(Witnesses: Pinchot, Zappone.) Keep Committee work, and the idea that the President has had, is to put the Government on the same high plane of efficiency that would be occupied by any other great business. We believe most thoroughly that it can be done, and we think we have made some progress toward it. But it is that line that ought to be followed, in my judgment, instead of the attempt to circumscribe and confine the chiefs on the ground that you are afraid they are going to do bad work. The thing for you to do is to insist that they shall do good work; and if they do not, get rid of them. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any reasonable business compromise between the two systems? That is to say, could you have any general limitations which would furnish bounds beyond which men could not go, but within those bounds give them any other freedom and discretion? Mr. PINCHOT. That could be done. The CHAIRMAN. And which would tend to eliminate any danger that might result from the abuse of executive discretion? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes; that could be done perfectly. The CHAIRMAN. How could that be done? Mr. PINCHOT. For example, the establishment of this system of clerical salaries which we have recommended might be taken as a basis. [Handing schedule to the chairman.] If you will read the first page and a half, you will get the idea. Mr. ZAPPONE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a remark at this point? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. ZAPPONE. The report of the Keep Committee on cost-keeping, which was submitted by them to the President, has since been transmitted by the President to the Secretary of Agriculture, with instructions to put it into effect, if practicable, in each and every bureau of his Department. Whether or not it has gone to the heads of the other Departments I can not say. The CHAIRMAN. If you have not stated it, please state what limitations could be placed upon the lump-fund salary method without seriously impairing its flexibility or its efficiency, tending to eliminate the criticism of the abuse of discretion on the part of the heads of bureaus. Mr. PINCHOT. I would suggest that definite limits be assigned for specific kinds of work, within which salaries may vary, but outside of which they may not go. One of the important things would be to require that a man's salary should change only when the character of his work changes, outside of those limits. The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is, then, that the law might prescribe the various classes? Mr. PINCHOт. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Without fixing the number of men to be employed in the classes? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes; but establishing the salaries for those classes. The CHAIRMAN. And, so far as would be practicable, defining the character of the duties to be performed by those classes? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And then leave to the head of the Department the responsibility of saying how many he shall have in the various classes and how long they shall remain therein? Mr. PINCHOT. Exactly. (Witness: Pinchot.) The CHAIRMAN. And it should provide, further, that no other classes should be created except for other kinds of work? Mr. PINCHOT. That is it. The CHAIRMAN. And then hold the head of the Department responsible for the number of men he might have in the different grades? Mr. PINCHOT. Precisely. Then I should personally like to see the committees of Congress investigate the Government work, not merely in their own committee rooms, but where that work is actually going on. I think you would get a great deal better idea of the work if you would make an occasional visit to the various bureaus and see what the work looks like on the spot. The CHAIRMAN. That is, to see what physical work the employees are actually engaged in, and how they are doing it? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes; simply go to a man as he sits at his desk, and say: "What are you doing, and how is this related to the general lines of work of this bureau?" Because I find that only a few men in the various committees are actually familiar with what the bureaus over which they preside are doing; and the substitution of supervision over the statutory roll for this live supervision seems to me to be one of the great difficulties. Congress supervises the details of administration in this formal way-for it can only be a formal supervision-instead of going into the various bureaus and getting into actual touch with what is going on. The CHAIRMAN. That is a distinction between the written or oral examination and the personal inspection? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes; you can not control the work of a bureau merely by regulating the statutory roll. The CHAIRMAN. In case of legislation like that which you have suggested, defining practically the duties of the heads of bureaus, but leaving upon them the responsibility of the discharge of those duties, what system of promotion would you employ in relation to the matter of efficiency? On what basis would you make promotions? Mr. PINCHOT. I would have each chief of bureau, office, or division held rigidly responsible for the system of promotion in his own organization, within the general lines of policy established for the Department. May I read you a statement of the policy of the Forest Service in promotion? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would be glad to have it. In accordance with the provision of the Service calendar, recommendations for promotions in their offices are made by chiefs to the Forester on June 1. When the recommendations are received they are turned over to the Associate Forester, who with the chief of each office concerned constitutes a committee charged with the further consideration of the recommendations in the light not only of the individual eligibility for promotion of those recommended, but of applying promotions uniformly throughout the Service. In that way Mr. Price gets a uniform idea, and I, afterwards, of all the promotions recommended in the Service." This done, the recommended promotions are submitted to the Forester for approval (Witness: Pinchot.) And I do not go over anything more carefully in the course of the year than I do those promotions who, before the final action, considers with the chiefs concerned all changes recommended by the Associate Forester with which they do not concur. We spend weeks over it. The policy of the Forest Service in its promotions rests upon the following principles: 1. In considering the promotion of any member, the Forest Service takes into account not only efficiency of service, but also the maximum final value of the class of work performed, or the limit which the member may expect to reach. This known, the Forest Service endeavors so to adjust the promotion that the attainment of the maximum salary warranted by the position is reached neither so slowly that injustice is done nor so rapidly that the incentive of possible promotion is soon removed. That is, we do not jump a man too quickly. This principle results in promotions seldom exceeding $100 per year in clerical positions and rarely over $200 per year in technical grades. The Forest Service's experience has shown that small, frequent promotions are both more wholesome and more conducive to good work than less frequent and larger ones. Thus, except in unusual cases, it is the policy to make small promotions frequently rather than promotions of double or treble the amount at longer intervals. 