1 - 6 of 6
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Evaluating our Evaluations: Recognizing and Countering Performance Evaluation Pitfalls
- Author:
- Lee Evans and G. Lee Robinson
- Publication Date:
- 01-2020
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- Selecting the right person for the right job at the right time is a persistent challenge faced by organizations. Performance evaluations are a fundamental component of selection processes, and their use in the Army is nearly as old as the service itself. Some early evaluation systems consisted of a list of officers in a regiment with observations noted for each ranging from “a good-natured man” to “merely good—nothing promising” to “a man of whom all unite in speaking ill.” While our current evaluation form adds a bit more science to the art of performance evaluation, a constant in the Army’s performance evaluation system is the reliance on raters to render their judgment on the potential of a subordinate for service at higher levels. The purpose of this article is to better equip raters to exercise these judgments. While we recognize the calls for personnel management reform and the initiatives underway to better manage the Army’s talent, our purpose is not to add another voice to these suggestions for structural changes to the Army’s evaluation system.Instead, we focus on the process of discretionary judgment exercised by raters that is and will continue to be an integral part of performance evaluation. Our aim is to recognize the structural and cognitive biases inherent in our evaluation system and provide recommendations to help senior raters more objectively evaluate their subordinates. While we think the importance of this topic is self-evident, educating raters on the potential for bias in their evaluations is especially important in the type of rating system used by the Army. This system places great emphasis on the person serving as the senior rater. Although the evaluation forms include assessments from raters and sometimes intermediate raters, the senior rater comments are widely acknowledged to carry the most weight for promotion and selection decisions due to the small amount of time available to evaluate a soldier’s file. Most positions involve work that is highly interdependent on other members of the organization, which places a considerable demand on raters to assess and articulate how much an individual contributed to the output of the group. While the performance of an officer is undoubtedly important to his or her chances for promotion or selection, the abilities of the officer’s senior rater to convey the level of this performance through an evaluation is also vital to talent management. Previous studies demonstrate that exposure to a high-quality mentor increases an officer’s likelihood of an early promotion to major by 29 percent, perhaps because high-quality mentors are skilled at communicating their protégé’s potential in their performance evaluations. Equipping raters to make their best possible judgments of subordinates and clearly articulating these judgments is vital to fostering a meritocratic Army talent management system.
- Topic:
- Military Affairs, Leadership, Bureaucracy, and Performance Evaluation
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
3. What Every Boss Wants: Forecasting
- Author:
- George Fust
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- It was the first day at my new unit. As a staff officer I wasn’t surprised when the Battalion Executive Officer (XO), my new boss, motioned me into his office for a chat. What he said next left me speechless. I anticipated the normal “welcome to the unit” speech, but instead he offered one sentence worth of guidance and sent me on my way: “forecast my needs and that of the unit and you will succeed here.” What exactly did he mean by this? How does one forecast without additional information? Where should I start? What should the priority be? How far out should I forecast? My new boss clearly didn’t have the time to answer these questions, so I would have to figure it.
- Topic:
- Military Affairs, Leadership, and Bureaucracy
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
4. Multi-Domain Operations, bad for civil-military relations?
- Author:
- George Fust
- Publication Date:
- 08-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- Is it possible that the U.S. military’s newest warfighting concept is bad for civil-military relations? The current lexicon for this new concept is multi-domain operations, or simply MDO.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Leadership, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America
5. Good for the Military - Bad for the Nation?
- Author:
- George Fust
- Publication Date:
- 08-2019
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- Has an overreliance on the military as a one-size-fits-all solution become so engrained that we no longer consider alternatives? Are domestic politics so intertwined with foreign affairs that the citizenry has no choice but to accept veterans to fill the ranks of the executive branch? Is there hope for the future? Can we rebalance the general orientation of our government? The outcome to all these questions can be arrived at in a favorable way if our military continues to embrace the Huntingtonian notion of objective control. If professionalism continues to guide the actions of our military’s senior leaders and those who serve in decision making bodies such as the National Security Council, there is hope for a reversal in what Lasswell describes as a “picture of the probable.”
- Topic:
- Civil Society, Military Affairs, Leadership, and Professionalism
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
6. Controlling Agency Choke Points: Presidents and Turnover in the Senior Executive Service
- Author:
- Kathleen Doherty, David Lewis, and Scott Limbocker
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- If presidents wish to see their policy priorities implemented, they need control over career executives occupying key decision-making positions. This paper examines the extent to which new presidential administrations marginalize high level career executives and whether political conflict with a new administration drives executives from their positions. Once in office, presidents are more likely to target individuals with whom they conflict and those in important policymaking positions. Turnover is also affected by the choices of career executives. Some anticipate conflict and strategically exit before a new president takes office. To assess our theory, we use unique new data that combines individual survey responses with personnel records to analyze the probability that an agency executive departs her position from March 2015 to July 2017. Given our findings that turnover is driven both by presidential marginalization and strategic exit by bureaucrats, we conclude with implications for presidential efforts to control the bureaucracy.
- Topic:
- Leadership, Federalism, Bureaucracy, and Domestic Policy
- Political Geography:
- United States and North America