On this subject of productivity there are really two reasons for the Commission having a direct interest in it and an interest that is the same as yours.

In the first place, we are interested in good government. We are interested in effective and efficient operation. We are interested for another reason that it makes our jobs easier, because if there is a conscious knowledge of the number of people that are needed, we know that there is a measurement by which we can judge the proper pay, the proper classification of these people. If it is not guesswork but based on some scientific measurement, or an experience measurement, we can perform our task of recruitment and examining and do it much easier. We can do it with more confidence in the use that is going to be made of these people.

Mr. Chairman, I think our feelings are just the same as those of your committee, that a more effective government makes a government that is easier to run and we can do a better job if we have the tools with which to do it.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Lawton, you are very kind to say that.

As I understand it, you feel that an experienced measure of a productivity standard of some sort would be one of the tools that would make it easier for us to run the Government more effectively and more efficiently?

Mr. LAWTON. Very definitely.

At the beginning of World War II, some of the earliest measurement work was done under the stress of circumstances. We were bringing in large groups of people who were needed to do a job and to do it in a hurry. The only people you could use were those who could be effectively used. You did not have the physical resources to house other types. You had to design some measure by which you could work so that you were sure the work was being done with a minimum of effort and the maximum of results.

We borrowed initially from a good many of the commercial companies. Lockheed was one who developed a plan during the late 1930's and we borrowed it. Three years later, Lockheed was borrowing ours.

It is that sort of an improvement I think is necessary.

Government can learn from industry but Government, in many cases, also can teach industry.

The development of work measurement which determines the standard of productivity is a never-ending task but it is one you ought never to quit on.

Mr. BROOKS. I want also at this time to recognize Mr. Hampton. Do you have any comments on this?

I know you worked in the White House on personnel problems for a long time and prior to that in the State Department. I know you are interested in the problem and what are your feelings on it, sir? Mr. HAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have anything really to add to what my colleagues have said except that I concur in what they say. I think any measure of productivity we can achieve would be very important in making a contribution to more efficient government. From what I have seen in the Commission, we are well out in the front in this field, particularly by adding manpower utilization to our inspection program. I think we will get some results with this and with the chairman serving on this Advisory Committee with the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Hampton, we have a copy of your Bulletin No. 273-4 and I notice seven points listed there.

For example, this question on, What is the activity doing to insure sound personnel management through the careful selection and appropriate training of persons engaged in the personnel management training program'

Then under that you have several questions and along with that, what steps are being taken to insure that supervisors are effectively motivating employees and getting a reasonable day's work performed by each employer?

Apparently, this is a part of that same productivity problem-you are trying to get an idea of the measure of effort of work performed. Mr. MACY. That is exactly right. This emphasizes the responsibility of each individual supervisor seeing to it that the people working for him are motivated to give all that they can in response to the needs of public service.

Mr. BROOKS. You mentioned supervisors a couple of times.

Do you feel this is where there is a possible gap in the effectiveness of our people? Do you think it is the people at the lower echelons who are really willing to work if they are motivated and led by their immediate superiors?

SUPERVISORS KEY TO EFFECTIVE STANDARDS

Mr. MACY. I feel, in many ways, this is the key point.

This is the key point in achieving the objectives we are both seeking here.

Mr. BROOKS. Have you gotten any results from this inquiry? What have they reflected?

Mr. MACY. I do not have anything precise as yet but let me answer it this way. I think there needs to be a constant effort in the Federal service and any other enterprise to see to it that we are bringing people of leadership and capability into positions that involve the guidance and supervision of others. I feel that one of the most important decisions that has to be made in every organization is the selection of a supervisor who is going to guide others because this is the point at which motivation is going to be generated. This is the point at which standards are going to be applied.

I am talking about all levels of supervision and we can write all kinds of standards. You can legislate all kinds of new programs but the final achievement of this in terms of public interest is in the hands of the man who is making the day-to-day decisions with respect to the people who are under his direction.

This is why I feel that a very important part of the Commission's responsibility is to encourage and in some instances to provide training opportunities for those who are going to accept responsibilities as supervisors.

I do not think any of us ever have acquired enough knowledge or enough skill to really do the supervisory job to the fullest possible extent. We can always learn new techniques. We can read the literature that has been put out and we can press for more research so that we know how people react to various stimuli.

This is a continuing need and the men and women who exercise this supervisory responsibility are the key people in our organization.

Mr. BROOKS. One further question.

Do I understand you feel that, roughly, more than half of the Government jobs can be readily ascertained on the basis of a productivity standard for them?

Mr. MACY. I do not believe I said that.

Mr. BROOKS. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr. MACY. I have not refined it in those terms.

I will do so, if that would be helpful to you.

Mr. BROOKS. What percentage would be readily translated by current, known methods? Can you tell me now?

Mr. MACY. I am afraid I would not hazard a guess for fear I would be too far off.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Irons said earlier he thought 50 percent of the people working for the Government you could determine a productivity standard for without too much trouble; the other 50 percent would be considerably more difficult, or more sophisticated as you put it. Would that be so?

Mr. MACY. I would feel that his knowledge would be such that that is as good an estimate as we could come up with at this point.

Mr. BROOKS. You did not make any breakdown because you were considering the entire problem-and check me if I am right-you felt that in some degree you and your colleagues believe some measure of work could be ascertained for all levels, although it might be more difficult in some areas than in others?

Mr. MACY. Yes, I think there is a rather broad variation as to the degree of reliability of standards you can develop.

