or rode) beside them. Ditto the sappers who want ahead to clear obstacles so that the infantry and armoured soldiers could follow.

Likewise RAF/RCAF types that volunteered for Bomber Command. What motivated them to get back into the rear turret of a Halifax for the 23rd and 24th time?

There is a difference but where and when and how ... and sometimes the difference is found in one person.

With that said... different jobs come with different risks and attract different types of people with different motivations that require managing differently.

Amateurs and professionals, volunteers and conscripts, lifers and "for the duration"...

How does the state, in service to the nation, get the most out of all those individuals and turn them into a cohesive force?

...

Some trades die faster than others and have to be replenished more often.

How quickly can skills be transferred and people made useful?

And some trades have skills that can't be easily transferred and need to be protected.

...

And then there is the role of emotion.

 

[Navy_Pete]

360 reviews have their place but not in every circumstance and not in every organization.

I know some people that are weaponized assholes and are also highly effective operators who drive results. You don't have to be liked to be good.

Yes, but generally you can be 'tough but fair', while still being highly effective, and is the kind of boss you can respect without wanting to have a beer with.

We have a lot of highly effective people, we don't need to create weaponized assholes out of them by encouraging and rewarding that behaviour.

I know a few total assholes who may have been effective at tactical decisions, but also resulted in massive releases after the ships returned from deployment.

I'd argue the strategic impact of losing collective centuries of experience in trades that are at the 50-60% remar and on every single shortage message vastly outweighs someone being a dickhead who can not run the ship aground in peacetime. Also, that same crew will very deliberately allow said asshole to fail, instead of stepping in to offer advice or point out something is going to go to shit. That has real practical impacts.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Tell that to the corporate world.

Go to this list and look at the leadership of some of the biggest companies:

Largest American companies by market capitalization

List of the largest american companies by market capitalization, all rankings are updated daily.

companiesmarketcap.com

Jeff Bezos - Authentic Asshole
Apple - Steve Jobs was a certified jerk
Walmart - the Waltons have a rep for being super big assholes

The list goes on...

 

[Kirkhill]

Tell that to the corporate world.

Go to this list and look at the leadership of some of the biggest companies:

Largest American companies by market capitalization

List of the largest american companies by market capitalization, all rankings are updated daily.

companiesmarketcap.com

Jeff Bezos - Authentic Asshole
Apple - Steve Jobs was a certified jerk
Walmart - the Waltons have a rep for being super big assholes

The list goes on...

Two things necessary to start a company

An ego

Zero knowledge of the problems you face

 

[SupersonicMax]

I fully support the idea of everyone getting 360 evils, not just GOFOs which is currently the case.

However, I’m also fully cognizant that a bunch of people who thought they were doing well (at all levels) will get a proverbial kick in the pants when they realize that their subordinates hate them. I’d prep the popcorn in advance.

But, back to govt instead of the CAF…

Except that leadership is not about being liked. 360s are dangerous because it pressures people to be « nice » to everyone, often at the expense of leading the institution in the right direction.

 

[dimsum]

Except that leadership is not about being liked.

Agreed.

360s are dangerous because it pressures people to be « nice » to everyone, often at the expense of leading the institution in the right direction.

Why not both? You can be a good person and still make the hard decisions. Give the reasoning (if possible) behind the hard decisions so they know why it’s being done - not just “because I said so” or words to that effect .

Some folks might still resent it, but I’d gather that most would understand why.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Agreed.


Why not both? You can be a good person and still make the hard decisions. Give the reasoning (if possible) behind the hard decisions so they know why it’s being done - not just “because I said so” or words to that effect .

Some folks might still resent it, but I’d gather that most would understand why.

Being a good person and being liked are not the same thing. Sometimes, you can explain all you want and people fail to see either your perspective or the « bigger picture ».

 

[dimsum]

Being a good person and being liked are not the same thing. Sometimes, you can explain all you want and people fail to see either your perspective or the « bigger picture ».

Fair. Either way, there has to be a better way than a system based on what one did, without how one did it and how it affected the folks beside and below them, not just the results that the leadership see.

The “person did X” evaluation process is fine to show what they did, but if they were a micromanager, or had no life so they expected their subordinates to be the same, it would be missed in the eval.

