Acting Ranks

[ady eflog]

No. The SJARs are graded by letters A to C with pluses and minuses. There's an overall letter which does not have to align to the average.

It's in the write up, completely. In fact, if the write up doesn't reflect the grade - in the bin it goes. If, for instance you even mention the word "development" in the potential as first or second RO, even if it's "has potential to reach the top of his next rank", it gets shitcanned.
In esence, it's exactly like a CV screen - they look for trip words.

Acting rank helps, but you have to be doing acting rank things with it and they have to be mentioned . Like secondary duties - they need to have some meat behind them.

and thats the fault with the system, you could be walking on water and some junior officer writes your 2nd RO and puts 1 wrong word in there and your binned pre board.

 

[Spearmint]

Surely by now, with around 33k regulars remaining in the RAF, they could easily adopt the same systems as that used in real world employment?

The last time (over 2 years ago) I went for promotion I had to submit a CV which listed all of my accomplishments in a way that demonstrated the essential and desirable criteria required. These CVs are first sifted and then the seniors advertising the roles (I have graded CVs, Interviewed and Recruited so I know exactly what it is that is looked for) will review the applicants, score them and then invite enough applicants to cover the requirement plus 1 or 2 extra in case of no shows.

I'm about to submit my CV again for the next level up and it just makes perfect sense. The burden of appraisal writing won't dissappear as that is still required, but it could be reduced and some of that pressure passed back to the applicant. If you want the next rung up, prove it.

 

[unruly1986]

no its basically what ever way the wind blows, one board its what you do additionally, secondary duties etc, the next its primary duties focused, recently its acting rank, basically a fuc4in lottery. the 6442 system was better and that was sh1t.

Themes/trends do come and go (STEM, D&I, etc), but the core requirement is evidence of leadership and management. Whichever ‘flavour’ it takes is irrelevant. I would argue that the main PSB is somewhat of a lottery (try coming up with a number to two decimal places for a candidate again and again - I can explain further if you like), however if you get through pre-boarding (which is where the core L&M evidence needs to be obvious to the reader) you have a good shout due to the numbers game.

and thats the fault with the system, you could be walking on water and some junior officer writes your 2nd RO and puts 1 wrong word in there and your binned pre board.

The 2RO should be gripped by a SNCO who knows what they are doing, if that is the case. It should be picked up in the debrief with the subject and stopped from getting off unit. I’ve seen this happen even once a report had been finalised.

Surely by now, with around 33k regulars remaining in the RAF, they could easily adopt the same systems as that used in real world employment?

The last time (over 2 years ago) I went for promotion I had to submit a CV which listed all of my accomplishments in a way that demonstrated the essential and desirable criteria required. These CVs are first sifted and then the seniors advertising the roles (I have graded CVs, Interviewed and Recruited so I know exactly what it is that is looked for) will review the applicants, score them and then invite enough applicants to cover the requirement plus 1 or 2 extra in case of no shows.

I'm about to submit my CV again for the next level up and it just makes perfect sense. The burden of appraisal writing won't dissappear as that is still required, but it could be reduced and some of that pressure passed back to the applicant. If you want the next rung up, prove it.

My opinion on the current system is that the RAF is simply not prepared to invest the resource required to make a ‘perfect‘ system. You could have selection courses, tests, and a whole host of other ‘things’, however the current system in the main, does work. It’s the human element that causes problems.

I’ll finish by saying that if you are a SNCO, get yourself on a PSB. It’s bloody hard work, but you’ll learn a lot.

 

[Stevienics]

Themes/trends do come and go (STEM, D&I, etc), but the core requirement is evidence of leadership and management. Whichever ‘flavour’ it takes is irrelevant. I would argue that the main PSB is somewhat of a lottery (try coming up with a number to two decimal places for a candidate again and again - I can explain further if you like), however if you get through pre-boarding (which is where the core L&M evidence needs to be obvious to the reader) you have a good shout due to the numbers game.

The 2RO should be gripped by a SNCO who knows what they are doing, if that is the case. It should be picked up in the debrief with the subject and stopped from getting off unit. I’ve seen this happen even once a report had been finalised.

My opinion on the current system is that the RAF is simply not prepared to invest the resource required to make a ‘perfect‘ system. You could have selection courses, tests, and a whole host of other ‘things’, however the current system in the main, does work. It’s the human element that causes problems.

I’ll finish by saying that if you are a SNCO, get yourself on a PSB. It’s bloody hard work, but you’ll learn a lot.

The newer SJAR online course is mandatory for ROs and make a big difference. IMO

 

[Tin basher]

and thats the fault with the system, you could be walking on water and some junior officer writes your 2nd RO and puts 1 wrong word in there and your binned pre board.

That has been a long running flaw in whatever system is used. The inherent English language skills, or lack thereof, of the report writer at every level of the process is the weak link. The talent to paint a picture in words of the subjects qualities, plus or minus traits is a variable that is difficult to factor out of the system unless you resort to bare number scoring from a pre-prepared list. Not ideal. Do I have as solution, a better method than the written word? No

 

[Cornish_Pikey]

That has been a long running flaw in whatever sysytem is used. The inherant English langauge skills, or lack thereof, of the report writer at every level of the process is the weak link. The talent to paint a picture in words of the subjects qualities, plus or minus traits is a variable that is difficult to factor out of the system unless you resort to bare number scoring from a pre-prepared list. Not ideal. Do I have as solution, a better method than the written word? No

system, inherent and language Spelling dear boy. LOL

 

[muttywhitedog]

Surely by now, with around 33k regulars remaining in the RAF, they could easily adopt the same systems as that used in real world employment?

