Content area
Full Text
(Military Review, September-October 2016)
In the September-October 2016 issue of Military Review, Col. Kevin McAninch's article on multisource assessment and feedback (MSAF) claimed that the Army is not getting as much value from the MSAF program as it could if the program were implemented differently.1 While I agree that MSAF can realize greater value, there are several aspects of the program that should be clarified.
The program grew into a requirement from the idea of providing Army leaders with development that was uniquely individualized. MSAF was implemented through the initiative process of the Army Leader Development Program from recommendations in the Army Training and Leader Development Panel study.2 After successful pilots with fourteen units ranging from battalion to corps, the program was directed by the Army and codified in regulations.3 The 2014 National Defense Authorization Act directed that the secretary of defense use MSAF as the exemplar 360 program and assess expanded implementation across the services.4 The report stemming from the task was prepared by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and advised all services to use 360-degree assessments for development purposes.5
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley comments, "The Commander 360 program ensures leaders receive honest and candid feedback on their performance and leadership effectiveness. Armed with this critical information, they can continue to grow and develop as an Army leader"6 He sees that improving readiness depends on improving leadership.
The Center for Army Leadership (CAL) agrees with McAninch that the MSAF program is worth investing the effort to increase its impact. The CAL Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL) studies show that a majority of officers rate MSAF effective for making them more aware of their strengths and developmental needs.7 An even higher percentage of junior and senior NCOs and Army civilian leaders rate it effective.8 While ratings of value are mostly favorable, attitudes on some criteria are declining or are level, especially among officers who are required to record compliance on their officer evaluation report (OER).
One reason for the ratings trends is that many officers are not using the program as designed:
* Army leaders are required to complete an assessment on themselves and to contribute to the assessments of other leaders. Many leaders...