RATING SCALE FOR FORESTERS l-i7 



becomes in turn reducible to intelHgent and personal qualities as they 

 may have been tempered in his life by training. 



A man is found neglectful of duty either in whole or with reference 

 to particular items. This means something which may be balanced 

 and is a definite result which it is possible to judge. It is, however, a 

 composite characteristic in men and is not dependent upon composite 

 basic factors. A man may have poor judgment in weighing the relative 

 importance of one item against the others. He may be lacking in the 

 proper ability to get those under him to help and thus force too much 

 execution upon his own time. Final analysis may show that the man 

 is too closely restricted from above and really is not personally 

 responsible. Thus it will be seen that careful analysis is necessary in 

 order that the item may receive proper consideration in a man and that 

 reduction to terms of a common denomination is necessary for a com- 

 parison- of the characteristic in different individuals. 



There are, literally, hundreds of these composite reactions in every 

 day life and it is by using these one is able to judge men. Care must 

 be taken not to slight the mass at the expense of one or two predomin- 

 ating features. It is for this reason that the basic mental factors have 

 been specifically enumerated in the scale. Decision is reached on this 

 basic common denominator in the last analysis, working either con- 

 sciously or otherwise back through the complex reactions met in every 

 day life. 



In developing the scale by actual use the first step is a complete list 

 by the rating officer of all the individuals he knows in the class of 

 position to be rated. It happened, of course, that nearly all of the 

 rating officers knew men who were not at that time immediately under 

 their supervision or who had actually changed their work entirely. The 

 aim was to have each rating officer cover as broad a field as possible 

 from his own knowledge. 



Starting from this point every characteristic of each man in the list 

 except his (lualifications under "The art of handling men" was disre- 

 garded. The one individual who ranked highest in this regard was 

 chosen. An effort was made to pick the man who was the best typical 

 example in the list and his name was placed first, at the top. in a new 

 check list now forming. In exactly the same way the one who ranks 

 lowest was selected. This name was placed at the bottom of the 

 list. .\n effort was made to get as nearly the highest and lowest 

 cxamijles within the field of each man's knowledge as possible. Usually 

 this decision was easy. The next step was to select another who graded 



