There has been considerable discussion concerning the merit or lack of merit of the present system of the promotion of enlisted men. It is an important question worthy of consideration. At present so many good men are eligible for every vacancy that it is extremely difficult to promote the best man, as is the desire of everyone in the Navy. With so many candidates for each vacancy, a competitive examination is a necessity and one is generally given. However, an examination does not necessarily show the best man. Frequently a good practical man cannot express himself in an examination nearly as well as a mediocre man.
Various systems have been tried to compensate for the different factors that determine the best man for a vacancy in the higher grade. Means of giving credit for service, for marks in the present rating, etc., have been used, and still it is not believed that even this is wholly satisfactory. For that matter it is doubtful if any method could be satisfactory to everyone. However, an important improvement is considered possible if the foundation of the system, quarterly marks, is altered. It is fully believed that the marks in proficiency of rating required to be eligible for advancement in rating are too high, while not enough consideration is given to the marks for “ability as a leader of men.”
The above statements are rather broad and require an explanation. For a thirdclass, or higher, petty officer to be advanced in rating, he must have “no mark less than 3.0 and an average of not less than 3.5 for one year,” both in proficiency in rating and conduct. There is no set requirement in leadership, but it is generally known that a man who is not a leader is not recommended for advancement. For the lower ratings the requirements as to marks are not quite as high, but high enough. The result is that most officers assign marks entirely too high for the great majority. It is true that there is a very good guide in the Bureau of Navigation Manual for officers to follow in assigning marks, but I think it is not too closely adhered to in most cases because an officer unconsciously thinks in terms of whether or not a man should be eligible for advancement when the required service in grade has been completed, and in so doing he assigns marks accordingly. That is, a good man generally gets at least a 3.5 because the officer marking him does not wish to jeopardize his chances of advancement and he, more or less, takes this mark as the standard, leaving but little leeway to a 4.0 for the perfect man, if there is such.
If the requirements for advancement in rating were reduced to 2.5, the marks of all men would automatically drop, which would be a good thing. Their relative merit would be seen more readily by a glance at their service records, and the marks of the outstanding men in the Navy would more nearly show their true value. When one considers it, an individual’s marks do not mean so much until compared with someone else’s. What really makes marks important is their relation to the fixed standard of passing or to another set of marks.
Everyone will agree that it is as hard to get a 2.5 (62.5 per cent) at the Naval Academy as it is to get a 75 per cent at a school where that is the passing mark. If only those men in the Naval Academy who made a 3.5 were advanced at the end of the year, there would not be many of us in the Navy, or else we’d all have made much higher marks as midshipmen. The result would be that in assigning a class standing a great number would be tied with the same multiple, all because the range of marking did not permit a wide enough range in the assignment of marks.
It is an accepted fact that the rapidity of advancement in rating for men depends on the rate of attrition in the higher ratings. We have today in the Navy some men who “made chief” in less than six years’ total service. Others were on the waiting list for “chief” for nine or more years, all this time waiting as first class for a vacancy and keeping a good and clean record, so that when their turn came they could “make the buttons”; all because the quota in their rating was filled, whereas in the other rating it was not. This is mentioned only to stress the point that attrition determines the rate of advancement. With the men that are in the Navy today, regardless of what marks may be assigned to them or the method of marking, there will be at least two or more well qualified to fill every vacancy that may occur. So why not a system to make “finding the best man” a little easier, especially since all the men qualified for a higher rating cannot make it as soon as qualified? While we are at it, let us set a standard for marks in leadership and give that weight, too.
It is felt that every man regardless of rating should be given a mark in “ability as a leader of men.” In the lower, nonrated grades, it might be based on how a man adapts himself to the Navy, how he gets along with others, and how much intelligent initiative he seems to show; in the petty officer ratings, on how he handles his men and how he co-operates with men both in and out of his own division. Often a man is an excellent mechanic or an excellent man to do the work required of his special rating as long as he works alone, but put him in charge or working with someone else and he falls by the wayside. Marks are now given in leadership but have no special effect on a man’s advancement, or rather the effect is rather remote, with the result that the marks in proficiency in rating as now assigned really are a summary of both leadership and proficiency. If each were to be considered separately, that is, a man assigned a mark in “proficiency in rating” purely on the technical ability to perform the special requirements of his rating and a mark in “ability as a leader of men” solely on his leadership qualities, it is felt that the entries in the service record would be more informative. Therefore, the following plan is suggested: (1) change the mark required in “proficiency in rating” for advancement from 3.5 to 2.5; and (2) set a standard of marks, using 2.5 as the “standard” for “ability as leader of men” and make that a requirement in determining a man’s eligibility for advancement. The result will be that a wider range of assigning marks will open; only the outstanding men will get the present high marks assigned to the majority; and the service record will show a clearer picture of a man’s relative merit, both in proficiency in rating and in leadership. When the time comes to select the best man for advancement, it will not be so difficult to determine who he is, and he will be advanced more because of long and excellent service than of his ability to answer the questions an examining board may decide to ask.