How Do We Judge a Marshal's Abilities?

[Dave Brand]

In the "Scanner Police" thread sparky-steve asked:

"so how does an IO or PC determine the level of skill of a trainee marshal?
all i get asked is how many meets I've done, but not what I've been involved with

i could do 100 meets and never go to an incident
or 10 and go to 10 bad incidents.

in my case I've done 18 days on the back
and involved in 5 major incidents and many small ones."

Personal knowledge of the individual helps, & talking during the day can help, but probably the most important source of such information is the Personal Record Card.

The comments section of the PRC should contain a record of the experience gained by a marshal & his/her strengths & training needs. Make sure that your Post Chief adds pertinent comments!

[m1fcf]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

The comments section of the PRC should contain a record of the experience gained by a marshal & his/her strengths & training needs. Make sure that your Post Chief adds pertinent comments!

That is the bit I need to do more of. It's all too easy to drop the record card on the little shelf in the shed for the PC to sign at some point over the weekend - but it is more important now to remember to ask for a comment to be added (even if the comment is a -ve one [ but worded in a +ve way])

For me, I have always told the PC whether I have done a particular post or circuit before, as there is always that little bit of unique knowledge that is required.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by m1fcf

For me, I have always told the PC whether I have done a particular post or circuit before, as there is always that little bit of unique knowledge that is required.

IME most of them ask anyway.

[SRPhoto]

As Dave said this was started elsewhere and this was my reply...


A few years ago you could ask how many signatures people had and this would give a slightly better indication of what they had dealt with, however now with attendance signatures this is a little tricky. The biggest problem I encounter now as an IO is people now have done say 25 meetings and some big incidents but refuse to do flagging so will not upgrade to track!
... anyway...
In the morning I (we) do not have time once everyone arrives to talk to everyone about skill levels etc. before pairing people up, I just need a rough guide on how many meetings people have done to get groups together (and assume if they have done 5+ then they know that cars make a mess when they hit the barrier, hand signals and to take a powder to every incident etc.), I do however talk to people throughout the day to find out more detail of what they have been involved in during their marshalling careerer.

[deley]

Despite the new guidelines for 2010 including the following;
"Post Chiefs giving attendance signatures are requested to make use of the comments section to highlight any positive or negative aspects of the marshal’s day so that the marshal may build on their strengths and work to overcome their weaknesses."
I have yet to find many (any) PCs actually doing so........

Having done days this year as incident (with incidents to handle) and as flag (including being the sole flaggy on post several times) my experience is that PCs are still not using the comments section ...... or maybe my marshalling is such that there are no "positives" but then again no "negatives" either - despite having verbal comments received during the day of "good work", "well handled", "nice flagging" etc ....

it appears that rather than PCs taking the initiative to write comments it seems it is the marshal who has to request them to ...... not my reading of the MSA info I must admit

maybe it is just my experiences so far

[zakeriath]

From a personal point of view, it starts with a case of looking at your team as you approach the post (most PC are the last to arrive due to the briefing), you start to see who is proactive, i.e. placing the bottles, brooms etc, who has joined mini groups i.e. generally will know and meet each other before and typically have some experience, who is standing on thier own i.e. posible new to track or marshalling.

With such a small group of marshals you will tend to know most of the marshals at your local track, so will have a fair idea on capabilies.

Also being with a club, in my case BARC you also tend to know a larger group of marshals either from personal contact or by reputation (good or bad).

I think with most PC you tend to judge how on track incidents are managed by how you would have done it yourself, and this is where you need to be imparting your knowledge either at the incident if you feel the situation is not being managed safely or during a de brief.

However you cannot judge a marshals reaction to extreme pressure until an incident occurs, some will freeze, some will over react but most will just get on with what ever needs doing, especially if they have had good training.

Its after these incidents PC should write comments or at least make a note in the record card, otherwise unless the person demonstrates either above or below expected standards for marshalling during the day, I tend not to write comments in the record cards.