2. The Forest Service makes no routine promotions. That we insist on. Neither long service nor ability to do the work assigned of themselves justify a promotion. Fitness for larger work or for increased responsibility or high and unusual efficiency are alone recognized by increased pay. Promotion for length of service is not known in the Forest Service. 3. Although it is the active policy of the Forest Service to make salaries uniform for the same class of work throughout its branches, it does not grade them with reference mainly to the salaries paid in other parts of the Department of Agriculture or of other Departments. Salaries in its clerical grades are fixed by the actual value of the services performed, taking into consideration, so far as possible, both the rate of pay which the same work commands in private employ, and the peculiar exigencies and comparatively slighter chance of advancement for those in clerical positions offered by the Government service. The net result is that the Forest Service has a clerical force whose average pay is generally far below that of other branches of the Government service, while its efficiency is believed to be higher. And I think there is no doubt about that. 4. It is not the policy of the Forest Service to recognize increased responsibility at the outset by increased pay. This has been slightly modified since this statement was written. In other words, a new title and larger duties do not necessarily entail a higher salary in the beginning. After a man has justified the confidence shown in him by his promotion in responsibility he is promoted in pay, but usually not before. 5. The Forest Service recognizes, and not infrequently applies, the right to consider a promotion not only in the light of the value of the services performed, but also of its effect upon the man himself. Overconfidence or the danger of advancement too rapid to be wholesome or any one of many other factors may stand in the way of a promotion deserved by actual service, but which nevertheless is for the best interest neither of the man nor of the work in the long run. (Witness: Pinchot.) We have found in a few cases that very rapid promotions have ruined good men, and we try to avoid that. The Forest Service sees in promotions probably its strongest influence for the good of the service. It designates certain limits within which all promotions must fall and certain essential considerations upon which all promotions must be based. It never promotes beyond the limit set for a particular grade of work We have those limits written out but neither does it give promotion merely because of a change in grade until after that change has been justified by results. It endeavors in each case to pay what the work done is actually worth, but in such a way and by promotions so distributed that the best possible attitude is maintained in each man toward his work. The application of the policy in promotions adopted by the Forest Service has in the fiscal years 1901 to 1904, inclusive, had results shown in the following table: This was written a year ago, so I do not think I need to read the table. So far as the effect of the policy of the service in promotions upon efficiency is concerned, it is believed that the clerical force costs less than any similar force in the Government service, while its efficiency is believed to be higher. It is believed, too, that the high standard, effectiveness, and esprit de corps which are claimed for the technical force are in no small measure the results of the policy of the service in promotions. This was written a year before we had been able to make the comparison of the ten bureaus that I spoke about a little while ago, which showed that for those ten bureaus the average increase recommended by the Keep Committee would be from 6 to 10 per cent, while the increase for the Forest Service would amount to 30 per cent. In other words, we have proved that when we said we had lower salaries than any other Government organization, we were right. The CHAIRMAN. That is, a careful examination of the existing conditions demonstrated your conclusion? Mr. PINCHOT. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. On what basis do you determine the efficiency of your employees? Mr. PINCHOT. We reach it mainly by the report of the man's immediate chief. The CHAIRMAN. What does he keep? Mr. PINCHOT. He mainly keeps it in his head. We have tried for the last two years to get an effective system of efficiency records, and so far we have not been able to get anything that was to us entirely satisfactory; and while we have not given up the attempt, and are working toward it constantly, we have not yet succeeded in making an efficiency record that really seemed effective. The CHAIRMAN. They do have a general efficiency record in your Department, do they not? Mr. PINCHOт. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And do you have those records filled out from time to time? Mr. PINCHOT. Oh, yes; we keep that. The CHAIRMAN. That is, the general record of the Department; you keep that? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes. (Witness: Pinchot.) The CHAIRMAN. And when you speak of an efficiency record, you have in mind something beyond that, and more in detail? Mr. PINCHOT. More in detail. The CHAIRMAN. A record which would disclose more effectively the actual efficiency? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that any system of promotions, to be effective, will be based mainly on the knowledge of the immediate chief in matters which it is very difficult to set down on paper. The CHAIRMAN. That involves the personal equation to a greater extent? Mr. PINCHOT. You get the personal equation in the other results just the same, because it is the same man who keeps the record. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but of course your suggestion emphasizes the personal equation? Mr. PINCHOT. I think it is probably about an even thing. I have not had much experience with efficiency records. But I know, for instance, that these quarterly returns have, so far as the Forest Service is concerned, substantially no effect on promotions, because we simply put down quarterly or half-yearly the information about these men that we have in our minds already, and it is upon this information rather than upon the written result of it that we act in promotions. The CHAIRMAN. If they coincide, it is all the same thing? The CHAIRMAN. Is it not an important factor, or at least a factor of value, in connection with the question of the efficiency of the service and the morale of your men, that they have opportunity to know from time to time what their record for efficiency is? Mr. PINCHоT. We have never found it so. It might be said that we have never had a written efficiency record of that kind. The CHAIRMAN. You have not sufficient knowledge of that fact, then, to be able to express an opinion as to whether it would be wise or otherwise? Mr. PINCHOT. I can only say that I have never found the need of it. We have as good a lot of people, I think, as there is in the Government service, and I think they do as much work. In fact, I am very proud of our clerical force as well as of our technical force. The CHAIRMAN. Then I infer that you have never had any complaints from your personnel on the ground that they have not received all they were entitled to? Mr. PINCHOт. Yes. They come straight to me or to Mr. Price about it, and we find that personal contact in that way gives us our best results. The CHAIRMAN. If you get your system of efficiency records, in order that they may produce their maximum of good results, would it not be necessary that the individual affected thereby should either be advised or have an opportunity to see from time to time what his record is? Mr. PINCHOT. Yes; decidedly. The CHAIRMAN. So that he may amend or improve? |