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