Scenario: An ‘Off’ Year

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

“Well, what are you doing in my little corner of the world?” says Master Warrant Officer (MWO) Phil Careau as his long-time friend, Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Glen Dunton, sticks his head in the door. “Coffee on me at the mess, Phil?”

“Great idea, Glen. I need a break from writing these performance appraisal reports (PARs),” says MWO Careau. Both senior non-commissioned members (NCMs) are posted to the same Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) base.

“Phil, you sound a little stressed. What’s up?” asks CWO Dunton.

“It’s one of my Warrant Officers (WO),” MWO Careau replies. “He’s one of the senior technicians on the squadron maintenance team. Great tech, great leader, and he’s been pegged to go much higher than WO. But I’m having a hard time writing his PAR this year.”

“I don’t understand, Phil,” says CWO Dunton. “If he’s that good, what’s the problem?”

“Well, he’s had a pretty hard year,” explains MWO Careau. “He broke his leg last summer and his recovery was pretty slow. He’s also been going through a rough patch with his wife, and then his mother passed away a few months ago. So, his head hasn’t really been in the game. His work suffered this year. I don’t know if I can give him the same ‘extremely effective’ ratings that I gave him the last two years. But, if his PAR actually reflects the level of work that he did this year, he won’t be merit-listed and promoted. Then he’ll have to work his way back up to get merit-listed again. That could take him the next two to three years. That’s not fair to him, and I really feel he’s earned the next promotion.”

“Hmm, that is tough,” agrees CWO Dunton. “I had the same situation at my last posting in Trenton. I ended up giving him the PAR that I thought he deserved, even though he had an off year. And he did get promoted that season. But as far as I was concerned, he had already earned the next promotion to MWO.”

A few weeks later, CWO Dunton runs into MWO Careau at the Mess. “So, Phil,” he asks, “what did you end up doing about that tough PAR?”

Categories

• Principles: Respect the Dignity of all Persons, Serve Canada before Self, Obey and Support Lawful Authority
• Values: Integrity, Stewardship, Excellence
• Cultural themes: Service, Leadership, Teamwork
• Misconduct types: Not Specific
• GBA Plus themes: Marital Status
• Audience: Defence Team

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical principles to “Serve Canada before Self,” “Obey and Support Lawful Authority” and “Respect the Dignity of all Persons” in this setting.
• Discuss the ethical values of integrity, stewardship, and excellence in relation to PARs or any workplace performance evaluations.

Facilitation Questions

1. What is the problem in this scenario?
   • Open group discussion.
2. What considerations are at play with respect to Defence Ethics and the military ethos?
   • Open group discussion.
   • Discuss the ethical principles to “Serve Canada before Self,” “Obey and Support Lawful Authority,” and “Respect the Dignity of all Persons” in this setting.
   • Discuss the ethical values of integrity, stewardship, and excellence with respect to PARs and workplace performance evaluations.
   • Discuss fairness and equity regarding Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel evaluations.
3. What action(s) could MWO Careau take in this situation?
   • Open group discussion
   • Option 1: MWO Careau gives the WO a PAR that reflects the level of work that the WO actually did during the current reporting period. This likely results in the WO not being merit-listed and promoted, and further, it could take him two to three years to work his way back up to get merit-listed again.
   • Option 2: MWO Careau could give the WO a PAR that he thought the WO “deserved”. He strongly believes that his subordinate had “already earned the next promotion to MWO” and therefore, is evaluated on his potential and not actual performance.
   • Note that both individuals are supervisors who want to be fair to their personnel in their assessment of their performance during a specified period. Discuss “fairness” in evaluation of subordinates.