the work, under the direction of psychologists of recognized ability. They should be applied without the conscious realization of the subjects of the tests.

same.

After graduation the tests could not be applied in exactly the same manner, but their general character would be about the The regular activities of the service would provide a series of tests of which the young officer would be quite unconscious. Observation of his performance of duty and frequent report thereon by all his immediate superior officers would prove the means of determining his qualifications.

Of course this is practically our present method of grading by means of fitness reports. However, the present form of report should be revised under the direction of the psychologists referred to previously, in order to eliminate the following faults:

I. The marks assigned in the present reports do not afford a good basis for comparing officers because no two reporting seniors mark on exactly the same basis, and because many officers mark too leniently.

2. The present reports do not indicate reliably which of two men is the better officer, nor which of an individual's various good points is his best.

3. The present form of report produces a tendency on the part of the reporting senior to confuse zeal with ability. For example, few commanding officers will assign a low mark in engineering to an engineer officer who works very hard, but whose real abilities do not at all lie in that line.

It is not proposed to offer detailed suggestions for the form in which the present report should be revised, but the following general suggestions are offered:

(a) Divide the report very clearly into two sections in order to separate zeal from ability.

(b) Each section should be in the nature of a questionnaire in order to bring all sides of the matter to the attention of the reporting officer. By this method comments will be invited on points which might escape the memory or attention.

(c) The first part of the report, to bring out zeal, should contain references to all the essential or desirable characteristics such as energy, thoroughness, conscientiousness, carefulness, and resourcefulness, and a mark-or rather, re

mark-should be required on each, restricted to one of the following:

Excellent,
Very Good,

Good,

Fair,

Indifferent,
Poor.

(d) The second part of the report should consist of a list. of specific abilities, such as military command, administrative, executive, and deductive abilities, engineering and technical abilities, ability to think quickly, ability to act quickly and correctly, ability to handle men, and self-control. In this part require the assignment of marks on a convenient scale to indicate the relative weight in the character of the individual being reported on of the abilities enumerated. Marks should be assigned only for those abilities for which the subject of the report has given demonstration.

(e) Require reporting seniors to include in the report a definite statement of their estimate of the officer reported on and the lines in which his future work should be confined,

(f) Require the report to be submitted for all officers in the navy except flag officers; quarterly for ensigns, lieutenants, junior grade, and lieutenants, and semi-annually for the others.

(g) Require the report to be submitted by all immediate seniors, including division officers, heads of departments under whom the officer is serving, executive officers of ships, and immediate commanding officers.

To insure the proper attention to these reports there should be an office in the Navy Department, headed by a selected officer. with no other duties than to study, tabulate, and interpret these reports, and to furnish automatically to the proper authorities information of obviously unsatisfactory performance of duty by officers in the grades subject to Selection Out. In the latter cases it is quite possible that occasionally the fault will lie with the seniors. As these cases cannot be segregated, it is obviously only just to the junior to arrange another trial at once under different seniors. This should best be done by ordering him to another ship or station, without acquainting anyone of the reason for the

transfer.

He will thus be put in the status of any officer ordered to new duty. If three such transfers prove necessary in the career of a young officer before he passes out of the grade of lieutenant, he should, on his fourth unsatisfactory report, be selected out as temperamentally unfit for the service. This should not involve retirement, but rather discharge with a year's pay, as the individual will still be a young man, physically able to make a start in civil life.

The plan for automatic Selection Out (retirement) of officers who have failed for Selection Up in the higher grades must have careful consideration. For instance, if being passed over by only one junior were considered sufficient cause for selection out it is evident that the Selection Board would be greatly hampered in its freedom to reach well down among the eligibles for especially able men. It would appear advisable, therefore, to permit a certain degree of passing over without causing selection out. The following conditions are suggested:

I. Automatic retirement will take effect if an officer is passed over by one-third or more of those selected up at any one time.

2. An officer who is passed over, but by less than a third of those selected up, will automatically retire upon the third such occurrence in one grade.

