"Potential"

In the Army, your evaluation is important not for what your boss says about you, but for what your boss's boss says. According to AR 623-3, your rater assesses performance, while your senior rater evaluates your potential. The idea is that your "grand-boss" has a wider view of talent in the organization, and can better assess who should and should not get promoted.

Those with the greatest potential -- however it is assessed -- are considered for promotion to the next rank. The problem is understanding a senior rater's approach.

In theory, it's fairly clear. Performance is "duty performance, or how well a Soldier performs his or her assigned tasks as related to the Army Leadership Requirements Model." Potential is "ability to perform at the current and higher grade or rank, whether or not a Soldier will be given greater responsibility at the present rank, or retained for further military service." -AR 623-3 §1-8a(3)(a), 4 November 2015

In practice, it's much more complicated. First, senior raters are limited in giving "top blocks" to no more than 49 percent of people they senior rate, for any given rank. So if a lieutenant colonel senior rates five captains and four sergeants first class, only two of the captains and one of the sergeants can get a "most qualified" evaluation.

To add another layer of complexity, a senior rater's profile is built up over time. So, given a lieutenant colonel who hasn't had battalion command versus one who just finished it, you should work for the latter -- that person will have a much larger number of "MQs" they can give out.

Second, there's no uniform way to consider potential. Here's are the ones I've though of:

1. Trust. The senior rater rewards those who are trustworthy, loyal, and responsive. "Who's a part of my circle? Who's "a bro"? Who's most responsive?" The problem with this approach is that subordinates only focus on immediate goals and neglect longer term goals. "If it interests you, sir, it fascinates me."
   
   
2. Scope of job. If you do well in a big job, you probably have more potential than someone in an easier job. Should they be rewarded for it? Or does the senior rater count this as "You just did your job"? It's one thing to have a small job and then go "above and beyond." But it's another to have a big job with a lot of responsibilities, because they have less time to dedicate to those extra things. I've been in that position, and it makes me want to say, "Sir, how about you tell me what my job isn't, so I can do those things and look good."
   
   
3. Difficulty. Different from job scope, this relates to setbacks, problems, or challenges. For example, HHC commanders, unlike line commanders, aren't allotted executive officers, though the responsibilities are the same. Do they get special consideration?
   
   
4. What others say. Listening to what others say about a subordinate may provide insight on their performance, and the Army has used "360 degree" evaluations to identify and remove toxic leaders. Yet once the practice is institutionalized, it becomes an easy way to slander someone anonymously.
5. Physical fitness score. PT scores provide an easy, objective metric for battalion commanders to evaluate lieutenants. However, minor differences are rarely indicative of leadership capability.
   
   
6. Value to organization. The senior rater looks at what value the subordinate provided to the organization. What continuity products did they create? How is the organization better now because of you? The problem here, though, is that those with smaller roles are at a disadvantage. For instance, brigades have chemical officers, but there often isn't a big demand for their skills. Does that mean they're at a disadvantage in providing value? And how exactly does one distinguish themselves in providing value to the organization? Does volunteering count? Public relations successes?
   
   
7. Seniority. Officer promotion boards are based on year groups. A senior rater can simply consider who needs the "top block" to stay in. But this discourages officers in later year groups from doing their best. "Why bother being outstanding? I'm just profile fodder until it's my turn..."
   
   
8. Professionalism. Who knows the rules and follows them? A commander can consider things like property accountability and ethics. In my case, I wrote a book. Did that count for anything? In my current position, it didn't -- I gave my senior rater a copy but he never read it.
   
   
9. Formal Rubric. This transparently codifies things, which is great for subordinates, but it also restricts a senior rater's judgment. And if it isn't comprehensive, it'll focus subordinates exclusively onto listed tasks. Plus, few senior raters have the foresight to predict what will become important during their time in command.
   
   
10. Secret Rubric. This is also called one's "gut." It's a mix of everything above, but instead of the formal rubric, it's all informal, opaque, and unclear. Maximum flexibility for the senior rater; maximum anxiety for subordinates.

In my experience, the Secret Rubric is the most common method for evaluating subordinates' potential, if only because there's no way anyone can argue against it. Someone can be rated "top 15% of all officers I've ever worked with," which in Army-speak means average, and have no basis for complaint.

Should a subordinate try to justify a higher rating, a senior rater can say things like, "I rated you top 15% percent! What more do you want?!" And there's always the "Yes, you did that, but you were just doing your job."

So I hate it when I'm asked "how do you think you did?" because we both know the ratings have already been determined. And without knowing what my senior rater *really* values -- in terms of the above priorities -- it's impossible to guess where I stand. So while I can come up with a thousand answers for a gazillion different scenarios, it all comes down to, "Fine, but I realize my own opinion is immaterial."

I'm getting out of the Army. This has already been determined, so I shouldn't get too upset about how its rating system works. But it still sticks in my craw that for a bureaucratic organization with centrally-controlled promotions, things seem so random.

I wish I could have figured this out earlier and navigated the system better. Getting M.S. was beyond my control, but my evaluations -- that's going to gnaw at me. Was it me, or was it bad luck?

The answer would affect perception of myself. But in the end, I suppose that's immaterial, too.

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate."
- General Curtis LeMay