The last time (over 2 years ago) I went for promotion I had to submit a CV which listed all of my accomplishments in a way that demonstrated the essential and desirable criteria required. These CVs are first sifted and then the seniors advertising the roles (I have graded CVs, Interviewed and Recruited so I know exactly what it is that is looked for) will review the applicants, score them and then invite enough applicants to cover the requirement plus 1 or 2 extra in case of no shows.

I'm about to submit my CV again for the next level up and it just makes perfect sense. The burden of appraisal writing won't dissappear as that is still required, but it could be reduced and some of that pressure passed back to the applicant. If you want the next rung up, prove it.

I concur. I would also add that if someone is selected for interview, their last two appraisals should be made available to the interview panel to make sure that the person in front of them cant blag and bullshit as there'll be documentary evidence that they are the real deal.

 

[Stevienics]

I concur. I would also add that if someone is selected for interview, their last two appraisals should be made available to the interview panel to make sure that the person in front of them cant blag and bullshit as there'll be documentary evidence that they are the real deal.

For FTRS positions We ask for a CV plus last 3 appraisals. I’ll be honest - most of them are pretty crap. No - they’re dreadful. Sometimes I’m astonished how some ex servicemen don’t starve to death

 

[dctyke]

That has been a long running flaw in whatever system is used. The inherent English language skills, or lack thereof, of the report writer at every level of the process is the weak link. The talent to paint a picture in words of the subjects qualities, plus or minus traits is a variable that is difficult to factor out of the system unless you resort to bare number scoring from a pre-prepared list. Not ideal. Do I have as solution, a better method than the written word? No

Nail on head! People are often promoted on the ability of the reporters English abilities. There is a case to return to pre-prepared statements to score against as it was many years ago with a box for additional information.

 

[Barch]

Nail on head! People are often promoted on the ability of the reporters English abilities. There is a case to return to pre-prepared statements to score against as it was many years ago with a box for additional information.

Bang on.

With tools such as Survey Monkey available, there should be no need to rely on ROs ability to write English; the RO isn't the one being assessed so a breakfast of baked beans and a dictionary should not come into play.

I have always firmly believed in comparing someone against fixed criteria and letting the numbers tell the story.

 

[GD on Wheels]

Whilst I agree going back to the numbers criteria being used in appraisals would be a good thing.It can, in my case, depend on the person doing it to also being on the ball.
I well remember when the ex FS rock did what turned out to be my last annual report read to me my numbers and write up. On looking at my joining up date. after finishing said report, remarked he did not realise I had been in that long and would have to upgrade my numbers to reflect my time served. Now if he had not noticed and I had been looking at promotion and those last numbers gave me enough to go onto the board it could have killed any chance of advancement.Especially so as MT was a dead man's shoes trade.

 

[Dougtheplug]

Something that I think is always overlooked with respect to the promotion system is that bad appraisals not only cost the individual, but the service also. Eventually the experienced/committed nominee if continually overlooked will see the light and cut their losses. The service (especially now when retention is a massive problem and morale is floored) will further struggle on minus the individual it desperately needs.
I recently read the 2023 AFCAS report and fairness in the appraisal system was highlighted to be at 19%. The 3 other services all reported to be in the 30% range with their contentment with the current system. On further investigation on the AFCAS reports over the last 10 years the numbers were all very similar.
My point is….does the RAF do something different to the other services or does the SJAR system need major overhaul??.
My opinion is that for the sustained future and retention, the current system is well outdated and fails both parties.

 

[Downsizer]

Surely by now, with around 33k regulars remaining in the RAF, they could easily adopt the same systems as that used in real world employment?

The last time (over 2 years ago) I went for promotion I had to submit a CV which listed all of my accomplishments in a way that demonstrated the essential and desirable criteria required. These CVs are first sifted and then the seniors advertising the roles (I have graded CVs, Interviewed and Recruited so I know exactly what it is that is looked for) will review the applicants, score them and then invite enough applicants to cover the requirement plus 1 or 2 extra in case of no shows.

I'm about to submit my CV again for the next level up and it just makes perfect sense. The burden of appraisal writing won't dissappear as that is still required, but it could be reduced and some of that pressure passed back to the applicant. If you want the next rung up, prove it.

In principle you are right. But in practice I don't see how it will work, loads of people will apply for the promotion and post in RAF Lincolnshire, less if any will apply for less attractive posts.

Unless you are suggesting people just apply for promotion when they feel like it and enter a pool for posting?

 

[Stevienics]

In principle you are right. But in practice I don't see how it will work, loads of people will apply for the promotion and post in RAF Lincolnshire, less if any will apply for less attractive posts.

Unless you are suggesting people just apply for promotion when they feel like it and enter a pool for posting?

That is exactly how it works in the Reserves - the good jobs in well placed positions see plenty of applicants and the pants one's in the middle of nowhere, fewer or zero.

This is why Air Command places are hard to fill - there's no HtD, there's no spare room in the messes, the rent is enormous and the jobs? Well, that depends upon your character and disposition. You'd be in the right place to get a much better one next time around.

Wht is does mean is that they become plum promotion slots with next to zero competiton for them