SJAR - Personal Development Comments.

[MontyPlumbs]

We had a sheet disseminated to all 1st ROs from a Squadron Leader who sat on promotion boards in 2006, it looked like a fairly official document so it should have gone around the RAF, one of the things he specifically stated was that any statements about an individuals attributes should be quantified. For example, saying "Jones is one of my best SACs" is useless without specific examples to back statements up.

The other thing that was commented upon was how the the promotion recommendation seemed to not follow on from the summary narrative - he said a poorly written spec rec was worth far less than a well written high rec.

 

[True Blue Jack]

a poorly written spec rec was worth far less than a well written high rec.

Absolutely true. It doesn't take much to undermine a spec rec as I have found to my cost. One line by my 3rd RO (Lt Col) meant my first SR in rank scored less on the pre-boarding than the HR I received the year before.

That's something else that SJARs will help with. Stn Cdrs have been told to be particularly hot on 'exceptional' prom recs and performance grades of 'A'. It is probable that people who got SRs on their last F6000 will only get 'High' or even 'Yes' on their first SJAR - the 2 systems do not translate across as neatly as we might assume. Time will tell, but if the system works then a station the size of Coningsby may see as few as 50 'exceptionals' this year.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

I also heard ROs were specifically told not to "merge" across the old 6000 system to the new SJAR grades, but take each subject individually and assess them purely on the years performance against the new grades.

Human nature being what it is though, what grade would you say roughly equates to the old SR? A? A-? According to the SJAR user guide, a grade of C means the subject is performing as expected in post (so is that a Rec then?)

Another interesting point, is this going to affect people who are very close to being promoted, as in real terms there assessments may go down? Another excuse for disgruntled Airmen to complain about the assessment system!DT_Xtremez_31:

 

[T55]

The promotion system has been crap for as far as I can remember - tending to favour the scout leaders and charity fund raisers.

Now, according to the C in C, it favours those personnel who are able to demonstrate their qualities in the operational environment. So if you are unlucky enough to be posted to depth and don't deploy then I can only assume that you are disadvantaged?

I agree that the return of promotion exams may be the way ahead.

Why shouldn't JNCOs write SJARs in an official capacity, they are supervisors after all and this may help restore the value of the rank above that of grown up Jnr Tech?

 

[MontyPlumbs]

The promotion system has been crap for as far as I can remember - tending to favour the scout leaders and charity fund raisers.

Now, according to the C in C, it favours those personnel who are able to demonstrate their qualities in the operational environment. So if you are unlucky enough to be posted to depth and don't deploy then I can only assume that you are disadvantaged?

I agree that the return of promotion exams may be the way ahead.

Why shouldn't JNCOs write SJARs in an official capacity, they are supervisors after all and this may help restore the value of the rank above that of grown up Jnr Tech?

I think any good JNCO should be writing assessments and should receive formal instruction on assessment writing. Corporals (in the techie world) generally spend the most time working with the Juniors and as such are usually in the best position to comment upon their performance. That being said, imagine as a SNEC 2nd line - you may well have 70 odd assessments to write - surely this workload could be spread out by letting JNCOs do write ups on the most junior members of a section?

 

[True Blue Jack]

Human nature being what it is though, what grade would you say roughly equates to the old SR? A? A-? According to the SJAR user guide, a grade of C means the subject is performing as expected in post (so is that a Rec then?)

You can get a B+ performance grade (which is bl00dy good) but only get a promotion recommendation of 'Developing'. The hardest part for ROs to get used to is separating out performance from potential. I'm sure we all know people who are very good at what they do but would be out of their depth if promoted ahead of time or at all.

 

[tommo9999]

Exactly. Forget Rec, HR and SR. They are gone, never to return. Cite examples of outstanding performance, and then reflect on how much potential (ability to develop?) the individual has. You won't go far wrong.

 

[monobrow]

I think any good JNCO should be writing assessments and should receive formal instruction on assessment writing.

