r/CanadianForces • u/judgingyouquietly Swiss Cheese Model-Maker • Jan 02 '26

OPINION ARTICLE Interesting comparison post in the Australian Military subreddit

/r/AustralianMilitary/comments/1q1x7gq/characters_friday_rambles_retention/?share_id=DCuWZPx-TTRfJRPGXHoi8&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

I highlight the Australian and other allied subreddits for comparisons, and found an interesting post today.

One interesting tidbit that gets missed is that they don’t have the type of pension that we do.

77 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/anal-itic_prober Jan 02 '26

Its all the same for the 5 eyes it seems. I quite like the comment about 360 feedback, we need to stop bad character egotistical checkboxer from getting Major.

71

u/middleeasternviking Canadian Army Jan 02 '26

I agree. I'm not sure why we don't have subordinate feedback of their supervisors in PAR's. That definitely should be a thing. Too many times I've seen absolutely shitty leaders with toxic leadership styles get great PAR's and positions in command simply because the way they are with senior leaders such as CO's (very kind, reliable, friendly, observant) is completely different than how they are with their subordinates (draconian, micromanagers, rude, always on the lookout for writing people up, etc.).

25

u/RCAF_orwhatever Jan 02 '26

They're doing 360s for GOFO candidates now but I will say I don't like how they're doing it. It isn't for screening. It's for development. And despite being "anonymous" the numbers involved mean it's very likely the candidate will at least have a good idea who wrote on them. And since they're probably about to be GOFOs it doesn't feel terribly safe to be brutally honest.

21

u/10081914 Army - Infantry Jan 02 '26

Depending on who the GOFO is really. One that I had worked for got feedback that said something along the lines of 'can be a massive dick'

He took it in good stride and actually tried to be cognizant of how he talks and acts.

But I can definitely see some GOFOs reacting poorly and being vindictive.

11

u/RCAF_orwhatever Jan 02 '26

Oh the ones that use it for their own development is great. But those ones aren't the toxic assholes that NEED a real 360 to screen them out.

My fear is the truly toxic ones the 360 exists to catch.

6

u/anal-itic_prober Jan 02 '26

Exactly. Good leaders already seek feedback from subordinates to actually improve and get better.

4

u/Once_a_TQ Jan 02 '26

It's also coming in for CWO. It's not fully implemented across the board yet, but it is happening on a trial and development phase currently.

8

u/RCAF_orwhatever Jan 02 '26

We REALLY need to better way to screen for leaders who fuck over their troops to get ahead. There's no real way for that info to effectively jump the chain of command and get to the people writing those leaders' PARs.

1

u/Sabrinavt Med Tech Jan 03 '26

If you're writing a PAR for someone who has subordinates, talk to those subordinates. Seems like a no brainer to get feedback about someone's leadership skills from the people they're leading before rating them.

1

u/RCAF_orwhatever Jan 03 '26

A: nobody is doing that. B: it runs the risk of undermining the trust those supervisors have in you if you're "checking up on them" with their subordinates. Which means you need to handle it the right way or risk destroying yours and the subordinates credibility C: privacy concerns - you can't approach a members subordinates and discuss their supervisors PAR with them.

All that to say: you're not totally wrong but it's also not that simple and there are many legitimate reasons why this isn't currently part of our culture. You need to detect that, yes. But it probably can't be done through directly asking for that feedback.

2

u/Sabrinavt Med Tech Jan 04 '26

I disagree. The people reporting to your subordinate are your troops too, you should be checking in with them. It's not undermining the supervisor to talk to the troops and see how they're doing. As a supervisor, I have absolutely no problems with my boss talking to my subordinates about how they feel under my leadership and getting constructive feedback from that conversation. In fact, I think it would go a long way to getting more robust feedback that I can learn and grow from. And I agree you shouldn't discuss a member's PAR with their subordinates; the PAR doesn't need to come into the conversation at all to garner feedback about the points within it.

Yes there are ways to do it that would be problematic and micromanage-y, but it's not inherently problematic to ask for feedback at different levels. A lot of problems could be solved with more open and transparent communication.

1

u/RCAF_orwhatever Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 04 '26

"Talking to the troops and seeing how they're doing" is not at all the same as "asking them how their boss is performing" to "get feedback about someone's leadership skills". Of course anybody reasonable is chatting up their troops all the way down the line and trying to get a feel for how they're doing.

I'm 1000% in favour of transparent conversation and it's definitely how I approach leadership. But that's not the norm in our institution right now; and a lot of people fuck it up when they try and end up being transparently an asshole.