Advancement for the enlisted personnel of our navy is carried out on a competitive basis. It is logical that such a system of promotion, if truly competitive, promotes efficiency in the naval organization by insuring that the various petty officer ratings are filled with the men who are best qualified to fill them, while at the same time it is the fairest system for those concerned.
It is impossible in an organization as large, as complex, and one in which the units are so spread out as is the navy today, to insure at all times that we accomplish what we seek as given in the above paragraph, no matter what plan we use in the competition. Whether the present method of determining the order of advancement could not be improved, so that it would better and more justly fill the various rating with men most deserving of them, is open to question, and it is with a discussion of this question that this paper deals.
The case of advancement to chief petty officer ratings will serve as an example for consideration, and any phases of the subject brought out for these ratings can in a general way apply to the other lower ratings. At intervals of several months, the Bureau of Navigation notifies all ships and stations that recommendations will be received for qualified men to be placed on an eligibility list, from which list will be filled the various chief petty officer ratings when vacancies occur. The bureau has in view placing in a relative order of merit those men best qualified for advancement, in accordance with a standard laid down by the bureau as given below.
In this discussion let us accept this standard as being the result of experience of the bureau over a number of years and as constituting a perfect measuring medium of the relative merits of those competing for advancement to chief petty officer rating.
Factor | Weight | Maximum multiple | Remarks |
(a)Examination mark | 15 x mark | 60 | Computed to 2 decimal places |
(b) Proficiency in rating (average mark for last 2 years preceding a set date) | 4 x mark | 16 | Computed to 2 decimal places |
(c) Ability as leader of men (average mark for last 2 years preceding a set date) | 4 x mark | 16 | Computed to 2 decimal places |
(d) Service as first-class petty officer | 1 for each year to 4 | 4 | Computed to 2 decimal places |
(e) Total regular naval service (based on date of completion of last 4-year period of net service for pay purposes) | 1/3 for each year to 12 years | 4 | Computed to 2 decimal places counting years and nearest full month |
Total Maximum Multiple |
| 100 |
|
One fact stands out: The examination mark carries a possible weight of 60 in the final possible maximum multiple of 100 and so must be considered as the most important factor in determining the relative standing of the contestants for advancement. The examination method of securing the order of merit of competitors is open to criticism as to whether it is the best means of judging relative knowledge and merit of the examined in a subject. Not only in the navy but in schools and colleges is this true. Whether the student in history or geography who gets a 95 on a test of either subject knows more about the part of the subject covered by the examination than the one who gets a 90 on the same test is a matter of conjecture. It is not the intention to digress here on this question but to state that the examination method has been used for many years and as far as we know is our fairest means of determining relative knowledge of a subject, and that it is the standard accepted method in most schools and colleges.
In the present system in use those men qualified for advancement in our navy are examined by various examining boards throughout the service. The Bureau of Navigation Manual in a general way specifies the constitution of these boards and the qualifications in which the candidate is to be tested.
Is this method the best manner of ascertaining the relative qualifications for rating of all those competing throughout the naval service, or would a system, whereby standard examinations are issued by the bureau in the various ratings at yearly intervals, or less, and all those ready for advancement stand these examinations on the same day throughout the service, papers to be forwarded to the Bureau of Navigation (or to an impartial board in one of the fleets, say the Battle Force) for correction, and containing the information required by parts (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the above standard, from which would be complied an eligibility list, be the best and fairest method?
Both of the systems have their good and bad features. Whether acceptance of the latter method would correct the bad features of the first, is, of course, open to question.
The best arguments in favor of the present plan are that it is simpler and distributes the work of grading to a number of boards, and that the candidate for advancement is examined by a board of examination from the same small unit of which he is a part, and that he personally appears before the board which examines him, and therefore the board can more accurately judge him on his true ability than can a distant central board at the department.
If (1) all boards were composed of officers of the same experience and ability in the subject examination, (2) officers who composed the boards interpreted the Bureau of Navigation Manual in the same manner, (3) the examinations given by the boards approached similarity, and (4) the scale of marking of all examining boards were similar, the author would be altogether in favor of the method now used. He does not believe this is true, however, and it is proposed to show by a few examples how this fact might possibly and does probably cause an injustice to occur to some of those competing for the advancement.
