Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (May 1, 1947)
16 Purpose and Method of Service Ratings By GENE H U N TLEY State Civil, Service Commission The Value of Service Ratings There is probably no personnel prac tice so widely and Cotisistently used in both public and private employment as the fating in one form or another of the efficiehcy- of employees. Well over a century ago the British social reformer, Robert Owen, innovated one of the earliest service ratings, which was used in his cotton mill at the New Lanark model community. Blocks of wood— w ith a different color on each side rep resenting' an evaluation; from poor to excellent— were placed periodically on each worker’s bench or machine with the appropriate color displayed. Since that time a m ultitude of rating methods have been d e v k ’e e d—-some simple, others intricate— but all direct ed toward thè same end? evaluating the efficiency or productivity of an em ployee’s service. A t the present, service or merit ratings continue as one of- the most widely used devices of manage ment despite repeated question as to their accuracy or validity. Much of ' the,,criticism afiseS from either misunderstanding or lack* of ap preciation of the limit and scope of such devices and of crediting them with more than „they are able to- accomplish. Actually, even the most involved of these processes is fa rfro m being "scieif^/ tific.” In evaluating the performance of human beings on the basis of such traits as initiative, reliability, honesty, leader ship, perspective, et. al., it is found; that there are no absolute objective standards to afford ;an exact méa-sùre-- ment ‘o f these .factors. It is difficult to measure in terms of units those quali ties which do not lend themselves -read ily to measurement. The problems en countered here are .precisely those found/, in evaluating a painting or musical-f composition. The qualities- are nop sub ject td measurement in a ,mathematical I sense. The very best to be hoped f b y is / experienced judgment. Much of the success,, of a rating sys.^ tern depends on the care, sincerity, and understanding of the purpose of the rating/on. the part of the supervisor; and an appreciation on the part of the ‘ employees of the problems encountered in’ rating large numbers of pepple. . Perhaps the chief. value, then, of a well designed service" rating is to pro vide a uniform and detailed method of \ expressing opinion regarding employees on a comparative basis,- since an abso^ lutç basis is not possible. Most of us -work for soinebody; we have super visors. And all of us are rated in 1 one'-' way or another—usually informally at unpredictable intervals. O ften H is a Casual as "Joe is a good man,” or "Mary ?is very slow to cajtch Wm” The sèrVîçe rating, if it is properly constructed, forpes the supervisor to do several things in expressing his opinion: £1) put it in writing, (2 ) use the same detailed factors in evaluating all employees, (3 ) use the same factors a s a ll other M H | visprs hi the jurisdiction ¿ (4 ) present the w ritten rating to the employee and discuss it w ith him, and ( 5 have H I opinion subject to the scrutiny of his ; department head and to that of f i n im partial personnel agency. It is a vehicle-l of predetermined uniform design for expressing the opinion of human beings about the activity of other human beings. I . The value to administrators is obvi ous:' the ^ryffee. rating, combined w ith length pf service is an aid in determin ing salary increases,, layoffs, demotions, promotions, transfers, and dismissals, - , Types of Service Ratings The variety of rating féales I in use in industry and the public service I is almost endless. Brief, very general men- tion can be - 'QÎI the bf oad^Kpe/1 gories, of .ratings. | The man-to-man rating method was used in .th e first W orld W ar in rating officers. Various men who represented- a certain trait<in differing degrees were givenI appropriate values, and then all