We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The Hoover Commission's personnel management report was published on February 9, 1949, early in the first session of the 81st Congress. Four sessions of the Congress have had an opportunity to act on the report, and the executive branch has had four years to take advantage of those recommendations that could be adopted by administrative action. This seems to be an appropriate time, therefore, to review the record of progress in both legislative and executive branches, in order to learn the extent to which these far-reaching recommendations for improvement of federal personnel management have been adopted.
Soon after publication of the report, intensive study and discussions began within the executive branch. The Civil Service Commission sent a preliminary memorandum of its views to the President on March 23, 1949, with a transmittal letter referring to the report as a “constructive document,” and agreeing with the objective of establishing a civilian career service. The Federal Personnel Council, composed of personnel directors of federal agencies and representatives of the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget, made a detailed study of the report and submitted a number of comments to the Civil Service Commission.
1 Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Personnel Management (Washington, 1949)Google Scholar.
2 The memorandum (15 pp.) has not been published, but the Commission used much of the material in a report to the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments in July, 1949. See the Committee's press release of July 26, 1949. The 66th Annual Report of the U. S. Civil Service Commission (Washington, 1949)Google Scholar likewise gives the Commission's position on the major Hoover Commission recommendations (pp. 2–10).
3 See Federal Personnel Council's mimeographed report (Washington, July 21, 1949).
4 See Kammerer, Gladys M., “Revolution by Decentralization,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 13, pp. 137–42 (07, 1952)Google Scholar.
5 68th Annual Report of the U. S. Civil Service Commission (Washington, 1951)Google Scholar.
6 Commissioner James K. Pollock, in his vigorous dissent to the personnel management report, recommended that the residual operating activities of the Civil Service Commission, such as retirement, be transferred to an Office of General Services (Personnel Management, p. 52).
7 H. Doc. No. 226, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 1949.
8 Reeves, Floyd W. and David, Paul T., Personnel Administration in the Federal Service, pp. 6–7 (Washington, 1937)Google Scholar.
9 For example, see Nash, Bradley D., Staffing the Presidency (National Planning Association Pamphlet No. 80, Washington, 1952)Google Scholar.
10 Hearings before the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments … on Bills Relating to Commission on Organization, U. S. House, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1952), p. 128Google Scholar.
11 Reeves and David (cited above, n. 8), pp. 6, 7, 31–36.
12 Reeves and David, p. 33.
13 For a discussion of the role of the personnel office in government, with particular reference to the federal service, see Mosher, William E., Kingsley, J. Donald, and Stahl, O. Glenn, Public Personnel Administration (New York, 1950), pp. 571–89Google Scholar.
14 See 60th Annual Report (1943), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.
15 H. Rept. No. 1593, 80th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1948.
16 The Senate Subcommittee on Federal Manpower Policies has recommended elimination of statutory ratios. See statement by Johnston, Senator Olin D., Congressional Record (Daily), Vol. 98, p. 9656 (07 5, 1952)Google Scholar.
17 H. Rept. No. 2698, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1950.
18 S. Rept. No. 956, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 10 (1951).
19 The U. S. Civil Service Commission and the Defense Emergency—An Informal Progress Report from the Chairman, duplicated, 13 pp. (January, 1951).
20 Hearings before Subcommittees of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U. S. Senate, on S. 1135, S. 1148, and S. 1160, August 30, September 5 and 12, 1951, p. 46.
21 See also the Commission's 66th Annual Report (1949), p. 5Google Scholar.
22 See Ramspeck, Robert, “Administrative Flexibility in the Federal Civil Service,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 12, pp. 234–41 (Autumn, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for examples of effective selection procedures within the present legal framework.
23 “The Hoover Commission: A Symposium,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 43, p. 992 (10, 1949)Google Scholar.
24 S. Rept. No. 956, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 10 (1951).
25 See Schaffer, Albert J., “The 1952 Model of JMA,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 15, pp. 19–22 (09, 1952)Google Scholar.
26 Not so well known as the JMA, possibly, are the professional and scientific examinations under such titles as Junior Social Science Analyst, Junior Agricultural Assistant, Junior Physicist, Junior Engineer, etc. These attract thousands of applicants annually and provide an entrance into the career service for hundreds of able persons. Particularly in engineering and the physical sciences, the federal service has taken the lead in employing college students during summer vacations as a means of arousing their interest in a government career.
27 See U. S. Civil Service Commission Pamphlet 30, Junior Management Assistant Programs in the Federal Civil Service and Pamphlet 46, Guide for Internship Training in the Federal Service (including bibliography).
28 Personnel Management, p. 56.
29 Report of July 29, 1949 to Chairman, Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, on S. 2111.
30 See 64th Annual Report (1947), pp. 1–4Google Scholar.
31 Letter to Senate Committee on Expenditures of July 25, 1949.
32 68th Annual Report (1951), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.
