Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

SUBORDINATE MTINGS: Iv’liP NOT?
W. H. Githens and R. S. E-lster f
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School I
The notion of having subordi??tes rate their‘seniors is one
that typically engenders a great amount of feeling. These
authors became interested in the topic while teaching graduate
level psychology courses to’military officers when we found
that a quick way to pravoke class rtiscussion was to assert
that a system for gathering subordinate evaluations of seniors
seemed deserving of experi=lentat iO,l. Over the last several
years, therefore, we and a r.umber LI tiur students have conducted
some studies concerning subordinate evaluations. It
is to these studies that we will now turn.
TWO GENERAL SUKVIXS COSCERSIXG SUEORDINATE RATINGS
ln 1971, Lt. J. G. Bloomer. i’s:;, working .with one of the authors,
sent 1100 survey questionnnircs lo t!ic U. S. officers attending the Xaval
Postgraduate School. Over 350 officers responded to this survey concerning
subordinate evaluation. Lt. Bioomers’, survey Focused on the
/
acceptance of subordinate evaluations wizen t!le,y are for the senior’s
use only. Thus, his instructions read, in parit, ‘I.. .The purpose of this
survey is to discover whether the s:udents of /;;PS feel that the military
officer might be benefited b> a program such a’s this, in which he i.s
evaluated by his subordinates, with the ratings submitted directly to
him solely for &s own use. Ti;k responses obtained to this survey are
summarized in TableT
TXBLE I
Results of Lt. .Johm Bloomer’s i urvey
o f Sa\*al Postgr;lduate Stud ‘nts
B
Attitudes Concerning Subord;inate
Lvalunt ions (X=350)
i. 20 you feel such a periodic survey , y his enlisted men
P
would be a signif ican: help to theAjunior officer?
Yes - - - :hybe If no, go to part III.
Note: Lt. 31oomi:r grouped the number answering “Yes and “Flaybe”
into “those iinding some merit in the progran,” since in the majority
220
-