FEDERAL EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 21, 2000
• Sequence Number: 46
• Publication Date: February 26, 1948
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/03/06JQA.
Fh
I
111.0?
0170046-4
80TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
,Od Session j No. 1428
FEDERAL EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM
FEBRUARY 26, 1948.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. REFS, from the Committee ost Office and Civil Serv
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Pursuant to authority contained in House Resolution 176, approved.
June 5, 1947, the Committee on'Post Office and Civil Service is pres-
ently conducting a survey and study of the efficiency rating system
in the Federal Government.
The committee believes that one of the most important factors in.
creating good morale and increasing the efficiency of Federal employees.
is the intelligent application of a practical efficiency rating system.
Too often, efficiency ratings are made as a result of a subjective
analysis of an employee's work, whereas objective standards should
be used. Many Federal employees have approached the committee
requesting that steps be taken to' secure a more workable and fain
efficiency rating system.
The committee found, as a result of its studies, that improvements
in the efficiency rating system should be made through more effective
administration. This necessitates a more realistic approach by opera-
ting officials and personnel officers in the departments and agencies.
As a result of one of the committee's suggestions in August 1947, the
Federal Personnel. Council recommended. certain corrective measures
in the efficiency rating system to the Civil Service Commission..
These were adopted and became effective January 15, 1948.
During the first session, Eightieth Congress, the committee re-
quested the Federal Personnel 'Council to conduct a study of the
Federal efficiency rating system. The Council has submitted its,
report and recommendations, which are set forth below in full.
FEDERAL PERSONNEL COUNCIL,
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Hon. EDWARD H. REFS Washington .26, D. C., January 15, 1948..
,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, Washington., D. C.
DEAR MR. REES: In accordance with your request, I am pleased to transmit
a second report of the activities of the Federal Personnel Council relating to the-
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For ReleaseDZWli O&tCIAARDR9* 0682R000300170046-4
problem of efficiency rating. This report contains information and observations
on the effectiveness of the present- rating system, a list of rating problems which
have received, or Mill receive, the attention of the Council, and proposed solutions
to some of the problems which have been sent to the Civil Service Commission,
as well as to you. As the report shows, our studies made to date have indicated
the immediate need for administrative rather than legislative improvements.
We hope we may be permitted to call on you if and when our continuing studies
reveal the need for corrective legislation in this field.
We do not believe that there is any such thing as a final solution to all the
problems of efficiency rating, since the problems change, just as work programs
and problems in management change. Efficiency rating administration is not
static--it is an activity-and it must keel) up with practical problems as they
arise. What may he a good rule to follow today may be inadequate in terms of
the problems we may encounter a year from today. Accordingly, the study of
efficiency ratings as a part of good management will continue to be an activity
of the Federal Personnel Council.
Our experience with efficiency rating appeals to statutory boards of review, over
a 5-year period, furnishes evidence of a moderate change for the better in efficiency
rating administration. During the first fiscal year (1942) of the operations of such
boards of review, only 42 percent of the appealed ratings were sustained. In 1947
the proportion of ratings sustained by these boards of review had increased to
56 percent. This appears to indicate a gradual improvement in the ratings made
by supervisors, which was brought about, at least in part, through supervisory
training in the field of efficiency ratings. The total number of efficiency ratings
corrected by boards of review during the past fiscal year (1947) was 302, or less
than one-twentieth of 1 percent of all ratings appealable to such boards. Although
the review boards, being human, are not infallible, they nevertheless furnish the
most valid check available on the effectiveness of the present rating system.
What may prove to be one of the most encouraging trends in the entire field of
personnel management is beginning to appear in the form of job performance
standards-both in Government and in private industry. This is, however, a
complex problem in the human relations aspect of management and in its signifi-
cance goes far beyond the field of efficiency rating alone. While progress has
been made in some Federal departments and agencies in this matter, much
remains to be done.
