Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (May 1, 1947)
17 others in the group were compared w ith these selected individuals and rated ac- cording to the value assigned the man they most resembled. A variation of this method was used in some O.C.S. train ing in W orld W ar II. Every man rated every-other man in his class on selected traits,; lining them up from poorest to best in a straight array. / > - . 1 The most popular method in use to day ds thé graphic rating scale. It con sists of a list of traits or activities to be evaluated, followed by a line along which the rater marks. He is guided by descriptions along this line ranging from low to the highest degree of that, tràit. The different types of graphic scales are numerous, but most often there is a continum of equally divided units along the line of qualities and the evaluation for that factor-is inter preted numerically. Another process makes use of a check list; and has reached its greatestrefine ment in the "Probst System” developed by J. B. Probst formerly of the St. Paul Civil Service Commission. This rating, consists of one hundred items designat ing modes of behavior or characteris tics^ for example: "Indifferent,” "too much self¿importance,” "always uses good, jufgfhent,,” "cranky disposition,” "work alwàÿsf up to d ate/’^etg. The rater' checks only those o f the hundred items which he ■ believes apply. Each factor is assigned a relative value, and the final scoring is most often done by the central agency. The California State Personnel Board rating carries the Probst Systçm qne step further. À variety of /mixed items is also used, but each item is qualified >by checking,^alw ays,” ''nearly always,” "generally,” , "seldom,” and "never.’’ Also California has over tw enty/five différent forms designed fo r various types of occupations. All ratings are machine scored hy thç personnel,board. Some Problems of Development I Classification' has to I do w ith what an employee does; service ratingj -ydth how w e llhe does it. Evaluation of whtft an employee does lends itself easily to determination by disinterested, outside personnel men not connected with the department; 'But how well he does it can most often be determined only by his immediate supervisors. There Is agreement on the tru th of this conclu- sion; but as to the best method to fol low in getting the supervisors’ rating, there is great disagreement. One, school of thought believes that the supervisor, who is closest to the employee’s work, should do the actual rating. The oppos ing belief is that the supervisor should be limited to merely reporting the ob servable: significant traits of the em ployee with the central personnel agency doing the actual scaring either manually of b y machine. Neither path is,a-sm ooth one; both are filled with problems and difficul ties. Service fating procedures have not yet reached the super highwayu status. It is a m atter of deciding which of two rough roads leading to the same des tinatio n is easiest. The choice of the proper'? system comes down to two factors-—each in Cpr^iiet w ith the other. On One hand, the system must be simple,¿flexible,, and economical; on the other hand it should be as reliable and valid as possible. A certain amount of. one factor has to be sacrificed in order to attain the other. I The I I' classic aW per sonel people-^eoh-, sidered a strange and terrible breed in some quarters—insist that it is impos sible to make a valid fating of the man ■as a whole, and that specific traits or items of- /behavior must'» be evaluated separately. The r e n e g a d ,e personnel group— also a strange people— m aintain that regardless of how" much rigmarole and red, tape-is gone through, it always 'comes back to an overall rating of the man anyway,’ that it- is a m atter of judgment, that all such evaluations are subjective; and- most of all that the system m ust be simple enough to work. .These people believe that the whole is. greater than the sum of the parts; and, moreover, that the overall personality and character of the man appear in his : - (Continued on page
