Military Officer Performance: Actions Needed to Fully Incorporate Performance Evaluation Key Practices
Fast Facts
How does the U.S. military evaluate active duty officers and decide who gets promoted?
The military services evaluate officer performance using their own performance evaluation systems. Performance information is used for promotion decisions and can help officers with career development.
In our review, these systems demonstrated some effective practices related to system design and implementation, but there's more to do. For example, 2 of the systems don't require performance feedback for officers at key points, including after evaluations.
We recommended ways to improve the systems to get officers the feedback they need, and more.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Out of 11 key practices for performance evaluation, all four military service systems fully incorporated the same five key practices and partially incorporated one key practice. The service systems varied in their implementation of the remaining five practices. Some fully incorporated the practices, some partially incorporated them, and most did not incorporate one practice.
Assessment of the Military Services' Officer Performance Evaluation Systems against GAO's Key Practices for Performance Evaluation
Note: Fully incorporated: GAO found complete evidence that satisfied the key practice.
Partially incorporated: GAO found evidence that satisfied some portion of the key practice.
Not incorporated: GAO found no evidence that satisfied the key practice.
For example, GAO found that all four service systems fully incorporated the key practice that organizations should establish and communicate a clear purpose for the performance evaluation system by stating the purpose of their systems in relevant policies. In contrast, GAO found that three service systems did not incorporate the practice that organizations should align individual performance expectations with organizational goals because their systems' policies neither align performance expectations with organizational goals nor direct rating officials to do so. By fully incorporating all 11 key practices, the services will have better assurance that their performance evaluation systems are designed, implemented, and regularly evaluated to ensure effectiveness.
The 19 promotion board members and 31 active duty officers GAO interviewed provided differing perspectives on the value of information in officer performance evaluation reports and on the extent to which reports support officer development. Promotion board members stated that evaluation reports provided sufficient information to inform their decisions about which officers to recommend for promotion. Some active duty officers stated that the reports provide a clear and relevant tool for assessing performance and supporting officer development. Conversely, others stated that factors such as misused or overused narrative may prevent a clear picture of officer performance areas in need of growth.
Why GAO Did This Study
Military service performance evaluation systems provide necessary performance information for approximately 215,000 active duty commissioned officers across the Department of Defense (DOD). They also support decisions about officer promotions and placements. These decisions affect the composition and quality of the military's current and future leadership.
Public Law 117-263 includes a provision for GAO to review the military services' officer performance evaluation systems. This report examines (1) the extent the military services' active duty officer performance evaluation systems incorporate key practices for performance evaluation, and (2) how officer performance evaluations inform promotion board determinations and support officer development.
GAO developed 11 key practices for performance evaluation; reviewed military service policies, manuals, forms, and other documentation; conducted nongeneralizable interviews with 19 promotion board members and 31 active duty officers; and interviewed DOD officials.
Recommendations
GAO is making a total of 20 recommendations, including that three services develop a training plan and align performance expectations with organizational goals; two services address communication of performance expectations and competencies and require feedback; and all four services develop a plan to evaluate their systems. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
---|---|---|
Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Army's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 1) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for the delivery of training on the Navy's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 2) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan for the delivery of training on the Air Force's performance evaluation system to all officers on an ongoing basis. (Recommendation 3) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations revises the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 4) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should revise the Air Force's performance evaluation system policy or guidance to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 5) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to ensure that raters explicitly align officer expectations with organizational goals. (Recommendation 6) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations updates the Navy's performance evaluation system policy to identify and define all traits by which officers are evaluated. (Recommendation 7) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Navy's performance evaluation process. (Recommendation 8) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to acknowledge that competencies and expectations were communicated as part of the Marine Corps' performance evaluation process. (Recommendation 9) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should assess the design, implementation, and outcomes associated with the Army's forced distribution model and consider alternatives as necessary based on the findings of the assessment. (Recommendation 10) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should revise the Army's performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to all officers at key points in the process, including following the completion of a performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 11) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should develop a mechanism, such as a signature block on the Army's evaluation report, to capture the provision of performance feedback to officers with their performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 12) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps revises the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system policy to require the provision of performance feedback to officers following the completion of a performance evaluation report. (Recommendation 13) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a mechanism, such as a signature block on the evaluation report, to capture that feedback is provided to officers at all key points in the Marine Corps' process. (Recommendation 14) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Army's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 15) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Navy's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 16) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a plan for regularly evaluating the Marine Corps' performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 17) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan for regularly evaluating the Air Force's performance evaluation system, including system tools and processes. (Recommendation 18) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations develops a process to review the results of the Navy's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, for example, through reviews of ratings or ratings trends. (Recommendation 19) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
Department of the Air Force | The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a process to review the results of the Air Force's performance evaluation system for bias and accuracy, for example, through reviews of ratings or ratings trends. (Recommendation 20) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|