The attached statement is submitted as P. progress report rather than a com-
plete document on the subject of efficiency ratings. As such, we hope it will be
of assistance to you and to your committee in your deliberations on current issues
in which efficiency ratings may be involved.
You may be sure that the Council welcomes this opportunity to work with you
in attaining our common objectives of better management of the Government
business. We hope you will call on us freely when you feel we can be helpful.
You may he interested to know that it was through your timely suggestions of
last August that studies made by the Federal Personnel Council have resulted in
a number of corrective actions in the efficiency rating system. These improve-
ments were submitted to you in our first report of November 25, 1947, and are
summarized on page 8 of this report. They have been adopted by the Civil
Service Commission and became effective on January 15, 1918.
Yours sincerely,
FRF.DERICE M. DAVENPORT, Chairman.
Enclosures:
1. Report on Activities of the Federal Personnel Council Relating to the
Problems of Efficiency Rating Administration, dated January 15,
1948 (appendix A, p. 2).
2. Copy of letter of November 25, 1947, to the House Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service from Federal Personnel Council (appendix
B, p. 7).
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL. PERSONNEL COUNCIL,
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington #S, D. C., January 15, 19 8.
REPORT OS ACTIVITIES OF TILE FEDERAL PERSONNEL COUNCIL RELATING TO THE
PROBLEMS OF EFFICIENCY RATING ADMINISTRATION
During the past year a wide range of problems in administration of the uniform
efficiency rating system have been studied in the Federal Personnel Council, in
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For Relea9#),Q1I c f h*} PgS1 0682R0003%0170046-4
cooperation with the United States Civil 'Service Commission. To understand
the progress that has been made, it is necessary to explain first how the Council
has organized itself to carry out the studies.
The Council is composed of the directors of personnel of the various departments
and agencies of the Federal Government. This body is too large for detailed
research and study. Also, it is too large for carrying through any specialized
project from beginning to completion. It operates, therefore, through committees.
One such committee devotes its attention to efficiency rating matters. Any
recommendations this committee formulates are presented for approval to the full
Council.
Frequently personnel officials in the field service assist by considering and
making recommendations on efficiency rating problems. They have also helped
greatly with training programs for supervisors, which result in better and more
uniform ratings, particularly in the field service, which includes about 90 percent
of all Federal employees.
Sometimes a committee finds it necessary to establish subcommittees for pre-
liminary investigation and study. The study of a subcommittee is presented to
the main committee for. consideration and formulation of recommendations, which,
in turn, are submitted to the Council for its approval. The Efficiency Rating
Committee of the Council operated for a considerable period of time through two
subcommittees--one Research and Development and the other Current Operating
Problems. Both of these subcommittees have completed their investigations,
which the main committee is now in process of reviewing. As recommendations
are formulated, they are submitted to the Council. Since the Council acts in
such'matters as and adviser to the Civil Service Commission, the recommendations
as approved by the Council are referred to the Commission for its consideration.
. As a result of the activities of the subcommittees, there can be expected to flow
a continuing series of recommendations for improvement of the uniform efficiency
rating system and its administration for some time to come. However, urgent
problems are given immediate committee consideration, which has resulted, for
example, in the recent changes whereby at one stroke all special ratings and their
abuses were eliminated.
The following is a discussion of the work of the two subcommittees:
There was assigned to this subcommittee the task of determining the problems
which arise in applying the uniform efficiency rating procedure and of making
suggestions for possible solution to these problems consistent with basic law.
After some consideration of how to accomplish this, it decided to examine each
major phase of the rating process. These major phases, listed below, indicate
the scope and variety of the problems studied.
1. The name efficiency rating.
2. Responsibility for efficiency rating administration.
3. Rules, regulations, and procedures governing efficiency ratings.
4. The 31 standard elements.
5. The element markings.
6. The standard.
7. The adjective rating.
8. The rating official.
9. The reviewing official.
10. The efficiency rating committee.
11. The board of review.
.12. The regular rating period.
