Posted by Vice Admiral Jack D (President) in CO Performance Improvement Process

Posted by Vice Admiral Krystelle Knight (Engineering DIrector) in CO Performance Improvement Process

Posted by Captain Amdirgol S (Personnel Director) in CO Performance Improvement Process
Posted by… suppressed (6) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Hi all,

Whilst we are discussing ship health, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss how we ensure COs are meeting the standards that are expected. At the moment there is no process set out, other than the removal from post by the FComm. In theory, this could lead to an FComm removing a CO the first time they fail to do something (eg a ship report) or it could lead to an ongoing situation where the CO repeatedly improves in the short term, but then fails to maintain the level of performance necessary. It also means there can be animosity when the FComm decides they have had enough - with the CO feeling like they have not had chance to improve.

I would like us to discuss a process where a CO can be issued two formal warnings prior to removal, and actually make it a requirement of removal - effectively a three strike system. This shouldn’t replace the normal FComm-CO management discussions, but should make it clear to the CO that their performance needs to improve. The warnings should also make it clear what the CO needs to do, ensuring that it is achievable, and that the CO is getting the support needed.

Before we get into the detail, I’d welcome thoughts on whether the principle of such a process would be welcomed.

Yours,

Jack

We have a really good (IMHO) framework built in dealing with GMs and how this system could work. It wouldn’t take much to adjust it for building toward COs as well. Having a process for removing a CO could be a good thing esp if we are trying to foster a system of more mentorship.

A quick recap for those who aren’t familiar with OGRE and the GM Disciplinary system.

Should the Gamemaster Director receive a complaint about a Gamemaster or have reason to believe that a Gamemaster is abusing his authority, violating Gamemaster regulations, or otherwise acting in a manner unbecoming an officer, the Gamemaster Director is authorized to investigate the matter and, if necessary, take disciplinary action.

In all such cases, the Gamemaster Director must first inform the Gamemaster in question of the potential problem. If the Gamemaster is able to adequately explain the situation or adequately amend his behavior, the issue is dropped. If not, or if the situation is such that it cannot be amended after-the-fact, the Gamemaster Director may take one or more of the following actions:

• Appoint a Gamemaster Observer (GMO) to the related Role Playing Area to monitor the situation and provide the Gamemaster Director with further details for a period of no longer than fourteen (14) days. The Gamemaster Observer may be any licensed Gamemaster of Full standing or higher. The Gamemaster Director may use information from the Gamemaster Observer to help determine what further action if any is necessary.
• Issue a citation against the Gamemaster, with statement of explanation, which will be permanently recorded by the Gamemaster Department. Such a citation may be used against the Gamemaster in future consideration for Classification changes.
• Impose a restriction against the Gamemaster for no longer than eight (8) months, with statement of explanation, restricting the Gamemaster from taking part in certain activities including, but not limited to, participating in Special Circumstances Missions, serving on more than a specified number of ships, or applying for a Classification change.
• Revoke the Gamemaster’s license. The Gamemaster Director must include a statement of explanation, and must also specify a Probation Period of no less than thirty (30) days and no more than six (6) months, during which time the Gamemaster in question may not reapply for licensure.

Disciplinary action by the Gamemaster Director may be appealed to the President.

Taking this as a framework, I think it could hold some water and make the system as impartial as possible.

However, all this being said… the FComm cannot currently remove a CO on his own… According to this section of FCOMM ” A CO may be removed by the Fleet Commander with the consent of the President” It would sound like there is another step to remove a CO and that is via Edict.

But, if we were to move forward in a formal sense to improve the quality and knowledge of COs within the fleet, I think we could modify the OGRE method and adapt it toward COs.

Dave

Thanks Dave!

There are some things I like about this - mainly the fact it’s a built out process. The other things we could look at adopting are:

The citation process - where the failings are clearly articulated. However, I think I would prefer a ‘warning’. I remember having this discussion many years ago, but us Brits don’t use citation to mean a summons - it’s more used when mentioning a praiseworthy act! I think we should also use it to set out what the required improvement is, and the timelines.