(1) The Bureau of Navigation Manual requires the examining board for chief petty officers to consist of three officers none of whom are below the rank of lieutenant (j.g.), and if practicable that it be detailed from a ship or station other than that to which the candidate is attached. Take the case of A and B, blacksmiths first class, who are going up for examination to chief metalsmith. Consider them (as in all the following examples) equal in all respects in parts (b), (c), (d), and (e) in the previously mentioned standard. A is in a destroyer tender and is sent to a destroyer for examination. His board consists of the executive officer of the destroyer, a lieutenant who has had only deck duty, the engineer officer, a lieutenant (j.g.) who has just recently been made engineer officer, and the torpedo officer, a lieutenant (j.g.) who has had practically continuous deck duty. B on the other hand is in a battleship, and is sent to another battleship in the same division for his examination. His examining board consists of the first lieutenant, a lieutenant commander of previous engineering experience, a lieutenant who is the senior assistant engineer, and a lieutenant (j.g.) who is the auxiliary division officer, both of the latter being engineering postrgraduates. The two boards have the same manual to guide them in conducting the examination for the rating in question, but with the wide variation in the experience of the boards conducting the examination, it is extremely doubtful if the two candidates are competing for the rating with equal chances of demonstrating which is better suited to fill it.
(2) A and B are machinist’s mates first class, graduates of the submarine school, attached to submarines in different divisions, men who have demonstrated that they know the engineering plant of a submarine excellently, and both of proved outstanding ability in the performance of duties with such a plant. Their knowledge of general engineering is about the same, and is only a fair knowledge. A’s board considers that in grading him, they should take into consideration the probable duties he will perform and his past performance and they conscientiously believe his demonstrated excellence in performance of duty in a submarine installation should well compensate for his lack of knowledge in general engineering and accordingly give him an excellent final mark. B’s board on the other hand interprets the Manual to require a strict examination in each subject, and although they are cognizant of B’s qualification to perform very ably the duties of chief machinist’s mate on a submarine, they believe they must take into consideration his just fair knowledge of general engineering, and so B gets only a good final mark. A’s name precedes B’s on the eligibility list possibly by enough numbers to insure his being rated long before B, merely because the examining board’s interpretations of the requirements differ, and because of lack of standardization in conducting the examinations.
(3) Three radiomen first class are up for examination by three different boards. The Manual lists requirements for chief radioman from (a) to (k) inclusive. Board 1 covers these subjects by an examination consisting of 50 questions requiring short answers:
Question: If a motor were to be selected for constancy of speed it would be a … wound motor, and if a large starting torque were required it would be a … wound motor.
Board 2 covers the requirements by one question on each part, as for instance part (i), which requires the candidate to have “a working knowledge of mechanical and electrical practice,” would be covered by:
Question: Discuss good mechanical and electrical practice in the upkeep of a motor generator set.
Board 3 meets and examines their candidate for advancement orally. Are three men of equal ability appearing before the three boards likely to come away with equal marks on the examination?
(4) In a type examination as described for Board 2 directly above and in subject (i) of chief radioman qualification of the Manual, take the same question, namely:
Question: Discuss good mechanical and electrical practice in the upkeep of a motor generator set.
Let the same radioman first class appear before two different boards and submit the same answer to this question. It is altogether unlikely that he would receive the same grade from the two boards on his answer because the scale of marking and opinion of two persons varies. Nor does it follow that, although three members constitute a board, the average marks of one board will agree with the average of another board on the same answer.
Whether a system of standardizing the examination of men who are candidates for promotion by issuing the same standard examination to those competing for a rating, and holding the examination on the same date is practicable is open to question. Also whether it would correct possible injustices of the present system without introducing other injustices is open to argument. I am of the opinion that men are often superseded on the eligibility list by others less deserving under the present system and that if a standardized system is practicable it forms a more equitable basis of determining relative qualification for promotion.
Perhaps examinations could be originated in the Bureau of Navigation and answer sheets forwarded with them, thus taking the burden of marking papers from the bureau and placing it in the hands of the examining boards. In this event, a type examination of questions requiring a definite answer which is either right or wrong would best serve the purpose.
In closing there is one other suggestion for standardization which might be used in determining order of merit and eligibility in certain rating. A few rating require attendance and graduation from a special school before advancement. As these school extend over a period of months in which time it should be possible to obtain the relative ability of the students, why not compile the eligibility list for these ratings from the order of graduation from the school, taking into account the weights of the multiples in parts (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the standard previously mentioned as for all ratings?