the recording of a rating. If the rating is definitely downward, we feel that it is better to allow the employee to state his case, in the event that the supervisor may be wrong, before it becomes a matter of record, and our experience in that direction has been, I think, very satisfactory. Mr. Reid said that in order to secure a reasonable distribution of ratings, and I think that is one of the tests of a rating plan, a reasonable distribution, they change from time to time the manner in which they describe or define the degrees of a factor. I would like to say that in our own case we have elected to do it a little differently. At the end of each rating period we plan to take the ratings of a given supervisor and look them over very carefully. We do not plan any predetermined or fixed distribution of the ratings within which the supervisor must rate. We plan to keep those records cumulative so that we can study over a period of time a rater's ability to rate and in that manner we are, of course, doing what Mr. Reid does, we are training and educating the rater. There, I think, is the nub of the entire problem. I would like further to suggest that, at least in our own organization we find it true, rating twice a year is preferable to rating once a year for the reason that any rating, probably in the mind of the rater, reflects a very recent period of time, things that have happened in the last month or so, so that a rating that occurs once a year is probably a rating for the 3 months just past. We may get a little better average by having ratings a little more often than once a year. I have no further comments, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a copy of your forms Mr. RHOADES. I have not because we are in the process of completely revising the procedure, methods, and the form itself. I cannot tell you when it will be available but I would say within a month or so. The CHAIRMAN. That will be a little too long. Mr. RHOADES. However, I can leave what I have with you, if you would like to have— The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I would like to keep these forms [indicating]. Do you have any questions, Mr. Riley? Mr. RILEY. Just one or two, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rhoades, do you take reference each year to the rating period preceding that rating? In other words, do you look back and see what is happening before in the case of each person or do you go ahead with a new blank sheet of paper? Mr. RHOADES. A new blank sheet of paper, otherwise I am strongly suspicious of the "snow-balling" effect. Mr. RILEY. What is the number of people you are rating? Mr. RHOADES. About 13,000. Mr. RILEY. That includes men in the field? Mr. RHOADES. No; only the home office. Mr. RILEY. What do you do for your field agents? Mr. RHOADES. They work essentially under a commission form of payment. Mr. RILEY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhoades. Mr. RHOADES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. Rhoades submitted the following material for the record:) 82053-48-3 EMPI CYER FORCE REPORT Non-Supervisory Information submitted or. this form should reflect performance during this rating period only. RATING PERIOD COMPANY UNIT CODE Cheok If in your opinion this rating needs to be explained by reason of unusual or special circumstances, rive reason below, or if confidential, in a separate memorandum: ............ POTENTIALITY Indicate your opinion of the mployee's potentialities by checking one of the followings Demotion (attach an explanatory memorandum giving full details). Transfer to other type of work (attach an explanatory memorandum giving full details). TRAINING COURSES - List any company, educational or other training courses undertaken or completed since last rating period. Indicate school, full course title, date of enrollment and date of completion: CHANGE OP ADDRESS OR NAMB For any change of address or change of name since the lest rating period, please complate Parsonnel Tom ♬ 38 ani forward it to the Personnel Division. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mrs. Kathryn McDonald, personnel officer of Macy's department store, New York City. STATEMENT OF MRS. KATHRYN MCDONALD, PERSONNEL OFFICER, MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE Go right ahead, Mrs. McDonald. Mrs. McDONALD. Thank you. While these gentlemen have spoken from their industrial experience, Senator Baldwin, the comments that I will make are based on my experience as a Government employee engaged in both the administration of the regulations under discussion today, and the counseling of employees affected by those regulations. I should point out that my familiarity with the regulations is not current as I left Government service nearly 2 years ago. First of all, I do not believe that explanations of deficiencies by the supervisor to the employee necessitates an unsympathetic relationship. Actually, a good interview can cement and improve relationships between the supervisor and the employee. As a matter of fact, one of my specific recommendations on changing the present procedure is that all employees should be interviewed on their performance ratings. These interviews can be corrective and the quality continually graded up. When I left Government service only the "Unsatisfactories" and "Fairs" were being interviewed. I agree with Mr. Reid that it is a function of supervisors to rate subordinates objectively. The gentleman from Connecticut has indicated that morale has improved with the "Satisfactory" and "Unsatisfactory" system. This system might be most acceptable to those employees normally receiving fairly low grades on fitness reports. However, it seems to me the people for whom a system should be fashioned is not that group but rather the middle to upper graded employees. If there is no differential between "Average" and "Above Average" or "Outstanding" employees, I believe one of two things will happen: either the turn-over in the "Outstanding" group will be high because of lack of recognition or those whose extra efforts have not been noticed will drop back to "Average." When I was with the Government, entire departments were rated twice a year. If this is still true, it is recommended that some thought be given to anniversary ratings-when the employee has been with the organization 6 months, 12 months, and so forth. This way the raters will have more time to give to each rating, the interviews assuming interviews will be given-will be more personal, less like mass production. It is my belief that there is a halo effect- a tendency of raters to rate men similarly on all traits when using the present rating sheet. It is sort of like using an answer book to solve a problem. The form instructs raters that certain combinations of ✔, +, and marks equal a certain adjective rating. I believe that ratings arrived at in this manner are apt to be a supervisor's belief concerning the employee's general value to the organization rather than evaluation of specific elements of performance. It is true that there are instruction manuals and that raters' classes are held, but I am sure that not many raters refer to the manual each |