I would agree with this. In the Navy we used citation as a praiseworthy act as well. I think having a warning system would be good and something else I’ll highlight below.

The 8 month restriction - although I’d probably look for it to be a 8 month “be on good behaviour” period, as I’m not sure what the restrictions we would want to put on the CO would be.

While it’s 8 months for GMs, the process would have to be altered for COs, by the nature of the position, the faith in the role and the impact that it holds over other positions. I wouldn’t want there to be restrictions either but, more of a higher scrutiny of the position.

I’d also be keen to have a clearly staged process. The OGRE one allows the GMDir to do any of those things, rather than require them to step through stages (which is probably more appropriate for GMs). I’m thinking of something like 1st warning -> 2nd warning (if no improvement) -> removal (again, if no improvement).

Yes! I used OGRE to highlight that we have a process in place for other roles and that it wouldn’t be outside precedent to have a process for this. I’m sorry I didn’t make that more clear in my ramblings. Once again, I’ll highlight an idea below.

As for removal, yes it needs to be with the President’s consent - but it doesn’t require an edict. The edict putting a new CO in place only confirms that the old CO was removed.

Jack

Something else i think I would like to borrow from the GMDept is a CO profile. Almost like a record. It would highlight warnings, improvements and more importantly, introduce letter of commendations. Borrowing from my time in the Navy, there are levels of showing the work above and beyond. There are medals, Flag letters of commendation and Captains letters of commendation. This type of system could go far is helping identify, over time, what works and what isn’t.

Dave,

Thanks for allowing a few days to pass before continuing - I want to make sure people get chance to comment on the concept before we get into the detail. I’ve not seen any objections, so we’ll progress the discussion.

Firstly, I really support the idea of a COs profile (I’m keen for some form of ‘service jacket’ for all members) - but that’s not essential to establishing the process to improve CO performance.

I’ve put a few comments on the rest below:

We could have a system that looks something like this: (Obviously this will be better flesh out)

1. Bringing the issue/complaint to the CO (FComm in a formal setting)
   - This will allow a conversation to let a CO provide an explanation of the situation.

If this solves then it ends here. If not, a formal warning is submitted to the Pres:

I don’t think that an issue/complaint needs to be the start of this process - this could just be the FComm noting that the CO is, for example, not managing their ship properly. However, we do need to make sure that there have been discussions about performance prior to this (rather than this being out of the blue).

1. Identify if the situation is from a personal conflict between the FComm and CO (Pres reviewing the warning)
   - If yes or the FComm requests, the Pres can either mediate the process or, appoint a FCapt or higher with Fleet Command experience to review and complete the process
   - If not, the FComm will continue down the list.

I would say that every formal warning should be reviewed by the President prior to it being issued, to make sure that they are correctly done and that it isn’t just a personal conflict. If there is an issue between the CO and FComm, I’m not sure mediation in this instance would solve it - we would probably need to look at how that relationship is resolved.

1. Once the warning is issued, the CO and FComm/Overseer will work out a process to solve the problem(s) identified and put in writing the steps that will be taken within a directed timeline. 2 - 4 months would be enough time to fix most issues

I think this should be part of the formal warning, rather than in addition to. So, for example, I would expect the CO and FComm to discuss the situation and come up with a plan. Should the FComm feels that a formal warning is not needed (eg it’s the first time, or there are some extenuating circumstances), then it’s not formally recorded but the plan is still useful. If the FComm feels that a formal warning is required, then it should include:

1. The improvement required from the CO over the following month
2. The help and support available to the CO
3. Details of how to appeal

I’m keen to keep the time period to a month, even if the problem will take longer to fix, otherwise we risk losing momentum. I’m not sure what we want for an appeal’s process (is President ok, if they have already reviewed the warning?).

1. At the end of the directed timeline, the Pres will review the warning, if there was no improvement from the CO, a second warning is issued with identifying why the issues could not be resolved in the directed timeline. The process of the second warning would be a shorter timeline than the first too show ANY movement in the right direction.

