saves a great deal of embarrassment on the part of the employees and the company, but it saves a lot of investment. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any forms you would like to leave with us, Mr. Muller? Mr. MULLER. I could leave a couple of these forms with you [indicating]. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I would like in the record some sample forms that industry is using. Did you have a chance to finish your last point? Mr. MULLER. What it amounts to is that I don't think you can possibly overemphasize the importance of a carefully worked out application blank and if possible, always personal interviews preceding employment. I know that that may not be possible in civil service. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Muller. You have been very helpful. Mr. MULLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. Muller submitted the following material for the record:) The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rhoaries? Mr. RHOADES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN, Will you give us your full name, please? STATEMENT OF MR. HERBERT L. RHOADES, THIRD VICE PRESIDENT AND PERSONNEL OFFICER, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK Mr. RHOADES. Herbert L. Rhoades, third vice president and personnel officer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to give us your views on this subject, Mr. Rhoades? Mr. RHOADES. Senator, I want to say that it has been a long time since I have heard a more informative summary on rating programs than I heard during the past hour. I so wholeheartedly subscribe to what Mr. Reid said regarding this particular subject that I thought perhaps I may be excused at this time The CHAIRMAN. You may not be excused because we definitely would like to have your own observations. Mr. RHOADES. Unfortunately, I do find myself in disagreement with the gentleman from Connecticut because I confess that without an efficient merit rating plan in our organization, I would not want to face the problems with which I am sure we would be confronted. Undoubtedly, he has good reasons for that change, but I almost seem to sense that perhaps they may break away from that, because he mentioned that they were now considering a third classificationthe "Exceptional" or "Outstanding." He mentioned the "Satisfactory" and "Unsatisfactory." The CHAIRMAN. May I say this, not to inject a personal note in this thing, but Mr. Scoboria was the personnel director while I was Governor of the State of Connecticut and I know from my own personal experience the difficulties that we had with this problem. We had a personnel department that was busy with reclassifications in an effort to improve the personnel service in the State, and a good part of the time of this whole department was taken up with reviewing ratings and personal interviews with employees with reference to these ratings and I am wondering if in the public service as distinguished from private employment-there isn't a factor that is not common to both. In other words, here is what I mean, and I mention this now because I would like your comments on it, I don't know that it is so because I have never had any experience in private personnel work, but in the Government I have had some experience. It seems to me that it stems out of this situation: You have in Government-elections-and while you try your best to remove the nonpolitical employees from the realm of election influence, and political influence, it is practically an impossible thing to do. For example, take the highway department of any State, or take the Bureau of Roads of the Federal Government, which is, of course, a different type of organization than an ordinary State highway department, but there are many counterparts to a State highway department in the Federal service. The head of that department is an appointee of the Governor. That appointment is confirmed by the State senate just as many nominations are, subject to Senate confirmation so they are, to that extent, political. Then, of course, the different department heads are, in large part, the appointees of that appointee, the top appointee. In many instances, they change their political complexion with the change of administration, or the change of the head of the department. The result is that that influence is carried all the way down the line. These employees, who are dissatisfied, are voters. They can exert their little influence in casting their ballots against the fellow at the top or the fellows down along the line who control those jobs. That isn't true in industry. If the individual employee in industry doesn't like the way things are done there isn't much he can do to the president of the company or the board of directors; but in public affairs there is. He is a voter. The top man, while he may be a servant of the Government working under the instructions of his superior, that man also is, in a sense, a servant of the Government in that he is a public officer subject to political election. I was wondering if it isn't that factor that may be different; because apparently the personnel people in Connecticut have found that if you use a rating of "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" then the fellow who has been judged "Unsatisfactory" comes in-as it has been described, and he has an opportunity for a hearing-conference in which not only the man who fired him is there, but his supervisors and a representative of the personnel department, who is presumed to be impartial. I found that in many instances, in our State of Connecticut, adjustments have been made through such a conference. I would be interested in your comments along that line, Mr. Rhoades. Mr. RHOADES. I think we will all concede that the differences involved in that situation are genuine but I can't, on the other hand, quite bring myself to feel that employees are much different basically as human beings or individuals, whether they be employed by private industry or by the Federal Government. