Today I was fortunate enough to sit on a board at APC Glasgow and thought I’d offer some views to recent twitter convos on the subject.
1. Board Composition. 1 x LE Colonel, 1 x WO1, 1 x non-RAC Major, 1 x Regtl CO 1 x E1 CO (that’s me) 2 x observers (Capt DE and Capt LE - RCMO). So what? This was a lot more diverse than I expected and made for a good mix of experience, experiences, perspectives and challenge!
2. Rigour. Contrary to ‘30 secs to scan’ we had a lot longer - probably 3/4 mins per book. Each book contains SJARS, career, quals and education summary. 3/4 mins is actually quite a lot of time. Especially when the board prep was so professional. Easy to read, well laid out etc.
3. Debate. We had plenty of time at the end of each batch (10 books) to give our scores, review and talk through perspectives if we disagreed. There was no ‘casting vote’ or APC card. All contributed to this and also feedback on how reports read and points to work on.
4. Check the process. A ‘dummy’ scoring round helped us settle in and actually the scores were consistent with what the same reports had scored before! That would be hard to repeat with 7 strangers drawn from across the RAC and the wider Army!
5. Fairness. I have to say I found the process incredibly fair. There have been times in my career when I would not have said that. I was deeply impressed with the civil servants who take incredible care over the conduct of the board. They are the ‘conscience’ and consistency.
5.1. Fairness 2. Once all books were scored the rest of the process is completely anonymised. This really impressed me - no possible way to filter in cap badge bits or other favouritism. You’d need to be a casino card counter to remember year of service, name, score etc.
5.2 Fairness and Filters. If you had a positive recommendation - you ran. This creates a big field but the books are scored in small batches with plenty of breaks (and brews and food) to prevent issues like fatigue, rushing, hangry scoring etc.
I hope this gives a little peak in the room and a personal perspective. If you want to see - ask to observe a board - like the people today. A real honour to read books of such quality. As ever the competition was STEEP, but we were selecting Warrant Officers - so there you go 👍🏻
I learned a lot about writing as a CO. Some of this will sound trite but stay with me.
1. It not good enough to say subject is my best - must promote. Why? When? For what job? We all have a top dog - they all compete against each other - make them stand out.
1. It not good enough to say subject is my best - must promote. Why? When? For what job? We all have a top dog - they all compete against each other - make them stand out.
2. Good comms with Head of Arm. As an ERE CO I take away I need to keep the donor COs up to date so they’re in the CO’s mind. I also need a clear idea of the plot and plan for the subject. Some HoA added depth, value, perspective - others not so much.
3. Compellance. Make it clear to the board so they’re not guessing. Clear placings. I have a slot identified for subject in the coming year. Tie up the HoA and 2RO - that’s 2 x COs saying the same thing!
Guess what I’m doing tomorrow? That’s right Sgts reports!
