Training and Assessment Reports

[Trg System Victim]

I am curious to hear what others may think of the negative critcism that is delivered during training and assessment (during and post IOT ). I have had the unpleasant experience of being on the receiving end of some of these reports and I have some observations.

Firstly I have been senior manager in industry before joining the service (do not ask why I joined) so Ido know a thing or two about assessment and writing performance reveiws etc.

If I had ever delivered the type of report that only considers the negative aspects of a subject's performance without making any reference to the positive, I would have had a walk-out overnight with union trouble following.

This type of reporting lowers morale, confidence and self belief while doing nothing to provide any encouragement.

Industry moved on from this system about 20 years ago. I am not suggesting a soft, tree-hugger type report, but all the reports seem to only destroy someones good name and character.

[Ivchenko]

TSV - hope you've got a tin hat mate - this should be interesting.

Expect "are you WEBF?", "fat civvy", "if you can't hack it why don't you get out?" and the general tone that the services are far superior to civvy-dom in all respects.

Watching in gleeful anticipation;)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hey - why am I getting slated?

1. Not fat, just not fit.
2. I didn't get a chance to hack it.
3. I had no problem with the assesment and reporting methods.
4. Why on earth am I even bothering to answer back to Ivchenko?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

TSV........welcome to the military sir:D

WEBF .......... is it a life ambition of yours to be in EVERY thread?


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[teeteringhead]

First, TSV, thank you for taking and acknowledging the hint; you too are a gentleman Sir. A serious question deserves some serious answers.

I am surprised at what you say, although you choose not to say exactly to which courses you refer. My experience within the training world has been primarily flying training, including the training of instructors, but I have seen much of the formal training reports of some ground training branches, and from DIOT. (No more detail, lest I endanger my incognito!)

All of these have always included positive points (however difficult they are to find sometimes!), and certainly (flying) instructors are taught to do the same on verbal debriefs. I cannot speak for other branches, or for IOT reports which don't go on to the next, or subsequent, stages of training.

Turning to the "normal" annual appraisal of our personnel, you may not be aware that our systems have recently changed, and that for officers is in the process of further change. And I think the changes are for the better.

A key point in all of these (and now for many training reports) is the opportunity for the subject to comment on what the Line Manager (1st Reporting Officer in service speak) has written. Subsequent writers on the report MUST address what the subject has said. As I said elsewhere, I too have experience of other reporting systems, and whilst ours isn't perfect, it's probably the "least worst" I've come across. The idea of 360 degree assessment (including comments by peers and subordinates) is tempting, but I'm not sure the military is ready for that yet.

Moreover, much "civilian" legislation in terms of EO, H&S etc now applies to service folk too. And we have our own system of "Redress of Grievance" which if necessary (and I know of a number that have) can go all the way up to HM herself. Not many civvies have that right.

All that said, you have clearly had a bad, upsetting (and I hope atypical) experience, which I hope does not turn you off us completely. As you might have seen from other threads on this and other fora, the military (particularly the aviators!) manage to combine strong views and intense professionalism with childish banter and "humour" that would embarrass many a fourth-former. Maybe (just maybe) you have misunderstood our strange ways; the overwhelming number of instructors I have known will bust their guts to get the most unpromising material through courses. And sometimes (just sometimes) that may involve techniques which would not be found in a civilian environment. But to a man (or woman), they really want you to succeed.

I've rabbitted on for far too long TSV, but I really believe the experience you appear to describe is the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure you'll get a lively debate here. ;)

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

TSV, you will also find that some ex-military types have been extremely successful in industry because of their 'manner'. My other half is ex-military and now owns her own company. She is convinced that one of the secrets behind her success is the direct, no-nonsense approach.

Please don't go mouthing-off the military system just because you did not fit. If you are as good as you say you are, I am sure that you will find your niche in quite short order.

[Archimedes]

Er... WEBF, old chap,

Don't think that Ivchenko wasn't having a go at you specifically. He was telling TSV that he could expect responses of :

'Are you WEBF?'

'[TSV - it is my considered opinion that] You are a fat civvy'

'[TSV] If you can't hack it why don't you get out', etc, etc.

So I don't think you actually needed to wonder why you were answering him back - since he'd not actually asked you a question, as it were.... :)

[Trg System Victim]

teeteringhead

Your explanations do make logical sense, and having spoken openly to others I can see lots of examples where things have worked well. So thanks for the positive encouragement.

I am not mouthing-off the system, just one particular part of it which I still think needs modernising. I know now that I would perform much better if I were back in my old job, due directly to the training the RAF has given.

If in the future (seems a log way away) I am a civvy again and responsible for recruitment, I would always choose an ex-serviceman/woman.

By the way:-
1 I am not WEBF.
2 I can run 3 miles in 18 minutes, probably 20 now.
3 I like the organisation and have no intention to leave.

[L J R]

TSV,

You do realise that RAF is still in the '60s in some regards don't you.


....and, they don't care that they are - or that you might disagree that they shouldn't be.


Remember, You did apply to join them. They didn't go totally out of their way to purge you from civvy senior management.



.

[Talking Radalt]

The RAF is NOT in the 60s.:mad:

It's in the 30s:p

[Mach2]

Talking Radalt - If you know what the RAF was like in the 30's, you must be at least 90 years old - or are you just pretending to know???

I WAS in the RAF in the 60's, and it's come on a long way since then - not that all of the changes have been for the better. In retrospect, some of the old ways WERE the best!

[Talking Radalt]

OK it's a fair cop, I was just pretending to know what the Air Force used to be about, but hey, I wouldn't be the first would I?!
Only difference is I'm not a staff officer!;)

[Ivchenko]

TSV

I'm sure you appreciate that my post was meant to cast no aspersions on either you or our little friend; I was having some fun anticipating a response based on previous similar threads.

Teetering's excellent post only went part way towards addressing the issue which I think partly underlies your original post, that is the use of best practice irrespective of whether it comes from civilian or military circles.

Sadly I feel (as one who is involved in the transition of retiring officers to civilian life) that for all its excellence the military is mired in a belief that it alone knows best. Service minds seem to find it hard to cope with the huge range of competence and application found in the outside world, probably because they are used to working with the output from a training system designed to narrow that range.

I hope it works for you, and that one day you can play a part in opening it up a bit.

[Talk Reaction]

Am I missing a bit of the point here?
An officer in the military has to do his or her job right because at the risk of being melodramatic, lives may well depend on it (All branches and trades included here I think). If someone is generally cutting the mustard through training then any report will most likely be balanced or at least have some positive aspects to it. If there are no positive elements to a report then the individual concerned is probably not suited to that job and should be removed for the benefit of the service and individuals (I rather hoped this would happen during ISS but try as I might my tutor managed to find some sliver of hope in each submission!)
In summary to write positive reports on individuals who may not be up to a particular job has no benefit in a military training system and potentially breeds disaster, not just for that individual..

TSV I'm sure there were some positive attributes to your reports. If you're sure there weren't any, well 'nuff said.