3. The Selection Board will be provided with data showing all eligibles who have previously been passed over, and whether once or twice.

For Selection Up it is, first of all, advisable to restrict the eligibles so that there will not be too great a field, otherwise. pressure on the Selection Board due to service opinion may cause too rapid elevation of officers whose fitness for selection has not been fully demonstrated, and many good, though not brilliant, men may be overlooked and retired. It is suggested that a fixed proportion be established such that the number of eligibles is a multiple, say three times, of the number of vacancies to be filled.

In order to strengthen the certainty that the fitness reports are reliable indications of the qualifications for leadership there should be recourse to "service opinion" in a manner similar in principle to that of General Order 494. The practical details of this general order, however, appear to be somewhat defective, and these defects have aroused a considerable amount of destructive

criticism in the service, so that there is danger of the advantages offered by the plan failing to receive appreciation. The defects which deserve attention are as follows:

1. The Selection Board probably will be considerably influenced by the quantity of "votes" cast for an officer. This is characterized as giving selection the nature of a popularity contest."

2. As there is no requirement that the reporting officer shall include in his list only the names of officers of whose professional fitness he has direct knowledge, it is evident that he may include names on purely unfounded opinion.

3. Personality is more apparent than is ability, and is more apt to attract attention among officers not well acquainted with the officer reported on.

4. Names omitted from a list because of lack of information are, with this plan, placed on a par with those omitted because of believed lack of fitness for selection. This is a real injustice to many capable and excellent officers who, for various reasons, may not be widely known.

5. There is no provision for indicating unequivocally those officers considered unfit for selection.

6. Because of the use of the term "lineally" in paragraph 9 of the General Order, the lists cannot be submitted in a form such that the Selection Board, recognizing the above defects, will be able to make a "qualitative" study of them.

These defects can be entirely eliminated and the very valuable measure of service opinion contained in these lists can be utilized if we keep in mind the principle of "qualitative analysis" rather than "quantitative analysis." In the belief that they will prove sufficiently self-explanatory, the following suggestions for employing these lists are submitted without further comment:

First.-Restrict the number of eligibles to three times the number of vacancies to be filled, counting from the top of the list; provided that in all cases of selection to the grade of captain there shall be a minimum of twenty-five eligibles, and for flag rank, a minimum of fifteen eligibles.

Second.-Extend the vote to all eligibles and to the entire commissioned personnel of the line senior to the eligibles. This will insure that each eligible will receive enough votes

to provide a good basis for comparison, and it will secure votes from all officers who logically can be considered fitted to hold opinions on the qualifications for leadership.

Third.-Require that each list shall contain the names of all eligibles of whose professional qualifications the reporting officer has direct knowledge, whether these eligibles are considered qualified or not.

Fourth.-Have the names on each list arranged in order of relative merit in the opinion of the reporting officer.

Fifth. Require the reporting officer to draw a line through his list at the point which separates those officers. whom he considers qualified from those he considers unfit for selection.

Sixth.-Require the reporting officer to sign his list. This will give the Selection Board an idea whether the names on the list are arranged by a leader of the sea-going type, or of the administrative or technical types.

Having at hand lists submitted in accordance with the foregoing, the Selection Board may then arrive at a qualitative estimate of the fitness for selection of each officer by the following method:

1. Starting at the bottom of a list, number the names serially upward from "1" until the line is reached.

2. Starting with the name immediately above the line, assign a new series of numbers beginning with (N+1), where "N" is the number of names in the list. If there is no line-in other words, if all officers on the list are considered worthy of selection-then the lowest name will receive the number (N+1).

3. Divide the number opposite each name by the number opposite the top name. This will assign a percentage to each name. The top name on each list will automatically receive 100 per cent, all names above the line will receive over 50 per cent, and no name below the line will receive higher than 25 per cent unless more than a third of the list is below the line.

4. Add together all the percentages received by an eligible and divide by the total number of his votes. This will give his average percentage.