[SRPhoto]

Maybe it depends where you Marshal and who the PC or IO is?

At Oulton and Anglesey I see comments in peoples cards, as IO I have several in mine even though I intend to stay at IO (I have a different book for PC grading).

I think if a verbal comment had been made (especially a good one) then a polite request to the PC to put it in the record book should surely be carried out, maybe before the end of the day is best!

[Darren Holmes]

I think comment writing is just a habit that the PC needs to get into.

On my first trip to Oulton this year, I had the pleasure of the esteemed Mr Brand on my post and at some point in the day I correctly displayed the white flag where the post prior and aft did not (no critisism intended there, just scene setting), so Dave noted it in my comments.

I've been to other meetings this year where it was just a normal run of the mill days flagging, so no comments - fair enough.

[JimW]

Originally Posted by deley

Despite the new guidelines for 2010 including the following;
"Post Chiefs giving attendance signatures are requested to make use of the comments section to highlight any positive or negative aspects of the marshal’s day so that the marshal may build on their strengths and work to overcome their weaknesses."
I have yet to find many (any) PCs actually doing so........

. . .

It is easy to give +ve comments in the tiny space and I do so. It is very difficult to give -ve ones in a positive way in that space.

I have not yet (since the new record cards were introduced) worked with anyone where there was a negative comment to be made which was so serious/unequivocal as to be fair to record in that space. But I will always chat to people who I would like to consider some observations which I think need saying.

It is so easy to leave bad feelings without making any positive impression or learning points and can so easily have a negative outcome.

Regards

Jim

[Stuart Hill]

Originally Posted by SRPhoto

A few years ago you could ask how many signatures people had and this would give a slightly better indication of what they had dealt with, however now with attendance signatures this is a little tricky.

"In the OLD-Days", just looking at someone's grade badge gave you a very clear idea as to their experience and level of marshalling. This is where I think that the new system fails. Yes, marshals can progress through the grades quite quickly but does this really benefit them? What used to take years to achieve can now be gained in just a couple of seasons but the real losers are the I/O's and Observers. (sorry, I can't take to the term Post Chief). As mentioned before, the Observers are normally last on post but it used to be that an I/O was expected to be first. No need to talk straight away but just by looking at the various badges would give them a good idea as to what levels were present and how to plan for both the allocations on-post aswell as maybe tailoring their briefing.

just my opinion.........

[Power Bulge]

I started this year with the full intention of making sure I obtained a comment from Obs every time I had a decent incident to write up. Still waiting. Best I can come up with so far was "displayed an excellent two-footed technique for the removal of gravel from the racing line"

One point to make before we all get in too deep is that (IMHO) the IO's and Obs, that I have had the pleasure with, are immensely experienced and probably know a darned sight more about my abilities than I do. And they talk to each other, apparently, so there are going to situations where my reputation precedes me (oops! That me in trouble again)

I can easily foresee a situation developing in the not-too-distant future where upgrades are only going to be granted where there is demonstrable evidence of competence. This is as it should be. The demonstrable evidence will be the comments on the PRC, so I would ask all those in charge of a post, either by having achieved greatness or by having greatness thrust upon them, that they give due consideration to any request to make comments.

[numbersix]

Originally Posted by Stuart Hill

... Yes, marshals can progress through the grades quite quickly but does this really benefit them? ...

I am pleased to report quite a number of marshals, particularly green badges, taking their time to upgrade. In one case recently it's three years! Now the negative will tell me it's because they don't want to flag, but I prefer to be positive and treat this as a good sign that despite everything, people are not rushing to upgrade.

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

...Make sure that your Post Chief adds pertinent comments!

Is that why you wrote: "Phil carried out his duties entirely to his own satisfaction" at Mallory the other week?

