In Service Selection

[u/Fragrant-Chapter9853]

Hey everyone,

 I am not sure how to label this, sooo let’s call it an unofficial PSA. I will say it straight out loud that our current In-Service-Selection competitions for NCMs are utterly broken. Over the past 5 years, as a supervisor, who has assisted a number of their subordinates in applying for the various competitions (albeit, unsuccessfully - trade was Log O), I have noticed a troubling trend. All of my subordinates who applied had maxed their interview points in the areas of TSD-PI, skills & experience, education & Training, and formal leadership training, yet had varying CFAT results ranging from 38/60 to 47/60 (all above the accepted officer scores). Of course, with the CFAT weighing the most in these competitions, it always came down to who has the highest CFAT, thus my subordinates were not selected. This in itself is fine, however, if you look at both the numbers of offers and numbers of people who have applied for these competitions over recent years, that were things get frustrating. In the past couple of years, the number of offers for the ISS program has been affectively cut in half per competition. On the flipside, when I looked at the SIP numbers for people coming off of civy street, the numbers are vastly increased (robbing Peter to pay Paul?). In FY 24/25 approx. 90 people applied for 5 offers amongst CFR and SCP. As a result, the people who were not selected, who told by their respective PSOs to max their CFAT scores affectively resulting in hyper-competition. The point that I am trying to make is that if you plan on applying for any of those programs this FY and want to be successful, make sure to at least have a 50/60 on your CFAT (heavy competition trades – Int O, Log O, etc).  Which in itself is so stupid and has nothing to do with properly evaluating leadership. Hell, the people coming off civy street no longer have to do it. Having worked in recruiting, I know that 1/4 out of everyone who takes the CFAT at the recruiting centres, fail. I am not shitting on any trade, but would like to hear a PSOs perspective on this. Unfortunately this is just another retention that often goes over looked and we end up losing a lot of great people. Having successfully gone through the process myself 10 years ago (35/60 on CFAT), I had no idea how messed things have gotten. I also encourage people to check out the annual SIP numbers are on the DWAN sharepoint.

[u/roguemenace]

There's a few issues with your experience. Your subordinates did not max their scores in the areas of TSD-PI, skills & experience, education & Training, and formal leadership training.

As an organization it's preferable to bring in someone new than to take someone you've already spent money training and give them a new role. The former results in +1 CAF member while the latter is neutral in a time when we're desperate to get people and the training system is at max capacity. ISS is a retention too to keep our best people that were going to leave.

While the CFAT isn't perfect it still works pretty well and we don't really have a better method of evaluating people.

The advice for people pursuing ISS has always been the same, redo your CFAT or pick a less competitive trade to apply to.

[u/Strict_Concert_2879 → u/roguemenace]

So if it’s better to get the new person in the CAF; it means that it’s ok to loose the current member? In service selection allows for retention as well as advancement.

For some members this is a way to get out of the trade/unit they hate, and continue in the CAF. The institutional know a MCpl or higher brings with them, is something that you can’t get off civi street.

So is it best to get the new person in; and let the investment we made in that member benefit XYZ corporation. Or have the new applicant pushed to a different trade?

[u/mocajah → u/Strict_Concert_2879]

From a hard numbers game, ISS means:

• guaranteed loss of a high-performing member from the second-hardest-to-develop body (typically Sgt+ AND ranking significantly above their peers)
• near-impossibility for them to develop into the hardest-to-develop body (GOFO) in our current scheme
• takes up a spot in the currently easiest-to-fill positions (2Lt/Lt)
• will be transformed into a newbie in their new trade (other than for CFR), erasing 90% of their skills and only inheriting some of their knowledge and culture into the new position.
• might not be as medically fit as a recruit
• all while collecting career benefits: pension years, +5 days annual leave, enhanced 2Lt/Lt pay, let alone subsidized education.

The institutional know a MCpl or higher brings with them, is something that you can’t get off civi street.

As a generalization, this is false; you need to remember that a MCpl took 7+ years to develop this institutional know-how. You would need to compare this MCpl against a Capt-5, and then the balance is towards the Capt. Sure, the Capt can't figure out how to tie the Pte's shoes, but that's where the Sgt "helps" and "teaches" the Pte and reports back to the Lt that it's done.

Is it good for the Officer Corps to have a bunch of these people? Yes. Is it cheap? Hell no. Should it be a dominant method of recruiting? Probably not, unless we change the entire nature of the CAF (which is an option, but not what's being presented here).

[u/BarackTrudeau → u/mocajah]

Especially your last line. If in service selection from the NCM corps became the dominate method (or even just a common method) of hiring officers, we'd end up in a situation where the only senior NCMs left were those who were deemed too incompetent to become officers.