The operations that are repetitive and a number of others are of such a nature that it is possible to develop rather precise measures that can be applied. For example, getting back to the Commission, we find that in our own operations we can come up with detailed, controlling standards for the handling of investigations, the conduct of examinations, and the determination of retirement claims; but when it comes to working on a long-term developmental project on improving the group life insurance program or on reforming the pay structure, this is the type of work that is exceedingly difficult to apply any specific measure to.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Moss?

Mr. Moss. Mr. Macy, I would list perhaps three things as being most important in securing and maintaining good personnel; one, of course, would be compensation and then the opportunity for advancement while the third is the fairness of the employer.

I think basic to the last two, opportunity for advancement and fairness of the employer, that goes into matters of understanding, adequacy of communication with the individual worker and his supervisor, but what legal authority or responsibility has the Commission to supervise or spell out guidelines for the inservice training of supervisory personnel?

Mr. MACY. I view the Commission's responsibility in that area to be one of influence and encouragement, not one of direction. I do no believe we are in a position to prescribe specific courses but I do feel we have an obligation through our inspection program to refer to programs that are currently underway within an agency to achieve inservice development of supervisors, and an obligation to comment critically on the degree to which the objectives are being accomplished.

Mr. Moss. Do you do that?

Mr. MACY. Yes; this is a part of our inspection program.

At the conclusion of an inspection, we will give the agency head an evaluation of the manner in which he is presently selecting and training individuals for supervisory responsibility.

Mr. Moss. How do you, going into an installation or an agency, undertake to determine the type of inservice training in which the agency is engaging?

Mr. MACY. We review the training programs that are in process, descriptions of them, the personnel that participate in these programs. We endeavor to evaluate the content that is being offered and provide an appraisal based upon these findings.

Mr. Moss. Do you have legal authority to require agencies to have inservice training for supervisors?

Mr. MACY. No, not to require. The Government Employees' Training Act established in 1958 a congressional policy that training was an essential part of developing the capacity of people within the Federal service. The Commission and the agencies view this as not only a permission, but a strong guidance that such programs should be conducted.

Mr. Moss. But you have no authority to prescribe standards or direct that such be done?

Mr. MACY. That is correct.

Mr. Moss. Do you think you should have?

Mr. MACY. No; I feel that the role of persuader, consultant, adviser, or evaluator, is the proper combination for the Commission to perform. I do not feel that we are in a position to make a sufficiently definitive judgment on the particular needs of many hundreds of different installations. I think this is a judgment, after the Commission has provided advice, which should remain with the top management.

Mr. Moss. Have you any clearinghouse where an agency can seek information as to the types of inservice training for supervisory personnel which are most effective?

OFFICE OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. MACY. Yes, sir, the Commission has an Office of Career Development, and its purpose is to provide the staff work of leadership in the training field and to collect information with respect to successful training experience which has been undertaken and executed in various departments and agencies. To further this work and to demonstrate the importance that the Commission places upon it, in the past 6 months we have designated an official on the staff of each of our 10 regional directors as an employee development officer. His assignment is one of making certain that there is adequate emphasis on the training portion of the personnel job. Actually, the Commission has undertaken a number of interagency training programs itself. Here in Washington the Commission puts out a catalog of some 800 different courses that are available, a portion of which the Commission itself conducts and others are handled by agencies. These are available just as a college catalog specifies courses which are available in a university.

There is a great deal of activity which has been generated in recent times through these interagency programs.

Mr. Moss. Up to this time, have you been satisfied that the programs for the training of supervisory personnel were adequate and were achieving the objectives sought by your agency?

Mr. MACY. Let me answer your question this way: Our inspection reports show that generally across the board in Government this is one of the areas that needs greatest work. In other words, I am not satisfied. I feel this is an area of personnel management in the Federal Government that calls for continuing emphasis and effort throughout.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DISCIPLINE OF INCOMPETENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, it is a popular conception that under the present civil service regulations, incompetent Federal employees cannot be discharged and employees unwilling to fulfill the requirements of their jobs cannot be effectively disciplined. I wonder what you, as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, feel about this matter. This is a widespread public attitude or feeling.

Mr. MACY. Mr. Chairman, I smile in response to your question because this is a question which I am perhaps asked more frequently than almost any other, not only by Members of Congress but by business and labor groups and Federal official groups with whom I talk.

Mr. BROOKS. And Federal employee groups that you talk to?

Mr. MACY. Yes, although frequently the Federal employees feel that there are not adequate protections against removal.

This is a difficult question to answer definitively and statistically. I point out that in each of the past 3 years, 14,000 or 15,000 Federal employees have been removed on charges. I cite this because this at least destroys the view that nobody ever gets discharged from the Federal Government.

I might add that that view is one which is popularly held in many circles, that once on the Federal payroll, it is impossible to be discharged.

I believe the process of removing or disciplining Federal employees is a difficult process for .nanagement, and that this is one of the reasons why it is necessary that managers and supervisors be carefully selected and that they be fully trained. This difficulty is substantially lessened if the individual supervisor establishes standards of performance which he expects an employee to meet, and then he evaluates performance in terms of those standards.

The existing law, particularly section 14 of the Veterans' Preference Act and now the Executive order that extends the same rights to nonveterans, makes it necessary that the Government, if it is to proceed adversely against an employee, present charges in detail, specifically, give due notice, and provide opportunity for appeal. In my judgment, it is appropriate in a system such as ours that the employee have protection. Likewise, I think it important that the supervisor understand this and recognize that he has a responsibility not only to reward and to give credit where an employee does a good job, but he also has the difficult task of disciplining those who fail to perform.

I would like to point out further, Mr. Chairman, that a part of the Federal personnel process is a 1-year probationary period which is