The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-03-27
How Human Judgment Differs
in Efficiency Ratings
Bv BILL PRICE.

By BILL PRICE.
This communication to the editor on the rst e1Cency
ratings given to Government employees
IT am an employee of the War Department humble pie
ma 4 s trA but one who faithfully tried to do his
duty NV final efficiency rating considerably below the
marx which feel am entitled to. On inquiry ina
that INV immediate superior who knows QUALIFICATIONS
hest gave me- an excellent rating in the various service
elements required The head of my division gave me an
IA case Of this kind which superior is right? If the
first one had good judgment how about the other man!
the first one had poor judgment VIA
to hold his position? And in conclusion how much value
should be these ratings except as an excuse
60 bring about the dismissal Of Employer"
The rating scale approved by Personnel Classification
Board to be used connection with the OF
the recssfcaton law to determine the FITNESS OF
Of civil service workers. thereby affecting tner saar1es
promotions demotions dismss is known as the graphic
rating SCALE It's effect far bears out the name Inc
graphic end of illustrated in the storm OF complaints
eanating every Government bureau and
This graphic scale arranged test the service elements OF
civil service workers in accuracy renaOlty neaness ana
Grafton etc. chiefs and the tests are 1or
originality, leadership effectiveness ETC. .., h.. -.
The blanks provide designed TO reveal Wnat the
qualifications Of each employee and Of course to ascertain
whether workers competent or ncompeten efficient or
inefficient questions answered frst by the rating
officer each bureau division section sometimes by sew
era depending upon the number Of petty chiefs an empoye
may The given by the rating Officers tnen
60 reviewing officers the Efficiency Bureau being the last
word in reviewing.
figures used with the final average that is arrived at
AZ to accuracy rating officer may consider empoye
careful and the reviewing officer consider him or her
careless" As to judgment may consider good and
the other poor As diligence there may be the same
difference in opinion marking industrious and the
other ''inattentive'' or even lazy
easily be that many inustices certain to
occur things happen to the judgments OF rating
or reviewing officers Under these circumstances OF such
great importance all employees take it for granted that
the r appeal viii be given civil service workers to the
Efficiency Personnel Classification Board the same
as in the classifications heretofore made
The purpose of the efficiency ratings to get rid Of IN
competents and oafes in the Government service and to
measure the abilities Of each and every empoye OF Uncle
Sam From that viewpoint nobody can object Where the
rating officers reviewing officers unanimous
employees lack the capacity and diligence to earn
putting efficient people in their places
power Of subces through personal grudges prudces
to give ratings that unfair and which bring about dis
ssals On the other hand there is the power
through fayorsm promote those who happen to be in
the good graces Of their superiors
these circumstances there should be the widest
desire and willingness the part OF the Efficiency Bureau
department entertain appeals that njuces
may be and satisfaction prevail among employees
Of the Government These appeals should especially be
allowed those lost positions through the ratings
unless the rating reviewing officers in absolute accord
the and incompetency Of those dismissed
Human Judgment infable under circumstances
wholly from prejudice partially and where these
factors in determining fitness or unfitness
the duty of the administrative officers engaged In passing
upon ratings to carefully listen to those who feel they have