I'm one of three CG officers attending grad school at San Diego State this year as part of the Coast Guard's Performance Technology Program. In one of our classes, we were discussing the topic of self development. The basis behind self development is that individuals should take personal responsibility for their learning and development through self assessment, action, and reflection. An analogy sometimes used is the attitude of being self-employed even while working in an organization. One tool used in some self development programs is the Individual Development Plan (IDP). This led to a discussion between the three of us about the strengths and weaknesses of the CG's IDP program.

I am of the opinion that the CG's IDP program is a good idea and could be a valuable tool for everyone (not just E-6/O-4 and below). Some of you that used to work with/for me will say hogwash because I used to dislike having to fill out my own IDP form. However, now that I have researched the topic more in depth, I believe my frustration partly stemmed from the way the program was not being implemented uniformly/correctly across all commands. How many of you knew that Flag Officers and Senior Executive Service Civilians have their own IDP form? Yes, Flag Officers fill out IDPs and are counseled by their supervisors. If utilized correctly, IDPs can not only help make individuals better at their jobs, more valuable to the Coast Guard, and more competitive for promotion, but help them achieve their own personal goals as well. Still, the CG's program is not without its faults. I think much of the detail found in the enlisted form is a good planning tool for E-1s through E-4s, but parts of the form are extraneous for E-5s and above. I have looked at some of the IDP forms from the other services, government agencies, private corporations, and universities and the vast majority use a format similar to the officer/aux/civilian form.

So what do you think? Is the IDP a valuable tool for CG members? How do your current/past commands use the IDP? Has the IDP program at your command/past commands been effective?

If you want to learn more about the idea of self development, we started a discussion on the topic at:

http://pinotnet.ning.com/group/selfdevelopment

Feel free to join in on the discussion there or continue the discussion here.

-LT Matt Chong

Question:
What is your opinion on the CG's Individual Development Plan Program

Choices:
Great tool, works well
Good tool, but not being used correctly/uniformly
Good idea, but the forms need to be changed
Just something else keeping me from my duties
Get rid of it. It has no value.

 

Where's the choice:

"Good idea, but the Supervisor still needs to be HIGHLY involved with their people and not use the IDP as an excuse to detach from their subordinates and their duties to stay involved"

Matt:

Whether it's an IDP, Training Plan, or other goal setting tool - it's only as good as the use and follow through. When it becomes a paperwork exercise and/or a tool that everybody just goes through the motions with - it's no good.

Being retired, I am unfamiliar with the current IDP; however, having seen the service or various commands use similiar tools such as Seven Habits, Unit Training Plans, or the Franklin Planners - I've generally watch a burst of enthusiam about the tool and how great it is - only to see it dimish, sometimes rapidly, after the rollout or initial training and become next to useless.

Perhaps the IDP will be different. But my own opinion is that all such development or goal setting tools - have to be driven from internal motivation of the individual, the external motivation or imposition of the tool - no matter how good the tool - can't replace the individual's own desire to set goals and reach higher.

Good luck on the program. Same program I attended at FSU back in 89'.

Best Wishes
LCDR D.A.Albaugh, USCG, Ret.

The IDP has potential to be a valuable resource, but it needs to be changed so it can be more effective for the target audience. As it is now, it's generic. We only have one template for the entire CG. There should be 5 versions of the IDP (E-3 and Below, E-4 thru E-6, E-7 thru E-9, O-1 thru O-4, and O-5 and above).

Example: I'm fairly sure that an E6 with 8 years in knows what "A" school he wants to go to.

For E-4 thru E-6, talk about the commissioning programs and the path to CWO. Again, for example.

I can elaborate but I think every can see where I'm trying to go with this.

quote:

When it becomes a paperwork exercise and/or a tool that everybody just goes through the motions with - it's no good.

In my experience on the civilian side (30+ years) that is pretty much what happens.

Also one must realize that many folks that join just want to put in their four years and get out, so this will not be a tool they value at all.

