18
actual behavior in, work situations and
that the reactions of others to him in
these situations are the best manner of
measuring them.
The Oregon Service Rating
In view of the newness of the pro
gram and the unfamiliarity of most
employees and department supervisors
with thè operation of a merit system,
those who devised the Òregon service
rating plan believed that the prime and
immediate objective should be simplicity
and ease of administration;.
It, is customary when first going on
the rifle range to practice trigger-pull
for many hours before actually firing.
A ship always makes a "dry run” before
starting out On the maiden voyage. The
Oregon rating plan was designed so
that it could gp into'Operation on June
1 with a minimum; of friction and con
fusion; and still embody as many of
the desirable features of a good rating
system as possible. Yet it would be
difficult to deny that a certain amount
of reliability and validity has Been, sac
rificed to attain this.
Each employee is to be rated on an
overall basis in one of five categories:
'|Outstanding ” '' A b o v e Average,” .
"Average,” "Below Average,” f and
"Unsatisfactory.’ The form lists a va
riety of factors which would ordinarily
designate each of these factors; and in
addition the instructions indicate that
all factors reflecting the value of the.
employee’s service shall be considered.
Actually^ the Oregon form is as much
a summary rating form as a complete^
service rating. But to Supplement this
brief form, departments have the option
of selecting their Own, more detailed
scales to be used on the back of the
regular form; although the final rating
has to be . indicated in the terms of the
front.. Kenneth Riley, Personnel Officer
at Oregon State College, has* developed
an excellent supplemental rating form
of the graphic, non-numerical type to
be used this June. Another interesting
supplemental form is to be used by the
Department of Agriculture in which
the employees rate themselves before
being rated by a supervisor. J. J. Elliott
of the Liquor Control Commission is
designing a system patterned somewhat
after the Probst system as an aid to
maximum objectivity in rating.
Ratings will be made every six
months, and must be reviewed and
signed by each department head in ad
dition to the supervisor; though the
rating may be reviewed by as many as
three supervisors. The employee receives
a copy of his rating, and one copy
goes to the Civil Service Commission.
Employees may appeal their rating to
the Commission if evidence of unfair
or capricious action is evident.
In spite of the niany weaknesses in
herent in any service rating system, it
remains one of the most valuable tools
of public administration; and is of
particular benefit to the employee. As
Mosher and Kingsley, in their text on
personnel administration, have stated
so well: " . . . a proper scheme of rating
gives the individual a chance to come
into his own. He realizes that his merits
are recognized, that good service is ap
preciated and he may further become
aware of traits and habits that deter
progress in his career. The much be
rated efficiency ratings may thus serve
as a ferment that will promote interest
and effort on the part of all concerned.”
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT NEWS
(Continued from page 13)
purchased by diis contributions made
to time of disability. Covers only em
ployees who have been employed over ,
five years; who for the next ten years
are totally disabled in line of duty, or
who after fifteen years employment are
totally disabled for any cause at any
time or place; except self-inflicted
cause.
10., Less than five-year lapse in
employment does not break "continu
ous service.” Thus,/ jqaany employees
over 5 4 could retire now and still re
ceive some pension starting July 1,
1951, for those then 60, or at attained
age of 65 if at a prior date.