13. The special. rating.
14. The probational rating.
15. Administrative-unofficial ratings.
16. Ratings on different jobs in same grade.
17. Who is to be rated.
18. Discussion of efficiency ratings (with employees).
19. Notice of efficiency ratings, SF-68.
20. The list of efficiency ratings.
Some problems in several of the phases listed above have already been treated
in the recent changes in the efficiency rating system. Others have been dealt
with by the Council more recently and are covered in a later part of this report.
Still others will be acted upon by the Council as expeditiously as possible.
. One thing stands out clearly in this entire field. Although there is general
agreement on the need for a system of efficiency ratings as a part of a career and
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For ReleaP'/~AttpP1~9P682R000300170046-4
merit system, it is very difficult to get agreement on most other points. Hence,
a middle compromise course must often be taken. The important thing is to
keep working away until a practical course is determined that will be generally
applicable. The best safeguard is experience: but even experience varies, and
usually it is necessary for experience to be of some duration before it can be used
safely as a guide. One thing experience has shown is that it is advisable to make
changes gradually and to observe their effects rather than to supplant one system
by an entirely different one. Improvement in the efficiency rating system and its
administration, in other words, is a matter of growth and progress rather than
radical change. This is borne out by the experience of the Subcommittee on
Research and Development.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
This subcommittee was appointed at the same time as the one on current
operating problems. However, its task was quite different. At its first meeting
there was adopted the following concept of its purpose:
1. To determine w+ hat the rating (needs of employees are and, correspondingly
what rating needs nihnagement. has, disregarding for the present the
administrative and legal environment of efficiency ratings.
2. To work out an efficiency rating system which will best fill these needs
without regard, in tite first instance, to practical limitations, practica-
bility (legal or administrative) of any new system which is developed to
be ascertained subsequently.
To accomplish this purpose and to provide for a crosssection of opinion, the
subcommittee decided to increase its membership by adding representatives of
employee, organizations and of management. As a basic starting point it agreed
that the main purpose of performance evaluation was "to determine and to in-
crease the value received in work performance for the taxpayers' dollar expended
for compensation for practical service." It agreed also "(a) that any system of
performance evaluation must be based on sound management principles" and
"(b) that persons who are rated are human beings and that any system devised
most provide fair treatment in the light of their feelings of personal dignity and
self-esteem." It was repeatedly stated in the course of the subcommittee's dis-
cussions that it "is to consider itself as 'starting at scratch'-as if no Federal
efficiency rating system is now in existence" and that "it is within tile scope of the
subcommittee to recommend new legislation, Executive orders, or civil-service
rules, or to recommend appropriate repeal or amendments."
In the course of the obconminittuvs meetings, it secured information about
(1) the history of efficiency ratings in the Federal Government, (2) the basic
concepts underlying time existing system, (3) the way in which the system was
being administered, (4) the uses of efficiency ratings and the types of rating
systems related to those uses, and (5) the systeiuc used in a number of industrial
concerns.
At the meeting of September 26, 1947, the chairman of the subcommittee
reported that-on the basis of the discussions, readings, and special reports-he
could draw five conclusions, which he set forth with no consideration for their
order of importance. They are as follows:
1. Serious thought should be given to a system of staggering rating dates
throughout the years, as suggested practice in a number of private
industries. (This has now been incorporated in the uniform efficiency
rating system.)
2. Efficiency ratings should not be considered as instruments of punishment.
At the very minimum, an unfavorable efficiency rating should be docu-
mented for the information and protection of the employee. (The
principle of forewarning employees of poor ratings is now incorporated
in the uniform efficiency rating systcmi.)
3. Efficiency ratings should be more definitely and secifically related to the
duties of the job and to the uses of rating:;. (The Civil Service Com-
mission has approved the plans of several agencies as well as its own
organization for rating on the specific duties of each employee's posi-
tion.)
4. Efficiency ratings should be a tool for the development of (lie employee
and for an incentive to greater effort on his part, and not simply a
record of performance. (This depends on good management and does
does exist in that form in many places.)