Stan, remember when everyone in industry was going Japanese with Quality Circles

In some instances an IDP is a valuable tool. However, with the expansion to E-6, Warrants, and to the O-4 level this becoming somewhat mundane (because I can't think of another term). If a member has already reached those "heights" is it not pretty clear what there career goal is already? If it was ever implemented for E-7 to E-9 I see absolutely NO VALUE.

A little birdy told me "these IDPs were instituted because supervisors were not doing their jobs in mentoring those juniors" (quote was recited to the best of my recollection).

If the Supervisor is doing their job correctly, IDPs really shouldn't be needed. Where is their "mid-marking counseling"?

The CG is already bogged down with too much paper work already with on-line training, IDP, ALMIS, TMT etc etc, when does the insanity stop?

GUNS

Matt-
If you want to fix the IDP you need to scrap the whole thing and start over. IDP's don't work for the same reason that the 'no cell phone when driving law' doesn't work in California, it's unworkable and beyond repair.

If your really want to take on a process for Performance TECHNOLOGY then might I suggest the Advancement and Promotion system. How do you make it a meritocracy without the nepotism or old boys network or affirmative action or any sort of taint? A true merit based system would only reward the truly deserving.

SO....build a system(s) that can monitor, capture, evaluate, analyze, measure, classify, score and identify performance. Include an ENGINE that can take all the performance data and determine who to promote or advance - the right person for the right job when it is needed. No biased selection boards just performance history and the apptitude for future performance. THAT would be an incredible thesis for a graduate program. Feel free to use the USCG as your theoretical organization that needs this change.

Just a thought......

quote:

Originally posted by Salba:
it's only as good as the use and follow through. When it becomes a paperwork exercise and/or a tool that everybody just goes through the motions with - it's no good.

Exactly. Right now the IDP doesn't hold any real value to many in the CG. The issue is not solely with the forms themselves (they were in the process of being updated when I started grad school back in May), but in the application of the forms. Some commands are treating the program like a "paperwork exercise" and going through the necessary motions to check the box on TMT, keep everything in the "green" and not be hassled by their parent commands. This is not totally their fault. Some were never taught how to write a good IDP or even the real purpose behind the IDP. Other commands are returning IDPs to individuals when they are unrealistic or inadequate ensuring a constructive process. How do we make more commands move into the second category? There must be some way to create an incentive for doing it right. When I say incentive, I mean somehow rewarding those that do it right not only punishing those commands that do it wrong. Some larger commands have their Gold/Silver badge or Ready for Ops teams examine several random IDPs when they visit subordinate commands. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but at least they are trying something. The questions we should be asking are how do you motivate someone to want to write a good IDP? How do you make the IDP program valuable to those it is supposed to serve, the individual CG member?

MM:

Congrats on your HPT grad selection. Some excellent points have been made about the shortcomings of the IDP. from what I have seen, it really does boil down to a paperwork drill in most cases. There are literally tons of self-assessment/self improvement tools out there and it can be very confusing when trying to select the best method. To PTC's credit, the Joe Harless process was selected as the standard CG performance improvement tool, and it is effective when used properly. therein lies the real problem with any IDP process - using it properly. A guided process with personal involvement by trained HPT seniors would be the only way to ensure success IMHO.

quote:

The questions we should be asking are how do you motivate someone to want to write a good IDP? How do you make the IDP program valuable to those it is supposed to serve, the individual CG member?

If someone is interested in career advancement and trusts the advice of their supervisor then they will talk to them and get advice. But there are too many people who really care more about what they are doing tonight than what they will be doing five years from tonight; and too many supervisors who don't act like role models and gain the trust of the people who work for them to the point that they are willing to take that candid career advice.

The IDP as it stands is nothing more than a paperwork drill. One day I'm telling someone what they need to do make E-5 and helping them complete that goal, and a week later I'm turning in a 4910 because they can't even be an E-4 right; which means all the time I invested was a waste because it was just a show, but hey, its required so I'll continue to do it. And to say the IDP is great but nobody does it right is failing to see one of the real problems, if it was great then it wouldn't be so difficult to do right.

