Civil Servants Undergo Annual Character Probe

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 546, 26 December 1928, Page 8

Civil Servants Undergo Annual Character Probe

Public Service Commissioner Seeks Information TEMPERAMENT AND ABILITY WELLINGTON, Tuesday. There is a flavour of the inquisition about the forms which have just been sent from the Public Service Commissioner’s Office and which are arousing resentment throughout the service. These forms, distinctly American in method, are now in the hands of departmental heads and each one constitutes a personal report upon an officer under their control. They must be filled in for each member of the service who is in receipt of £295 a year, or more. The five-yearly survey of the service, in fact, is being made as from December 31. A dozen headings concerning the officer are arranged down one side of the sheet and departmental heads are requested to underline the words supplied by the Public Service Commissioner’s Office to meet any and all contingencies. If they can think of a better word, however, they are permitted to use it.

Some specimens are: ’•Address. Consider the impression which his appearance makes upon the people who meet him. Distinctly good; favourable; indifferent; unfavourable; untidy; ostentatious. Manner of address and temperament. Consider the tactfulness, etc., that he shows in his dealings with others; Does his mannep of speech impress favourably or otherwise (in person and by telephone).—Convincing; polished; courteous; irritates; overbearing; nervous; reserved; opinionative; offhand; temperamental; phlegmatic; impetuous; argumentative; confident; even; resentful; cheerful; uncouth. Education. Consider his ability to conduct correspondence and make reports. Consider the manner of his speech and power of expression. Refer to any special examination qualification. —Education: Superior; moderate; satisfactory; good; inferior; well read. Speech Ungrammatical; fluent; slangy; uses correct English; good vocabulary; poor vocabulary. Correspondence—Lucid; lacks finish; poor; businesslike; superior; unintelligible; concise; verbose. The departmental head is urged, also, to “Consider how he applies himself to his work; does he make (jis daily task his main concern? Does he give his best and continuous effort to his work? Does he stick to his work until it is cleared up? Whfit supervision is required?” Here the range of variations is particularly choice. The officer making the report is invited to underline some of the following; “Attentive; industrious; earnest; interested; persevering; disinterested; easily distracted; does not put in full weight: lazy; energy misdirected; good work under supervision; gives best always; able to concentrate; watches the clock; good memory; poor memory.” The heading “Knowledge of duties and related duties” is also curious. An officer may be “Completely informed; well informed; lacking; meagre; moderate; experienced; keep abreast of the times; not keep abreast of the times; inexperienced; well equipped or proficient.” When his adaptability is being weighed the senior officer is exhorted to consider his junior’s ability to learn. Can he adapt himself quickly and effectively to new tasks, understand complicated explanations, see the reason for things? Is he capable only of routine work? Is he mentally alert, inquiring and original, or dull and slow, is he quick to see the significance of information and occurrences, can ha readily comprehend and follow instructions?” Leadership, organising ability, general suitability and special characteristics are all reduced to a formula But the two phases which are arousing annoyance are the item “Health. —Refer to any physical disability,” and “General Suitability. Does he possess the essential personal, social and work qualifications for the position which he holds?"