5. It is better to rate performance than to rate people. (This principle is
basic in the philosophy of the uniform rating system.)
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For Relea?#),Q1V9AW- ,Ch*}P9s1682R0003%0170046-4
Having accomplished this much, the subcommittee agreed to cease further
activity. It seems to be significant that the subcommittee did not proceed to
the development of an entirely different system of efficiency rating nor of any
specific recommendations of change in the law. Instead, it turned its minutes
and the problem back to the main committee for consideration, along with the
report from the Subcommittee on Current Operating Problems.
SURVEY OF OPINIONS ON THE UNIFORM EFFICIENCY RATING SYSTEM IN FIELD
ESTABLISHMENTS OF TIIE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
While the two subcommittees were making their investigations, the Efficiency
Rating Committee received the results of a survey of opinions on the uniform
efficiency rating system by field personnel officials in the St. Louis area. The
support for the system was so great that there was some doubt as to whether it
.was representative of opinion in other field areas. The committee had heard so
much of criticism that it thought a majority of people were dissatisfied with the
system. The St. Louis study would seem to indicate that the dissatisfaction was
not so widespread. In order to get a broader base, the committee thereupon de-
cided to distribute the St. Louis questionnaire to other geographical areas in the
field service.
Five hundred and thirty-eight questionnaires were returned. Many of them
reported a consensus. Therefore, the opinions of more than 538 persons are
included in the report of the study. The results of this survey should be accepted
with caution, because some of the questions permitted alternatives to. a "Yes" or
"No" answer.
Returns on individual questions posed in the survey, in terms of percentages of
the 538 questionnaires received, are as follows:
I. Do you think that the category of efficiency ratings should be-
Percent
(1) Excellent, very good, good, fair, unsatisfactory___ __________________ 54
(2) Excellent, good, fair, unsatisfactory --------------------------------- 10
(3) Excellent, good, unsatisfactory_____________________________________ 11
(4) Good, fair, unsatisfactory------------------------------------------ 7
Or do you think that the category of efficiency ratings should be changed
entirely? 18 percent, yes; 53 percent, no.
II. In computing retention credits, what weighting would you recommend for
.the following ratings:
Points
(1) Excellent------------------------------------------------------- . -
(2) Very good ---------------------------------------------------- -- -
(3) Good-----------------------------------------------------------
(4) Fair------------------------------------------------------------ -
Of the 357 questionnaires which had recommended weights:
Excellent
Very
good
Good
Fair
Unsatis-
factory
101, or 28.3 percent, suggested------------------------
5
3
1
----------
----------
45, or 12,6 percent, suggested-------------------------
3
2
1
----------
----------
12, or 3.4 percent, suggested--------------------------
5
3
2
----------
----------
Do- -------------------------------------------.
4
3
2
1
----------
9, or 2.5 percent, suggested---------------------------
5
3
2
1
----------
8, or 2.2 percent, suggested---------------------------
5
4
3
----------
----------
7, or 2 percent,suggested ----------------------------
5
4
3
1
------.---
6, or 1.7 percent, suggested---------------------------
4
3
2
----------
----------
Do----------------------------------------------
100
00
80
70
----------
Do ----------------------------------
100-95
95-90
90-85
85-75
----------
6, or 1.4 percent, suggested---------------------------
5
3
-
Do------------------ ---------------------------
5
4
2
----------
----------
4, or 1.1 percent, suggested---------------------------
-10
8
5
2
------_---
Do ----------------------------------------------
10
5
----------
----------
----------
Do----------------------------------------------
5
3
0
-1
----------
Do---------------------------------------------
- 2
1
----------
----------
----------
gg pp y wer o r ques onna res are no s e
prises 1.19 questionnaires).,
Or do you think that efficiency ratings should be disregarded entirely?
(com-
Percent
(1) Yes----------------------------------------------------------
9
(2) No-----------------------------------------------------------
72
Su
estions su
orted b
fe
than f
u
ti
i
t li
t
d
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For Relea a9Q' I -AL&I %1EQ10682R000300170046-4
III. In preparing the efficiency rating form do you think that-
(1) The form is excellent and can be used for all jobs-------- 47 percent, yes.
