HISTORY of the OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT SYSTEM UNITED STATES ARMY 1775-1917 By MALIN CRAIG, Jr. Colonel.FA DRAFT WOV 24 1953 OFFICE.CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY fto HISTORY OF THE 4OCX. OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT SYSTEM UNITED STATES AJJMY 1775 - 1917 DRAFT BY MAUN CRAIG, JR . Colonel, Field Artillery Office of the Chief of Military History Department of the Army PREFACE When this study was initiated, it was intended to present a complete history of the efforts to increase the efficiency of the officers of the United States Army. In that respect,, it would go beyond the development of the efficiency report and the evaluation thereof. It was planned that the study would cover the selection of officers, promotions, special as­ signments, physical fitness tests, and, in a negative way, the influence of patronage and political influence. The study was intended primarily for officers of the Department of the Army Qeneral Staff who are respon­ sible for the development of future efficiency report forms and methods and for kindred personnel matters. It was also hoped that this work would provide basic information for military students interested in these sub­ jects in service schools and in civilian institutions. This study was begun in the Special Studies Division, OCMH, by Col. Malin Craig, Jr., who wrote chapters I and II and a rough draft of chap­ ter III before being transferred to another assignment. Miss Lucy IVeidman, who edited and prepared the manuscript for publication, made extensive revisions in chapter III. No attempt, however, was made to do additional research, other than minor checks. This Office feels that the manuscript is of value to staff officers and students even in its present draft form. It is expected that at a future date the project will again be resumed and the study brought up to date. P. M. ROBINETT Brig. Gen., USA-Ret. Washington, D. C. Chief, Special Studies Division August, 1953 iii CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I INTRODUCTION 1 .II EARLY DEVELOPMENTS 1 Revolutionary War 1 The War of 1812 6 The 1815 Reduction of the Army 13 The War With Mexico 25 Thq Civil far 25 Post-Civil War Period 30 Patronage and Influence 35 III THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 1 Development of the System, 1890-1917 1 The First Report Forms 1 Reaction in the Field 7 The System in Operation 14­ The 1911 Report Form 22 Modifications of the System 29 The Relative Organization Efficiency Experiment, 1907 34­ Civilian Components 39 Assignments and Promotions 4-2 Appointments 4-8 Physical Fitness Tests 51 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The foundation of the efficiency evaluation system is the efficiency report. It is important that its function, or mission, be understood and aj-plied by those concerned in designing or using it. Properly, it is an accurate exposition of the capabilities, limitations, and other pertinent characteristics of an officer presented in such a manner as to admit of a fair and impartial contrast with any officer /ri.th whom a comparison may be required, for purposes of competitive selection cr assignment. Too often v/e find the report regarded as a means of educating officers, or rewarding them, of punishing them, or of holding a club over their heads. Such con­ ceptions contribute to tne failure of the whole system. The efficiency report is not a new idea, nor is it peculiar to the United Strtes Army. The German Army has had an efficiency report system of some kind since the 17th century.* Napoleon is said to have v/ritten -«- General der Infanterie Rudolf flofmann, Hist Div, USAREUR, L"3 j'i P-134-, "German Efficiency Report System" (Heidelberg, 1952), ch. I, n.3. Copy in Foreign Studies Br., Special Studies Div., OCL'H. "is he lucky?" in the margins of letter reports covering the qualifica­ tions of generals recommended for the baton of a marshal. Our Navy and Marine Corps, as well as the armies and navies of all modern countries, have independently developed efficiency-reporting systems of one sort or another- iv.any large industrial enterprises have similar systems of keeping track of the abilities and capabilities of their employees. The shortcomings of the report are attributable to the frailties of human nature. Among the foremost obstacles to the perfect efficiency re­ port is the very human characteristic of favoritism. It is almost impos­ sible for a person to produce a completely unprejudiced report of a friend or of a subordinate whom he dislikes. The ingratiating personality has the advantage over the more distant one, whatever their relative capabilities. Another failing is leniency. The reporting officer, having a commendable loyalty toward his subordinates,, errs on the generous side. In time he must raise his carefully considered grades by a factor to bring the subject officer to his rightful relative position among his contem­ poraries. Average officers become excellent and those slightly better are in the superior bracket. The end result is that all but a few hopeless misfits are at the top of the list, and the system is rendered entirely ineffective. In the peacetime army prior to the //ar with Spain, and to a lessening extent in the period preceding ViTorld //ar I, the large proportion of officers were with regiments, or were members of service corps much smaller than today and of much simpler function. The. officer with troops served in the same regiment and with the same fellow officers for years. His duties changed but little over long periods. Ke might be detailed on special assignments, but he was merely detached. Ke remained a member of his organization and returned to it. In his regiment he was among people who knew him from long association and who had no need for written records, •S3 filed many days ' journey away, to help them form their opinions of his accomplishments and his shortcomings. Similarly, the small staff corps consisted of officers who had long served together and who had a reasonably accurate idea of what might be expected of each other. And the interrelations of the line and staff organizations were close enough so that an officer's reputation soon spread throughout the service, small as i t then was. 3y the time an officer had been commissioned for 10 years he probably knew half of the officers of the Army, and his "service reputation" was established and widely known. With the increase of the Army after the Spanish-American far, this condition began to decline. An officer not fortunate enough to be asso­ ciated with future leaders was apt to be overlooked when the great need for able men came in 1917. The efficiency report system, then in use for 27 years, was of considerable value in overcoming this condition, but the long-ingrained conceptions of the service reputation and selection by patronage, together -with the fact that officers still remain in one regi­ ment for very long periods, combined to the decided disadvantage of the able officer unfortunate enough to have served in a regiment whose senior officers were not of a caliber to advance to high command. Prior to Vforld :var I the details and assignments for which officers had to be selected v;ere far more limited than today. They consisted of relatively few staff assignments, details with civilian sctoools and Lili­ tia, engineer river and harbor detail, duty at the Military Academy or on the faculty of a service shool, or attache duty. Before about 1890 the lis t was even narrower, comprising an even smaller number of officers on staff duty. Military Academy service, and a few Engineer Corps officers on rivers and harbors work. Little difficulty was experienced in making the few selections for special assignment in those simple days. Selections for promotions were even less difficult. Officers below the grade of colonel were promoted automatically when their turns came, 'within organi­ zations prior to about 1890 and within branches thereafter. Selections for promotion to the grade of brigadier general and above were usually political matters, influenced in varying degrees by military requirements and personnel. In fact, many officers were, and to a limited extent still are (as in the appointment of cadets to the Military and Naval Academies), political appointees, and for many years any infringement upon their rights such as the present efficiency system would have been exceedingly repugnant to them. Furthermore, the separation of an officer from the service v/as legal only as a result of the sentence of a general court martial, and any conception of discharge for incompetence lay far in the future. Very different is the Army of today. Officers are with organiza­ tions but seldom, ;..nd then for limited periods. So large is the officer corps th-it the individual may be completely lost, unless he has a friend in an influential position. V/ere the old system in effect today, an out­ standing man might go unrecognized for years, or an indifferent one pass undetected for his whole career, and the service would suffer accordingly. "Jhen the Army expanded beyond the point where the officer corps v/as a close-knit group, the efficiency report and the system that goes with it became a requirement. In addition, the multiplicity and complexity of the positions now to be filled by officers of the Army calls for an elaborate system of identification and evaluation unthought of in the easier times. The service reputation is not entirely a thing of the past5 it . still plays some part in the selection of officers for positions of im­ portance and trust, and mil no doubt continue to do so.