 

[captloadie]

The problem is that 360 reviews aren't supposed to be decision making tools for promotion. They are meant to provide well-rounded feedback. It collects input on an individual's performance from various sources, including supervisors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes other stakeholders, to be used for members to either improve in areas that need attention, or highlight areas of strength. They are more of a developmental tool for people to shape them into the leaders we want, rather than something we due after the fact to see if they met our standard (without the opportunity to correct their leadership style based on the feedback received).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The problem is that 360 reviews aren't supposed to be decision making tools for promotion. They are meant to provide well-rounded feedback. It collects input on an individual's performance from various sources, including supervisors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes other stakeholders, to be used for members to either improve in areas that need attention, or highlight areas of strength. They are more of a developmental tool for people to shape them into the leaders we want, rather than something we due after the fact to see if they met our standard (without the opportunity to correct their leadership style based on the feedback received).

This is how I see it. The problem is people seem to think/want them to be used as a promotion tool.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The problem is that 360 reviews aren't supposed to be decision making tools for promotion. They are meant to provide well-rounded feedback. It collects input on an individual's performance from various sources, including supervisors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes other stakeholders, to be used for members to either improve in areas that need attention, or highlight areas of strength. They are more of a developmental tool for people to shape them into the leaders we want, rather than something we due after the fact to see if they met our standard (without the opportunity to correct their leadership style based on the feedback received).

Exactly.

A 360 used as a performance management tool is known as 'an enquiry'

 

[dimsum]

This is how I see it. The problem is people seem to think/want them to be used as a promotion tool.

They should be part of it, not the whole thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem with leadership is that you can't be a leader if nobody follows.

Command armies usually include sergeants with halberds prodding the rank and file from behind and driving them to fill in the blanks. In the case of the Russians they traded in their Tsarist sergeants and Cossacks with knouts for Soviet Commissars and then swapped them out for Khadyrovites.

In Canadian terms it is possible to look at the difference between volunteers and conscripts and the troubles associated with them. Not just in terms of getting the conscripts into the field but also integrating them into the units once they got there..

A commission gives you the authority to command. You have to figure out how to lead. If you can't figure out how to lead then you find yourself having to direct every movement and every second. Your life is a lot easier if your people are exercising their initiative.

You have to keep your people on-side. From time to time it is good to be reminded of where you stand.

 

[George Wallace]

It's not a popularity contest. Trust me when I say I'm probably one of the least popular people in the town I live in now. When you're the Sheriff, not everyone is going to like you.

AH! But there is a difference here from what you posted earlier.

360 reviews have their place but not in every circumstance and not in every organization.

I know some people that are weaponized assholes and are also highly effective operators who drive results. You don't have to be liked to be good.

Being a weaponized asshole creates a toxic work place, which eventually destroys teams and cohesiveness. Being disliked just because you are "the Sheriff" is quite different. If you are being honest and fair in the performance of that job, it will not be destroying the team.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This is how I see it. The problem is people seem to think/want them to be used as a promotion tool.

I think it's probably more useful during DP1 for juniour officers, if they aren't actually getting that already from the seniour NCMs mentoring them. But would also catch those people that try and get ahead early by screwing peers and dumping on subordinates, so may discourage some of the really egregious behaviour some people get up to that also drives people out. That's the kind of things bosses don't necessarily see.

 

[Kirkhill]

This seems apropos...

Great British Battle Commanders and the six reasons why they were a success

A new BFBS Forces News podcast, featuring defence analyst Michael Clarke, analyses figures from British history who were successful leaders.

www.forcesnews.com

"command" is something special. It's so much more than mere "management".

Even "leadership" on its own doesn't really capture the essence of it. Committees can offer leadership. But only individuals of flesh and blood and imagination can be commanders.

One is the virtue of incisive decision-making. Indecisive and tentative commanders create confusion and despondency among those around them.

Another virtue is the force of personality.

A third personal virtue observed in commanders during their successful years might be described as emotional military intelligence

A fourth characteristic observed among successful commanders is their organisational ability.

A fifth characteristic required of commanders is that they can adjust their own performance to the appropriate level of command – whether it be tactical, operational or at the highest strategic level.

Finally, there is the pervasive role of sheer luck in command.

Some comments -

"Plans", said General Eisenhower, acknowledging that very fact, "are worthless; but planning is everything".

Montgomery was criticised by many as a cynical "performer" in front of his troops, but that's unfair. His charisma with them flowed from his own genuine self-confidence and his certainty of success. It was at least one genuine part of his otherwise unattractive personality.

Bill Slim became charismatic to the troops of his "forgotten" Fourteenth Army in a quite different way; modest, unassuming and just as certain and reassuring that events would work out as he planned. That was his best version of his stocky, tough, thoughtful and reliable self.

Looks like it will be an interesting book and series.

...

FWIW I'm with Eisenhower on plans and planning.