Promotion Procedure‐Whitley Committee's Report
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1939.tb03027.x |
| Author | A. J. Waldegrave |
| Date | 01 January 1939 |
| Published date | 01 January 1939 |
Notes
PROMOTION
PROCEDURE-WHITLEY COMMITTEE’S REPORT
By
A.
J.
WALDEGRAVE
THE
report of the Sub-committee on Promotion Procedure, recently ratified by the
National Whitley Council and issued to Departments by the Treasury, makes
no
revolutionary changes in the, procedure which was established in the Civil Senrice,
following the first Whitley report
on
the subject, some sixteen years ago. The
new report states that
“
it was agreed by both sides that the general principles
embodied in the First Report and the procedure there outlined had been proved
valuable
by
experience.” The main features of the original report, thus endorsed,
were the setting up
of
Promotion Boards and the introduction of
a
standard form
of Annual Report on members of the staff eligible for promotion.
The most important change desired by the Staff Side of the Sub-committee in
the
constitution of Promotion Boards was the inclusion on the Board of
a
staff
nominee. With this proposal the Official Side found itself unable to agree, and the
change will therefore not be made. The Official Side was also unable to agree to
the proposal that the practice in operation
at
the Admiralty, of allowing Annual
Reports to be scrutinised and commented on
by
a representative of the Staff Side,
should be made general.
The chief alteration introduced
by
the Sub-Committee
is
in the method
of
marking employed
in
iilling up Annual Reports. The original scheme provided
for only three categories in reporting on the qualities shown in the performance
of
an officer’s present duties-A, above average;
B,
average; and C, below average.
Similarly, only three gradings were provided for reporting on degree of fitness for
promotion-A, Eminently qualified;
B,
Qualified; and
C,
Not at present qualified.
The Sub-committee agree that finer distinctions than those afforded
by
three
gradings are desirable and in future there will be the following classification
:
-For
performance of duties
in
present grade-Outstanding, Very good, Satisfactory,
Indifferent, Poor. For degree of fitness for promotion-Exceptionally well quali-
fied, Highly qualified, Qualified, Not yet qualified.
It
is
well known that the
closer markings thus recommended have already been adopted by
a
number of
Departments, usually by affixing pluses or minuses to the standard A,
B
and
C
categories.
Further changes introduced are
a
ban on passing notes or copies of reports from
one reporting officer to another and
a
provision that informing an officer of an
adverse report shall be
at
discretion instead
of
being compulsory.
It
appears from the report of the Sub-committee that the
Staff
Side would have
been prepared to attempt an elaboration
of
the form of Annual Report with the
object of guiding reporting officers towards greater uniformity in their standards of
appraisement; and mention is made of the
“
pointers
”
which are in use in some
Departments for clearing the minds of reporting officers in their judgment of the
nature
of
the qualities listed
on
the form. The Official Side did not, however, think
such elaboration necessary. One sees
in
the wording of the report
a
hint that they
I01
To continue reading
Request your trial