(2) That different forms -%ith standard element patterns should
be used on varying kinds of jobs---------------------- 33 percent, yes.
(3) The form is too complicated and inflexible-------------- 16 percent, yes.
IV. Do you think that appeals would be reduced and the efficiency rating
program improved if statements signed or initialed by the employee similar to
the following were included on the form?
"Previous to this rating I have had my work performance discussed with inc."
"My supervisor has discussed this rating with me,"
Percent
(1).Yes---------------------------------------------------------- 68
(2) No----------------------------------------------------------- 26
V. If an employee appeals his rating is it because-
(1) His work performance has not been discussed with him at any time prior Percent
to his rating------------------------------------------------- 43
(2) His efficiency rating has not been discussed with him----------------- 30
(3) Certain elements were considered in the rating form which were not
applicable to the job----------------------------------------- 13
VI. In your opinion, if supervisors and employees would mutually select the
efficiency rating elements, determine the matter considered, set up the job per-
fornmance requirements on each element, and then have periodic interviews
concerning the performance of it-
Percent
(1)
Would probably pay for itself-------------------------------------
20
(2)
Would be well worth the time spent--------------------------------
36
(3)
It would not be worth the time------------------------------------
39
VII. Do you think that something should be done to provide a uniform system
and form for rating unclassified employees?
Percent
(1) Yes--------------------------------------------- ------------- 66
(2) No------------------------------------------------------------- 12
If your answer is "es," do you think that the uniform system used for classified
employees should be* applied to unclassified employees?
Percent
(1) Yes--------- -------------------------------------------------- 45
(2) No------------------------------------------------------------- 19
VIII. Do you think that the present efficiency rating system and Standard
Form No. 51 should be changed entirely?
Percent
(1) Yes------------------------------------------------------------ 18
(2) N? - - 74
IX. Do you think that every employee should have the opportunity to appeal
in person his efficiency rating to an impartial board?
Percent
(1)
Yes------------------------------------------------------------
85
(2)
No-------------------------------------------------------------
10
When the above report on the survey was presented to the Council, there was
expressed a desire to see if the opinions of people in the Washington, D. C. area
corresponded with the opinions of field people. This study is now in process and
should soon be completed and reported.
INTERIM COUNCIL REPORT ON SPECIAL RATINGS AND RELATED PROBLEMS
By letter dated November 25, 1947, an interim report was submitted to the
chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. That
report referred to four ha~ic changes which had been recommended by the Council
to the Civil Service Commission. The changes eliminated all special ratings,
introduced "entrance" ratings, permitted agencies to spread the annual rating
dates throughout the year, and set forth a principle that employees should be
forewarned of ratings below "good." These changes have now been published
and became effective January 15, 1948.
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For Releaser2Of1103i&6xcClA P fOO682R00030p170046-4
Current activities of the Council
Extension to the field service of oral hearings on appeals has been strongly
urged for the last several years by the Council, on the grounds that such appeal
methods would be more equitable to employees and would strengthen efficiency
rating administration. The only thing holding up the establishment of board
of review in the field service is the lack of funds in the Civil Service Commission.
Experience with present regulations and procedures governing efficiency rating
appeals and the operation of boards of review, has demonstrated the need for
certain revisions. In addition, consideration must be given to the requirements
of the act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 751). Accordingly, the Efficiency Rating
Committee of the Council has recommended, and the entire Council has approved,
the following proposed revisions in the board of review and appeal procedures:
1. Increase the term of office of board of review members from 1 to 2 years;
2. Reduce the time for filing an appeal to a board of review from 90 days
after receipt of notice of efficiency ratings to 30 days;
3. Require board of review approval for waiver of oral hearings instead of
allowing the appellant the absolute right to waive an oral hearing when
one is provided;
4. Authorize the establishment of one or more field boards of review when
the Commission and the head of any department or agency agree to
extend to those field-service employees within the jurisdiction of such
boards of review the same appeal rights as are given to employees in
the departmental service.