When I was an E-4, the only "career advice" I took was pretty much doing the opposite of what my supervisor had done or would do, if I had followed his lead I would be an absolute train wreck today. Instead I went to someone I trusted and got advice from them.

In my opinion the people that want help will get help from people they trust, regardless of who sits down and does a 20 page form with them. But the people you should ask are the E-2 through E-5 and JO's, they are the ones the program was intended for. Find out what they think of the IDP and if it has helped them in any meaningful way.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: underwhelmed,

The IDP is a good program in spirt. However, in my situation it is a huge paperwork burdon. I have 35 non rates and as general rule they are only onboard a 378 for 6-12 months. The only ones that stay longer have been too mast or are waiting for the airman program. Additionally, the IDP program is unfunded. Field units have to purchase the binders, do the printing and find the hours in the day to counsel and document the counselling. My basic point is we did not need the IDP. The program was put place due to supervisors not knowing their role. As with every other program the majority must bare the burdon of someone else's short commings. If you really want to understand why we are missing the mark take a look at the advancemnets over the past 5 years, take care

TJG

The IDP is not necessary. Instead of spending time on this, we need to be working on developing people into leaders.

What I mean by that is, holding people to the standards and not inflating their marks. Taking a good look at the individual, their leadership traits, and overall performace to see if they should in fact be recommended for advancement. I am sick and tired of dealing with E-5's and E-6's who don't know the first thing about properly marking someone, or how to fill out CG Forms such as a CG-3307 or a CG-4910. We have people out there in these paygrades who do not know how to properly complete a Procurement Request! This is absolutely unacceptable. Shame on them for not knowing and shame on their supervisors for either not showing them, or signing the PBQ's off without really ensuring they can do the task.

Far too often today, we have supervisors who are afraid to not recommend someone for advancement. Reasons being is they are too worried about being buddy buddy with their subordinates instead of acting like a SUPERVISOR, like they should!

I firmly believe that if the supervisor conducted their duties, enforced rules/regulations, and served as a mentor to junior personnel, there would be no need for an IDP.

Like it or not, as a supervisor, you are expected to enforce the regs, mentor your personnel, and help ensure they are set up for success. Getting advanced is not just about the pay increase or getting a few more perks. It is also about greater responsibility and your people are your responsibility.

Those that want to be leaders, accept the responsibility, and do things right are the ones we need to be advancing.

I really do not think the IDP is needed. I think more involvement from supervisors and supervisors acting as such, would take care of everything.

Off my soapbox now.

Whatever happened to "personal responsibility"? Why do people need to be lead by the hand?

When the IDP was put into place, was the system broken? It didn't seem to be to me. Again, mid-marking and marks should be the time to council someone and mentoring should be an ongoing process. So, why reinvent the wheel and add paperwork that was already in place?

GUNS

quote:

Originally posted by kodiak5bears:
Whatever happened to "personal responsibility"? Why do people need to be lead by the hand?

When the IDP was put into place, was the system broken? It didn't seem to be to me. Again, mid-marking and marks should be the time to council someone and mentoring should be an ongoing process. So, why reinvent the wheel and add paperwork that was already in place?

GUNS

Not that the IDP is a solve-all fix-all, but c'mon. I have seen ALOT of supervisors and even a few cadre folks that could give a crap less about their people. Some POs get soo concerned with themselves and their careers, that they USE junior enlisted and/or neglect them and THEIR careers. Some do fall to the wayside for less than legitimate reasons.

IDP is great, but needs some modernization and reformatting. We also need some accountability for making sure they are getting done, versus a quick little check-mark in TMT. Make it easier for us. Put it in a computer application or something, with automated reminders, etc. Let the IDP pull progress data from CGBI and plug it into the IDP.