[Richard Sneader]

This is somthing myself and my training partner have been pushing at IO and PC training days we have been involved in. I beleive this is esseantial and a requirment to assist in on going developement. Although recently meeting with a certain Cheif Marshal in the SE he believes you can write negative comments but should tell them face to face
Like the briefing in the morning this is a job requirment. If you find that you cannot get things done before hand in the morning then ask for the PC brief or on post time to be brought forward to assit. Works at Brands and Snett when we do it.
We need to be giving feedback its vital and use the books, thats what they are for and hand them back at the end of the day(as per the guidlines) and not at lunch time or early morning with a de brief at the end of the day. I have started to do this and it works.

[Hepatic]

Originally Posted by Richard Sneader

Although recently meeting with a certain Cheif Marshal in the SE he believes you can write negative comments but should tell them face to face

That is absolutely vital, in fact for both positive and negative comments. You cannot learn from your mistakes if you don't discuss the situation on the day. Written words can so easily be misinterpreted so talking to someone about an incident is a far better way of communicating than the small section of the card alone.

Something i was wondering about was a type of scoring system as part of the comments. That way a quick scan for high or low numbers helps to draw your eye to key events on the card and the comments then help explain the score. So if several low scores qualified with "having issues with blue flagging, mentoring required" are present you can then try to help the individual by pairing with a senior flaggie and asking them to concentrate on that area. Same goes for incident, and the high scores are just as important. Regular high numbers with "handled team effectively" for an experienced marshal will help to show that person can be a competent IO and makes it easier to pick your teams. That way even quiet days with nothing to do can be recorded easily, with mid scores and "nowt to do but stayed alert" as a record.

Talking with people will always be the best way to judge ability, but as Steve said its not always possible to get the time to do that before the day starts.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by numbersix

I am pleased to report quite a number of marshals, particularly green badges, taking their time to upgrade. In one case recently it's three years! Now the negative will tell me it's because they don't want to flag, but I prefer to be positive and treat this as a good sign that despite everything, people are not rushing to upgrade.

No, that's absolutely right. I took about 18 months, or around 80 days from Track (green) -> Experienced (red) - probably about 50/30 flag/incident. The reason was that I felt that I didn't have enough incident experience to make that claim (although I have at the same time considered myself to be a good (or better) flaggie - but that is a different debate). IMHO, the 15 days minimum for that upgrade is way too low, and I'd say it should be at least 4 times that figure.

TBH, I still wasn't 100% whether it was the right move, but having talked to several people, including a few very senior/experienced people, the consensus was that I should go for it.

[Dave Brand]

Something i was wondering about was a type of scoring system as part of the comments. That way a quick scan for high or low numbers helps to draw your eye to key events on the card and the comments then help explain the score.

On the face of it a good idea, but the problem with that is that you're trying to quantify what needs to be a qualitative assessment. Both an unsatisfactory performance & a quiet day would result in low scores; to differentiate between them would necessitate reading the comments, so we may as well let the comments speak for themselves.

"Damning with faint praise" . . . now there's a skill we need to learn!

[Stuart Hill]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

No, that's absolutely right. I took about 18 months, or around 80 days from Track (green) -> Experienced (red) - probably about 50/30 flag/incident. The reason was that I felt that I didn't have enough incident experience to make that claim (although I have at the same time considered myself to be a good (or better) flaggie - but that is a different debate). IMHO, the 15 days minimum for that upgrade is way too low, and I'd say it should be at least 4 times that figure.

TBH, I still wasn't 100% whether it was the right move, but having talked to several people, including a few very senior/experienced people, the consensus was that I should go for it.

IMHO..................

that is a quote from someone who takes his hobby very seriously. WELL DONE.

my post was not aimed at people like you but rather at "Grade-Chasers" who maybe just want a grade to allow them to attend the "Big" meetings. I still feel that the current system allows this to happen and does not truly recognise people with your attitude/experience.

p.s....... please be on-post with me sometime, I would feel so safe.