5. Recognize the extension of appeal rights to employees whose salaries or
wages are not paid under the compensation schedules of the Classifica-
tion Act, as provided by the act of July 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 751);
6. Eliminate run-off elections for employee and alternate employee members
of boards of review; and
7. Help clarify other procedures through minor revisions in language and
arrangement and through the deletion of superseded material.
The above recommendations have been submitted by the Council to the Com-
mission, where they are now being considered.
The proposed changes are expected to speed up board of review hearings, re-
duce the need of holding elections, and provide administratively practical pro-
cedures for extending the oral hearing procedures to field service employees.
After agreement has been reached on these changes, recommendations will be
made for revisions in Executive Order No. 9252, dated October 9, 1942, since the
law provides that board of review regulations require the approval of the President.
The Council is firmly convinced that progress in efficiency ratings depends upon
agreement and understanding as well as upon authority. Because of the many
divergent and personal points of view, each item becomes controversial and agree-
ment is difficult to reach. The Council, however, will continue to apply itself to
the task and to recommend improvements as the nature of acceptable improve-
ments are determined. A number of administrative corrections have been in-
stituted during the past 6 years. Continued efforts will be applied, to the end
that the Federal efficiency rating system will be an increasingly practical, fair,
and useful device for raising the standards of performance throughout the Gov-
ernment service.
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL PERSONNEL COUNCIL,
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
The Honorable EDWARD H. REFS Washington 25, D. C., November 25, 1947.
,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. REEs: On July 31, 1947, you wrote to me requesting information
on instructions issued to personnel directors regarding the use of special efficiency
ratings for purposes of reduction in force. On August 12, 1947, I replied, indi-
cating that we would go into the matter further and would advise you of the
results. Mr. George M. Moore, chief counsel to your committee, acknowledged
my letter and advised that a report of the matter was expected before November
1947.
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4
 Approved For Releaso O01 3iB&c)CIA D IM682R000300170046-4
We are pleased to submit our report in accordance with your request. The
Federal Personnel Council, in ration with the Civil Service Commission,
has completed a study of the problem with which you are concerned, as well as
other problems, and has made certain recommendations to the Civil Service
Commission for the purpose of revising the efficiency rating system.
As a result of this study, the Civil Service Commission, is now revising the
efficiency rating system in a manner which, we hope, will help to solve the problem
which occasioned your original request. The changes will:
(a) Eliminau all special ratings.
(b) Introduce an "entrance" rating that is given to an employee when
first assigned to a position. If an employee has a rating based on work
in a different. position, he will be given such rating as his entrance rating,
except that if that rating is "unsatisfactory," the entrance rating will be
"fair." If the employee has no current official rating, his entrance rating
will be "good." The first rating, based on work performance for the em-
ployee will be made 6 mouths after probational appointment. or 6 months
after each change to a position of different service, class, or grade.
(c) Permit agencies to spread the efficiency rating activity throughout the
year.
(ti) Recommend that ratings below "good" shall not be given unless the
employee was given a prior warning.
It is the opinion of the Federal Personnel Council that the above changes will
help to correct the improper conditions which resulted from the making of special
efficiency ratings for reduction-in-force purposes before employees had sufficient
time to demonstrate their worth in positions to which they were reassigned. We
believe that existing legislation is flexible enough for any problem of unfairness
to be adequately handled by the efficiency rating system.
I am pleased to advise you that the Council is continuing to study the efficiency
rating Bystem for the purpose of making recommendations for its improvement
to the Civil Service Commission. Consequently, the Council will be most happy
to receive from you any further suggestions you may wish to submit in connection
with the proposed changes listed above or any other phase of the subject.
I ho to see you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Faaozxueic M. D+vEYPonT, Chairman.
0
Approved For Release 2001/03/06 : CIA-RDP91-00682R000300170046-4