I'm w/Bosn1-4. Having done the 378 w/up to 45 personnel working for me, the inception of the IDP and its TMT tracking was a heartache at best. Admiral Johnson/MCPO Seifried asked me at the time if it would've been easier to make Chief if I had the IDP system. My answer was an immediate and resounding NO. However, I would have been a well informed E-4 or 5 if I had it. I had to get off of my butt and seek/find all of the info to advance and learn which in turn helped me advance, and that was the difference between me and the other person that didn't advance.
The IDP spoon feeds our junior people instead of instilling a work ethic and drive by forcing them to seek and learn the info.
I tried to take it seriously when it first came on line for first termers in PAC AREA, but found that it was taking an inordinate amount of time to complete with very little ROI. Instead of conducting individual IDP's w/each member, I turned to the mess deck version of "Death by IDP PowerPoint". As mentioned earlier in this board, most of the folks could care less, and why have them sleep during counseling when they could be nursing a 40 yr old cutter back to life. I knew my people and the glazed eyes told me what the majority thought. Maybe 5-10 folks in the 2 years of doing the IDP's actually cared, payed attention and came to me afterwards, at which time I afforded them all of the time they needed.
Having seen the process morph in a short time from a good idea/tool into a mandated cookie cutter requirement took all of the wind out of its sails...for me anyway. The IDP is well intentioned...and the road to hell is paved w/many good intentions.
Like dcmeyer said, it's up to the leaders/supervisors to DO THEIR JOBS and not be afraid to do them!!!! W/regards to not recommending folks, I've marked it on the marks sheet as Supervisor and had the CO trump it, then told the member during counseling WHY I didn't recommend them. At least they knew what they needed to improve on.
Ditch the IDP and get out there and teach your people something. We do too much checking of the boxes anymore and not enough active, hands-on training. More arguments for another strand, another day.

quote:

Originally posted by kodiak5bears:
In some instances an IDP is a valuable tool. However, with the expansion to E-6, Warrants, and to the O-4 level this becoming somewhat mundane (because I can't think of another term). If a member has already reached those "heights" is it not pretty clear what there career goal is already? If it was ever implemented for E-7 to E-9 I see absolutely NO VALUE.

Chief,

As I mentioned in the first post, Flag Officers and SES Civilians are using their own version of the IDP. They must see some value in it if they take the time to do it and get counseled by their supervisors.

In my opinion, the IDP is not supposed to be only about development on the job, but help you accomplish personal goals as well. Your long term goal might be to buy a house, retire by 40, become a better public speaker, or learn to golf. Your supervisor doesn't need to have all of the answers, but hopefully will be able to support you as you work toward your own goals.

The idea of self development is each person taking responsibility for improving themselves and their careers. In the first post I said self development was the idea of thinking of yourself as self-employed even while working in an organization. In many organizations, the IDP is part of a self development program. The IDP should be about strengthening your strengths, improving upon your weaknesses, continuous learning, and setting goals to make yourself better both for you and the CG.

The Army defines three types of self-development:

• Structured Self-Development: Required learning that continues throughout your career and that is closely linked to and synchronized with classroom and on-the-job learning.
• Guided Self-Development: Recommended but optional learning that will help keep you prepared for changing technical, functional, and leadership responsibilities throughout your career.
• Personal Self-Development: Self-initiated learning where you define the objective, pace, and process.

I think IDPs could cover goals from all three types of self-development.

I know the CG's IDP program is far from perfect. We'll have to wait and see what the new version looks like when it comes out. I stated in the first post that in my opinion that the amount of paperwork involved on the current enlisted IDPs is extraneous for the majority of enlisted personnel. Honestly, a lot of the pages in the enlisted IDP might make more sense as its own CG form separate from the IDP.

In the end, my primary purpose in starting this thread was to stimulate a discussion and see what people thought about the CG's IDP program. I'm happy to read the opinions of everyone both for and against IDPs and the idea of self development.

quote:

Originally posted by IM_IT:
Matt-
If your really want to take on a process for Performance TECHNOLOGY then might I suggest the Advancement and Promotion system. How do you make it a meritocracy without the nepotism or old boys network or affirmative action or any sort of taint? A true merit based system would only reward the truly deserving.

SO....build a system(s) that can monitor, capture, evaluate, analyze, measure, classify, score and identify performance. Include an ENGINE that can take all the performance data and determine who to promote or advance - the right person for the right job when it is needed. No biased selection boards just performance history and the apptitude for future performance. THAT would be an incredible thesis for a graduate program. Feel free to use the USCG as your theoretical organization that needs this change.