Whilst I don't disagree with you on that Monty, they won't offer courses to Cpls as they're not supposed to be writing them!

 

[MontyPlumbs]

You can get a B+ performance grade (which is bl00dy good) but only get a promotion recommendation of 'Developing'. The hardest part for ROs to get used to is separating out performance from potential. I'm sure we all know people who are very good at what they do but would be out of their depth if promoted ahead of time or at all.

This is why it is a good system in theory, the SJAR may end up being better than the F6000 system. The RAF isn't looking for you to be an outstanding SAC or JT or Corporal or whatever, they are looking for potential in the subject to achieve a higher rank and perform well in that rank. That's why, although it has been abused in the past, doing secondary duties as an SAC for example may give you the opportunity to demonstrate leadership and managerial competence which you ordinarily would not have the chance to display in your day to day work.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Whilst I don't disagree with you on that Monty, they won't offer courses to Cpls as they're not supposed to be writing them!

Mate, we should firstly ensure SNCOs can write them properly! Basic spelling mistakes **** me off the most in assessments!

I think all NCOs (Junior and Senior) should receive formal training, not some pishy bolt on to IMLC either - a proper course. Obviously this will cost time and money, things which are in short supply as it is....

 

[metimmee]

I think any good JNCO should be writing assessments and should receive formal instruction on assessment writing. Corporals (in the techie world) generally spend the most time working with the Juniors and as such are usually in the best position to comment upon their performance. That being said, imagine as a SNEC 2nd line - you may well have 70 odd assessments to write - surely this workload could be spread out by letting JNCOs do write ups on the most junior members of a section?

As a Cpl I was asked to write assessments but I insisted on a debrief afterwards against the final assessment. If you dont get a debrief then its a waste of the Cpl's time because they dont know where they are going wrong and maybe reinforcing bad practice.

When I finally did assessments for real, I was greatful for the experience that I had gained as a Cpl.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Thought that was done on IMLC?

Indeed it is Tommo, but not many of us have been through IMLC since the SJAR was introduced. I know how to write a 6000, but SJAR is a completely new concept with far less space to fill.

It was suggested at my unit that the Education Officer ran SJAR writing courses, but surprise surprise they never materialised and it was left to individuals to read the e-learning and scribes to fumble blindly through the JSP trying to assist.

I noticed the other day that Brize Education Centre are running courses, and will be pushing for a reason why my unit are not - ultimately we will be at a disadvantage if nobody at Cottesmore is shown how to properly write one of these damn things.

 

[PD TC]

I know how to write a 6000, but SJAR is a completely new concept with far less space to fill.

Sorry Mutty, I have to disagree.

Quite correctly, RJL stated a few pages ago that you should be writing about the qualities a person had, which enable them to do what they did so well (or badly). This is simply Performance Writing and should have been no different between F6000/SJAR.

I also must disagree with the writing space issue, and your view is similar to that of Halton. Admittedly there is less writing the 1st RO needs to do, but consider this:

• The Secondary Duties box was often full of sh!t. It has been noted a few times here on the value of SecDuties, but only when they develop or demonstrate a person’s quality.
• A board officer only has 5 minutes to read each assessment, at best. Therefore many of them read it backwards getting an overall feel for the tenure then looking for the other main points. Therefore, the numerous attributes boxes at the start which many people wrongly put the most time into, did not count as much as many think.

Therefore take away the many of the above bits that weren’t used as much as many think, and the writing space is not that different.

PingDit was absolutely right, many people write on what they think they should put in an appraisal, but often they are wide of the mark.

This is where the much debated Personal Development comes in. (Stop groaning RJL) Many people have said here that they have had to right appraisals as a JNCO. I would ask whether they all had a good English Language qualification? If not what were you doing about it? I am sure Halton would agree with me that JMLC and IMLC are far from perfect, but they do very well within the time and cost constraints they have. They would love to place more time on appraisal writing, they just don't have the time. Why wait to be promoted? Develop yourself before and the chances are it will come quicker.

