Scenario: Performance Appraisal Report

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

“Hey, Jo, have you done your performance appraisal reports (PARs) yet?” Major (Maj) Norman Kwong asks their long-time friend, Maj Jo Walzer.

“Yes, I’m done,” Jo answers. “I’m just waiting for input from the boss and then I’ll be ready to start debriefing my staff. You?

“Nearly ready,” Maj Kwong says. “All done except for one, and it’s a tough one.” 

“What’s the problem?” Maj Walzer asks. 

“Well, Jo, it’s about Captain (Capt) Otto Heinrick,” says Maj Kwong. “They were rated as exceeding expectations for the past three years by my predecessor, Maj Jack Pye, and the boss told me that Heinrick was very close to getting promoted last year. In the past 10 months that they have worked for me, however, Heinrick’s performance has been average, nothing more.” 

“I’m not surprised, Norm,” says Maj Walzer. “Heinrick and Pye are really close friends. Heinrick could do no wrong, and if they did, it was never their fault. At least that’s the picture Jack Pye painted.” 

“Oh,” Maj Kwong says. “I didn’t know that.” 

“Anyhow, Norm,” Maj Walzer says, “just write up Heinrick as you see them.” 

“That may seem simple, Jo, but they were walking on water until last year, and if I suddenly write them up as just meeting expectations, they’ll drop on the merit list. On the other hand, if I rate them higher than they deserve, then they could end up as my boss someday. I’m also feeling some pressure because the boss seems to have bought into Pye’s high opinion of Heinrick.”

Categories

• Principles: Serve Canada before Self, Obey and Support Lawful Authority
• Values: Integrity, Loyalty, Courage
• Cultural themes: Service, Identity, Leadership
• Misconduct types: General Misconduct
• GBA Plus themes: Not Specific
• Audience: Canadian Armed Forces

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical principles of Serve Canada before Self and Obey and Support Lawful Authority in this scenario. 
• Discuss the ethical values of Integrity, Loyalty, and Courage in this scenario. 

Facilitation Questions

1. What is the problem in this scenario?    
   • Open group discussion.    
2. Discuss the ethical principles of Serve Canada before Self and Obey and Support Lawful Authority in this scenario.  Discuss the ethical values of Integrity, Loyalty, and Courage.   
   • Open group discussion. How are these principles and values being demonstrated by the individuals in this scenario? 
   • Obey and Support Lawful Authority – It is the ethical decision for Maj Kwong to assess the performance of their subordinates accurately and honestly despite conflicting external factors. If Maj Kwong’s supervisor requires them to give a higher PAR to a subordinate even though they do not agree with the assessment (which they have not yet done in this scenario), it would create an ethical dilemma. 
   • Serve Canada before Self - Maj Kwong is obligated to carry out their duty as a supervisor to accurately and honestly assess the performance of Capt Heinrick based on what they have observed, and not based on external factors such as friendships, reputations, or loyalties. 
   • Loyalty: Maj Kwong may feel loyalty to their boss or predecessor, which could cloud their decisions related to the PAR ranking. 
   • Courage: Maj Kwong will need to be courageous and complete the PAR using their own assessment regardless of others’ input or conflicting priorities. If required, they can be courageous and have an honest conversation with their boss about the situation.
3. How would you advise Maj Kwong on what to do in this situation? Why?
   • Option 1:  Give Capt Heinrick a PAR similar to what they received last year. The PAR would align with their supervisor’s expectations, and Maj Kwong would not have to justify the average-scored PAR to their boss.  To consider: If Capt Heinrick does not have the potential to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the next rank, they could find themselves in situations that are beyond their capability, which could have negative impacts and directly result in poor leadership for their subordinates.
   • Option 2:  Give Capt Heinrick an average PAR (i.e., scored with “met expectations”) in line with what Maj Kwong observed during the reporting period. This will negatively affect the Capt’s chance to be promoted. This will also likely raise questions from their own supervisor. 
4. Have you ever seen or experienced favouritism in the workplace? What did you or could you do about it?
   • Unfortunately, no workplace is completely immune to nepotism/cronyism. Definition: the practices of favouritism by somebody in a position of power or leadership to a family member or a friend, especially by promotion to a position of employment when the individual does not have the experience or ability to perform the job.
   • *Note to Facilitator: Remind the group that Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members always have options related to complaint resolution processes and the redressing of grievances in accordance with DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process.