Just a thought......

Paul,

An interesting idea, but I'm not sure that would be a strictly Performance Technology project. There is a lot that a Performance Technologist could offer to such a project, but the "Technology" in Performance Technology isn't necessarily only hard technology (computers, machines, etc.), but rather a scientifically proven system of tools and principles that draws from a variety of fields such as: process improvement, behavioral psychology, instructional systems design, organizational development, and human resources management. Some of the solution systems we use deal with hard technology such as web 2.0 tools or computer based training/e-learning, but soft technologies are usually used as well.

I believe the idea of IDP's are much like the idea of TQM. Who remembers that disaster?

From my experience:

IDP's came about when I was a 2nd Class, they weren't implemented at the unit I was at. I transfered and was told that they will create a "file" for me with my IDP and check up on it in 6 months to see if I've been on track.

Want to guess what happened with the follow up?

I had to fill one out twice. One for the ESO (huh?) and one for my division.

IDP's are a waste of time. Although they could be used, I don't really feel they are necessary. For me (and my experience) it was for a sup to remain lazy yet pretend to hold their junior PO's accountable.

When I was sup - I didn't request an IDP (unless it was directed I do so) so reason being? I knew EXACTLY what the goals of my PO's were... How you ask?

I inquired.

quote:

If your really want to take on a process for Performance TECHNOLOGY then might I suggest the Advancement and Promotion system. How do you make it a meritocracy without the nepotism or old boys network or affirmative action or any sort of taint? A true merit based system would only reward the truly deserving.

All the Officers would have to do is bring back the exam portion they had in earlier years, to offset the "halo effects" of some glowing wordsmith.

I guess the IDPs are good for some, expecially those without a definitive career path already populated with definitive tasks.

If the CG required "extra" that is not already listed, one must ask why that task isn't already listed?

The problem is rate creep. I remember attending a world of work a very long time ago, and looking over the compilation of the reported data, it seems the opinion of my unit, the tasks were performed at two grades lower than what some of the other's thought. The average to do all the tasks were E-6.5 while all the tasks my unit reviewed was to be accomplished by E-4 to E-5.

What do you want those JOs to do when they grow up to be Captains? The same applies to the young enlisted, what do you want them to do when they grow up?

The IDPs are just like business plans, or any other plan. It's where you dream, measure, modify the dream, make course corrections, do all document.

The IDPs for enlisted that list everything in the advancment EPQ isn't really a plan but a regurgatation of something already written. At best they could say "accomplish the EPQS tasks for PO2" or something similiar. That becomes the SMART goal, Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely.

Earning 3 CPE credits in basket weaving next semester is a smart goal. Not very useful to the CG, but certainly fits the definition.

I once asked my OPCON what he wanted those JOs who worked for him to know when they grew up to be in his position and the other management positions. We both knew what was specified in earlier editions of the Commandant's directives, but I guess those became irrevelent, much as the written exam of earlier times.

I'm sure the IDP is a good tool. But like all tools, one does not fit all. Maslow said "When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."

To really effect change, you can't tinker around the edges. Tinkering around the edges is the easiest and safest thing to do. In a bureauracy, the edges are the best you can do, as people will defend their turf. If you don't swing the biggest hammer (4 star), your beating your head against the wall. Even 4 stars is no gurantee, since one only has to endure the four star for four years. A skilled senior officer can do that with their eyes closed. The skilled four star would be asking for their retirement quickly.

The one side of the house already has defined tasks. Those IDPs only need to have a few personal goals. The other side needs work.

What do you want your mentee's to be when they grow up to be seniors in this organization?

I want them to analyze the problems and make good choices.
Make the changes necessary to accomplish the mission and keep their juniors informed so the junior can make good choices.
If they are not the first on scene, I don't want them to discount anything the junior has done without a good look at what data the junior observed when making their choices. Then if necessary, correct the junior for their errors.