And a final little point you might like to think about. If you do not know how to write an assessment, you do not know how to read one. Your own included!

 

[Humble Scribe]

I haven't had the chance to look yet, but the President of each Prom Board is required to write a report on each board that is held and his findings are published on the ACOS Manning Web Site. Hopefully, there should be some good gen coming out of these reports that you should be able to use when SJAR writing; ie what they are or aren't looking for in a good SJAR.

 

[PD TC]

I haven't had the chance to look yet, but the President of each Prom Board is required to write a report on each board that is held and his findings are published on the ACOS Manning Web Site.

Correct. They are listed on the spreadsheet for each trade under the promotions tab. Unfortunately, there are vaying levels of content from those that have put some time into constructing a valuable level of feedback, to those who clearly just couldn't be ar5ed

 

[PingDit]

The board is looking for logical, sensible explanations about an individual's capabilities. They expect an explanation of what the person does so well, with examples of how they've proved their 'magnificence' to you. They expect to see the use of many and varied adjectives.
Importantly, a really good write-up with a 'likely to become fit' will far outweigh a poorly written 'superstar - promote now' type of assessment. Further, it will, if followed by a logical upward progression over time, get the person promoted ahead of the competition.

 

[qwerty]

When is the 3rd RO required to make comments on the SJAR?

 

[MontyPlumbs]

When is the 3rd RO required to make comments on the SJAR?

That's an interesting point, will it be like the 6000 (i.e. when a SR is given) so what will that equate to?

Scribblies?

 

[PD TC]

The things people say

The things people say

Here are a few things that were still appearing in the F6000 in its last year and things to avoid saying, thankfully some of which are now mentioned in the guidance for the SJAR.

• 'My wife and kids are now settled…….’ That’s nice, but I want hear about the individual

• ‘I am still happy in RAF SnoringHollow and wish to stay’. ‘Still happy….stay’ often comes across as a comfort zone individual

• ‘Cpl Smith did this. Cpl Smith did that.’ Absolutely no need to keep repeating the person’s name. We know what it is, it’s written on the front page. I have seen assessments where the persons rank and name was mentioned 26 times in one appraisal.

• Similarly, ‘he/she’ is often not needed and wastes valuable writing space. It also makes reading it sluggish and boring.

• ‘During the period of this report’ or ‘in this reporting period’. Another one that is a complete waste of space. We know the reporting period, it too is written on the front page

• ‘Is never late for work’ or ‘never gives up’ Avoid writing in the negative, turn it into a positive and maintain the tenure of the appraisal.

• Be concise, factual, specific and objective.

 

[True Blue Jack]

When is the 3rd RO required to make comments on the SJAR?

Shamelessly lifted from JSP 757 (for 'officer' read 'officer or airman'):

8.91 Requirement for a Third Reporting Officer. You should complete the 3RO’s section (except when the 2RO is 3-star rank or higher) as follows:

a. When the 2RO has assessed an officer’s suitability for promotion 2 ranks up as ‘High’ or ‘Exceptional’.

b. Where a fundamental disagreement exists between the 1RO and the 2RO; defined as where the 2RO’s assessment is clearly and unmistakably different in tenor to that of the 1RO, and the difference has not been resolved through consultation.

c. Where military input is essential in an otherwise non-MOD civilian reporting chain.

d. For officers in Command appointments:

(1) RN. Commanding Officers of ships, submarines, naval air squadrons, RM commando units and other independent commands.


(2) Army. Not applicable.


(3) RAF. Wing commander and above in command appointments, eg station commander, OC wings/flying squadrons etc. This does not include officers serving in HQ, specialist appointments, etc, where they are not ‘in command’.

e. In specific cases where the Service Secretary considers it necessary (see Naval Service and Army Annexes to this Chapter).

The vast majority of people will not require a 3RO. I mean how can you assess a Cpl as high or exceptional for promotion to Chf Tech/FS?