I would like this to be by the FComm again, rather than President - I’m really keen to allow cabinet to take ownership of problems. However, the President would be reviewing the second formal warning before it was issued. The timeline should be the same (1 month).

1. If the Pres, FComm/Overseer believes that the CO is refusing to correct the issue or, is unable to do the job required, they are subject to removal.

Provided they have had two warnings; I don’t think it would be fair to jump from first warning to dismissal, for example. Removal should be done by the FComm, again with the President reviewing it.

The other bit we need to be careful of is someone who improves after the first formal warning, and then falls back into bad habits a few months later. You mentioned that 8 month ‘restrictions’ being more of a scrutiny period - we ought to be clear that if you’ve had a formal warning issued, you remain at the level of formal warning until the scrutiny period is at an end.

So, for example, let’s say I get a formal warning, fix the problems, but then become rubbish again in 3-4 months, the FComm can issue a second formal warning.

This, of course, wouldn’t apply to AWOL as a ship shouldn’t be expected to operate without a CO for months on end.

Agreed - we probably should be more explicit about when a ship’s CO gets removed.

This isn’t an end all and doesn’t include the requirements of what is expected of a CO but, a rough draft of how we could address issues that might come up.

I think having a CO record for improvements, commendations, warnings and issues would be a good addition to the club and our ever long quest for data on how to improve.

Dave

Agreed, but keen to split that discussion off from this, and make it more about member ‘service jackets’.
On that point, I’m entirely willing to continue spearpointing an awards system and the discussion therof - I’ve been a bit overwhelmed IRL recently and that’s one of the things I haven’t gotten back to, but if there are more people interested in developing it that could help, I’d be more than willing to have that discussion in another thread!

I’m very conscious that it’s just been us two, so would welcome other perspectives!

Yours,

Jack

Hey guys, I wasn’t even aware this discussion was in the works!
Basically though I do not have any objections to what has been laid out, I actually really like the 1,2, 3 warnings before removals with guidelines and review periods and presidential oversight when warranted. I agree that it needs to be of shorter duration than the GM’s review process as a CO is supposed to be more active on his ship.

Krystelle

I also like that system. Rubrics/established review and warning systems are a good way to have an impartial approach, be transparent as to the inner workings, and also creates better goal posts for the COs in question, especially new COs that may still be figuring out the expectations on them.

Amdirgol, PDir

Thanks all,

So if I were to ‘bank’ what we’ve discussed so far:

• The concept of a CO Performance Improvement Process, with clear review and warnings is a good thing to improve impartiality and transparency.
• The stages would be a formal warning, a second formal warning, and then removal.
• At each stage, the FComm should determine what the failing is, how it should be improved, and clearly identify the support for the CO. The required improvement for the month should be recorded as part of the formal warning and agreed by both CO and FComm. The President needs to review and endorse formal warnings, and the FComm can decide to not issue a formal warning if an informal discussion is the best approach.
• Should the required improvement not be met within the month, then it proceeds to the next stage at the FComm’s discretion (in consultation with the President).
• Should the required improvement be met, the CO then needs to maintain a level of sustained performance for 8 months.
• Removal of a CO will be done in line with FCOMM should the CO fail to meet the required improvement agreed in the 2nd warning.

I appreciate that there will be some detail required on what’s required in a warning, etc - but I think the above is a sufficient skeleton for any bill / edict. So my follow on questions are:

1. Should we have this recorded in bylaws? My gut feel is yes to the above points, but then let the President set out guidance for how this should be done (eg format of the warning, etc).

2. This is probably a good framework for other positions (eg FComms, Directors, etc) that could remove the animosity from removal of personnel. I don’t propose we mandate it yet, but we should probably draft the bill to be separate to FCOMM to allow for a broader applicability, and then determine what positions we use it for.

Thoughts?

Jack

(PS. I’ve tagged everyone with a Command character. Do say if you want to be removed from any future tagging - or indeed added!).

Nothing of substance to add, but all I can think is “We’re adding CO PIPs?” Because that’s what the (US) federal government does with underperforming employees, and what they call it. Heh.

~ Capt Jaguar (Luke)