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. Mr. RHOADES. If that be granted, then I think it follows that there must be a greater effort made to overcome the existing difficulties that we find in order to supply that same type of incentive that exists in private industry. As was said a moment ago, an employee operating a typewriter here or in New York with our company is still an employee, and I dare say that one of the reasons, perhaps, that we have this meeting here this afternoon is to determine wherein the Federal Government's efficiency ratings, although I don't like the term "efficiency ratings," are not as effective as they should and can be. The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree that "merit ratings" is a better term? Mr. RHOADES. "Merit" in itself is a term that may be interpreted differently by different groups. We propose to call it a progress report or performance report in our company. We are getting away from terms that may not be easily and readly understood by everybody, but that is not perhaps the significant thing, although in the minds of the rank and file it may be quite important, I will grant. I have assumed. Senator, that it is not in the thinking of the Government at the moment to entirely discard efficiency ratings because it is a part of law. The CHAIRMAN. It couldn't be done. months following those ratings are considered to be permanent employees. Thereafter they are rated only every 6 months a year, depending on the nature of their job. The CHAIRMAN. In connection with these ratings, is this information with reference to an employee's rating available to anybody but the personnel department of your own company? Mr. REID. It is not, no, sir. That is extremely confidential. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose X company calls you up and tells you that John Jones applied for a position and they want to know what his rating was and whether or not he worked for you, what answer would you give them? Mr. REID. We would give them a general statement of our opinion of the employee based on the rating but we would not reveal the rating itself because we consider it to be a confidential matter between the supervisor, the personnel department, and the employee himself. We have found that office and factory employees may be rated by the system I have just described. Our experience has been, however, that it is impossible to use that same system with good effect on executive personnel-those who are required to handle top administrative matters. We have faced the fact that there is a task which involves so many different aspects on merit rating that we have called in, on a retainer basis, a trained psychologist who does evaluations for us of executive personnel and, based on human and service evaluations in accordance with certain tests that he has developed, we have planned our rating system for executive personnel. Therefore, we have two systems, one for executive personnel and one which the executive personnel put into effect for rank and file employees. We have found that with the two systems merit rating can be accomplished - that supervisors can be trained to rate objectively, and our experience is that employees appreciate the idea that they are being classed based on merit and feel that when increases are given as a result of merit ratings they have actually earned them. Therefore, they become that much more appreciative and interested in their work. The CHAIRMAN. Would you say in comparing Government employment with private employment that there is any different factor that may be attributed to the proposition that one is a political job, in a sense, and the other is devoid of all political consideration? In other words, do you think there is any difference between the twoalong the lines that I have suggested? Mr. REID. I personally do not. I found when I went into the city government, in working with the State that there is a general assumption on the part of Government people that there is something different about Government employees. However, I have not seen any evidence so far to justify that view. I feel that there is very little difference basically between a person who runs a typewriter for the Government and the person who runs a typewriter for a private corporation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Riley, do you have any questions? Mr. Er. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I have one or two. Mr. Reid, I think you mentioned that you could quickly tell when your rates w re qualified to rate. Do you have any instructions to them, or do you put them in classes on how to rate, and is it formal or informal? The CHAIRMAN. By the way here you arg, matenal you, woude. Pkë to submit for the record Not Beit Mr LED Yes here is some materia, that you may want for the record indicating The CELJEMAN. Thank you. The following malena, was inserted inte the 2000rd by Ms. Rond) MSCDEMISK & COMPANY, ING LANTAL OF INSTRUCCIONS Subject: Merit Rating-Plant & Office Emalevoos HOW TO RATE YOUR EMPLOYEES It is impor This is a guide to help you merit rate all of your en levons fairly. tant that you de nat merrate your workers... Try to de hand and howes in Your The mer ratings that you complete on your employees are vansble documents. Do the best job that you can with them. IN WHAT CATEGORY SHOULD YOU PLACE YOUR EMPLOYEES 1. Superior-The employee must show supervisory characteristies in onder to be rated superior in any trait. For example, a superior worker in your depart ment would 2. Awars exceed the quota that is set. b. Never have any waste or spoilage. e. Assist you with the supervision in your department. If you were absent from the department, this employee could take over. d. The employee sees work to be done and does it without being told. e. Other employees listen to what this employee has to say and are inspired by him. This employee is a leader in your department. All other employees respect his judgment. f. You never are required to repeat instructions to the employee, g. This employee promotes safety in your department, he or she makes suggestions for reducing accidents. Do not place employees in this category unless you can justify the above |