Public Administration ETDs

Publication Date

4-26-1972

Abstract

For the past ten years the United States Air Force has utilized the same Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) to document the performance of its officers. These reports are included as part of each officer's record and are the primary criteria for determining his suitability for promotion, assignment and advanced training.

However, the Air Force has been plagued with problems with the ef­fectiveness of their current OERs, especially regarding inflation and the "halo effect."

This thesis: (a) researches the current officer performance evalua­tion methods used by both the United States Army and Navy to determine whether these services also use similar forms and whether they are facing similar problems, and (b) assesses the state-of-the-art viewpoints on executive performance evaluation held by professionals working in the private sector; rating the three military services' systems against these viewpoints.

There are similarities and differences between the three military services' officer performance evaluation systems. Similarities include: (a) the use of personality trait ratings; (b) the importance of the forms and their use in critical personnel actions; and (c) annual reporting requirements. Differences include distinct policies regarding number of rating officials, ratee review of the report, specific report format, submission times and written comparison with other officers.

In the private Journal literature during the past decade, four main approaches to executive performance appraisal were discussed. These approaches are: (1) personality trait ratings; (2) results-oriented appraisals; (3) results-oriented/trait ratings; and (4) other appraisal methods. The majority of the articles favored the use of a results­oriented system.

The thesis concludes that the officer performance evaluation systems for all three military services are not in agreement with the results­oriented appraisal method recommended by the private sector. Because of the differences between the three services' approach to officer performance evaluation and recognizing the importance of a person's need for recognition and satisfaction when comparing the military systems, the author ranks the Navy system as the best of the three, the Army second best and the Air Force third.

It is recommended that: (a) the military consider using the results­oriented technique, if not as an evaluation system, as a means of increasing superior/subordinate relationships and in recognition of the needs of the individual officer; (b) the assessment center should be further studied by both private and military organizations; the Air Force especially could easily implement such a system; and (c) no matter what type of performance evaluation system is used by the military services, formal training should be given to all officers when they are assigned as rating officials to see that these officers understand the important implications of such reports; periodic retraining is also suggested.

Performance evaluation is an often discussed subject and as long as we have one human rating another, subjectivity and difficulties will remain. However, the military services, especially the Air Force and the Army, should be able to more closely approximate an optimal solution than they now do.

Degree Name

Public Administration

Level of Degree

Masters

Department Name

School of Public Administration

First Committee Member (Chair)

Frank Xavier Steggert

Second Committee Member

Illegible

Third Committee Member

Nicholas Llewellyn Henry

Language

English

Document Type

Thesis

Download

Share

COinS