[Richard Sneader]

I believe what is needed is a system of continuose assessments and this needs to be for all grades. Currently if an IO or PC makes 6 weeks of mistakes what is the punishment? we invite them back on week 7 to do the same. We should look at other organisations like St John Ambulance( would need tweeking for our needs etc) and have a system like theirs that you have to re evaluate every year to maintain grades, skills etc. Oh before any one says " you cant do this we are volunteers" so are they. I think things still need tightening up and taken more seriuosly and the grading scheme still needs a sort out although new steps have started this year to help this.

[Dean Watson]

er isnt this why we have to attend at least one training day in a 2 year period?
the problem then lies with the regional grading committees to enforce what is allready in place.

No one is perfect and we all make mistakes, it is how we learn from and thus move on from these mistakes that counts. As a post chief I am guilty of not using the comments box properly, this is down to being predominantly cadwell park based and the allocation usualy sees me posted with the wife and I would deem it biased if i was to comment every meeting on her performance. Now if at a different circuit and I get presented with record cards I will comment either +ve or -ve if needed but for a run of the mill quiet day I will not have seen something to warrent the use of the valuable space which may be needed for more important comments.

On the other hand if a member of the team on any particular day uses a phone or sits during live track sessions then I will refuse to sign the card.

[The Hat]

On the other hand if a member of the team on any particular day uses a phone or sits during live track sessions then I will refuse to sign the card.

Surely this is a perfect illustration of actions requiring negative comments.

I had a scenario when it was the post chief acting as above, What should my course of action been?

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by The Hat

On the other hand if a member of the team on any particular day uses a phone or sits during live track sessions then I will refuse to sign the card.

Surely this is a perfect illustration of actions requiring negative comments.

I had a scenario when it was the post chief acting as above, What should my course of action been?

These are things that ought to have been dealt with at the time they occurred aren't they?

My view with signatures is the same as my view of work based appraisals, no-one should ever hear something negative in an appraisal for the first time. Issues should be raised as they happen at a time when it's easier to say "you're done/not done x", have you thought about it? Are there other things you could have done? etc. etc. Each issue is a "learning opportunity" for the person learning and a "management opportunity" for the supervisor (can't you tell I worked for a big US company for a few years!)

[markymark555]

As a trainee (having 5 days experience to date), I would find it worthwhile for any feedback from a PC/IO etc.

A question I have, is what denotes a major incident? Everyday on post (bar 1) there has been cars that have needed moving to a safe place, albeit via JCB/push etc. I assume these do not denote a major incident.

These incidents are good to learn the basics, in preparation for the major incident!

[Dean Watson]

perhaps I worded my previous post slightly wrong, when i said i would refuse to sign a card I should have added that I would make a written comment after explaining the reasons why I would not sign.

As for a Major Incident this could take one of many forms form a multiple pile up requiring rescue, recovery etc to clear, to an incident resulting in injury etc. The most common majors are multiple vehicles and debris covering a wide area.

[Woolley]

I'm of the opinion that you can spot a really good marshal or a really poor one by 10:30 on their first day. A good one then needs nurturing and guiding to achieve their potential, a poor one needs the gentlest of kid gloves until they work it out for themselves.

[Richard Sneader]

interesting thread this. This is items we have been pushing down here in SE. I agree we go to training days etc but really nothing is assessed or measured so nothing can be identified for development etc. As part of my briefing notes I now include do not sit down when cars are out, use of mobiles, ipods or similar devices whilst track is live is prohibited and reduces your reactions times. ( If any one wants a copy of the briefing notes for PC and IO we are gradually spreading for use down here please PM me and I will e-mail you a copy)
I have now had it from 2 Chief Marshals from differetn parts of the UK that they have X PC's they cannot put trainees with as they are no good with them. Dealing with the problem or ignoring the problem or how did they get the grade as I thought traning and mentoring was part of that role? Clearly its not beng dealt with correctly.