33 68th Annual Report (1951), p. 8Google Scholar.
34 S. Rept. No. 2101, Incentive Awards Program in the Federal Government, 82nd Cong.. 2nd Sess., 1952.
35 Building Better Promotion Programs (Personnel Management Series No. 2) July, 1952.
36 General Management of the Executive Branch, p. 5.
37 United States Naval Institute, Personnel Administration at the Executive Level (Annapolis, 1948)Google Scholar.
38 See Stephens, James C., “Navy Develops Its Civilian Executives,” Public Personnel Review, Vol. 13, pp. 161–66 (10, 1952)Google Scholar.
39 In Executives for the Federal Service (New York, 1952) pp. 78–86Google Scholar. For an excellent discussion of federal administrative personnel, see also David, Paul T., “The Development and Recruitment of Administrative Leadership in National and International Programs,” America's Manpower Crisis, ed. Walker, Robert A. (Chicago, 1952) pp. 137–67Google Scholar. A group of executives, called together by a Federal Personnel Council committee, is now studying methods of improving the selection, training, mobility, and retention of executives throughout the federal service.
40 66th Annual Report (1949), p. 8Google Scholar.
41 See Hall, Clyde C. and Leich, Harold H., “The Human Touch in Civil Service Placement,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 12, pp. 178–80 (Summer, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 H. Rept. No. 2198, 80th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1948.
43 See Johnston's, Chairman statement, Congressional Record (Daily), Vol. 98, pp. 9653–9656 (07 5, 1952)Google Scholar.
44 Section 610 of Public Law 488, 82nd Congress, is aimed at this type of training.
45 66th Annual Report (1949), p. 9Google Scholar.
46 H.R. 3702 (81st Congress) and H.R. 554 (82nd Congress). See Hearings before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service … on H.R. 554 and H.R. 571, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1952.
47 Case, Harry L., “Cornerstones of Personnel Administration in TVA,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 11, pp. 10–12 (01, 1949)Google Scholar. See also U. S. Congress, Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations, Labor Management Relations in TVA (Senate Report 372, 81st Congress).
48 Federal Personnel Manual, p. A4-4. I t is interesting to note that over the past two years employee consultation has received more attention from the Federal Personnel Council than any other subject. Two comprehensive reports have resulted, “Guide for Employee Participation in Agency Management” and “Guide for Effective Relationships with Organized Employee Groups.”
49 See “Standards of Performance—A Symposium,” Personnel Administration, Vol. 10, pp. 21–46, 51 (07, 1948)Google Scholar.
50 Title IX, later repealed. The Commission's report was published by the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service as an unnumbered Committee print.
51 Report to Chairman Murray of May 19, 1950.
52 Federal Personnel Council, op. cit., p. 12.
53 66th Annual Report (1949), p. 10Google Scholar.
54 See Hearings before Subcommittee of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service … on S. 660, U. S. Senate, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 1949; and Hearings before the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service … on H.R. 2446, U. S. House, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 1949. Bills in the 82nd Congress include S. 455, H.R. 373, and H.R. 3700.
55 58 Stat. 387.
56 Task Force Report, p. 68.
57 See Commission's press release of December 19, 1952.
58 See Drury, James E., Inter-University Case Series No. 10, The Displaced Career Employee Program (New York, 1952)Google Scholar for a detailed discussion of the program.
59 For example, S. 3477 and H.R. 511 in the 82nd Congress.
60 Federal Personnel Council, op. cit., p. 13.
61 66th Annual Report (1949), p. 10Google Scholar.
62 Departmental Circular No. 634. The Veterans Administration recently completed a thorough review of its internal appeals system and instituted a combined hearing plan in place of several separate hearings.
63 Federal Personnel Manual, p. S2-17. This plan followed the general lines of a recommendation in the Task Force Report (p. 72).
64 Press release of November 13, 1952.
65 68th Annual Report (1951), p. 44Google Scholar.
66 For example, see Gladieux, Bernard L., “Civil Service Versus Merit,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 12, pp. 173–77 (Summer, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Personnel Management, pp. 51–52.
68 For example, U. S. Department of the Army, Introduction to Supervision; a Plan for Training Inexperienced Supervisors (Washington, 1952)Google Scholar (Civilian Personnel Pamphlet No. 41-A).
69 Guetzkow, Harold S., Groups, Leadership and Men; Research in Human Relations (Pittsburgh, 1951)Google Scholar. See also Likert, Rensis, “Motivational Dimensions of Administration” in America's Manpower Crisis, pp. 89–117, Public Administration Service (Chicago, 1952)Google Scholar.
70 Whyte, William H. Jr., “Groupthink,” Fortune, Vol. 45, pp. 114–117, 142, 146 (03, 1952)Google Scholar.
71 S. Rept. No. 2581, Actions on Hoover Commission Reports. 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1950.
