33 2

EMPLOYMENT  PSYCHOLOGY

moments,  may  do  much  to  counteract  this  hastiness  and
to  promote  a  more  just  result.  The  same  check  will
operate  on  opinions  that  are  suddenly  inclined  to  become
too  favorable.
On  the  whole,  then,  it  may  be  accepted  that  the  impressionistic ­
  method  as  outlined,  while  not  free  from  the  errors
of  the  personal  equation,  is  nevertheless  free  from  these
errors  in  their  extremer  forms.  To  recapitulate  briefly,
the  liability  of  error  is  lessened  for  the  following  reasons:
i.  Because  a  periodic  rather  than  a  sporadic  expression
of  opinion  is  required.  2.  Because  opinions  are  limited
to  a  fixed  number  of  qualities.  3.  Because  those  qualities
are  defined  in  the  same  way  for  all.  4.  Because  it  becomes
necessary  for  the  appraiser  to  check  off  the  various  qualities ­
  against  each  other,  thus  producing  a  balanced  result.
5.  Because  the  judgment  goes  on  record  for  or  against
the  man  who  makes  it.  6.  Because  the  judgment  of  one
appraiser  will  serve  as  a  check  against  that  of  another.
Like  the  method  of  comparative  productiveness,  the
method  described  has  two  general  applications,  the  statistical ­
  and  the  corrective.  In  the  first  place,  it  offers  a
basis  upon  which  to  compute  the  degree  of  correlation
between  selection  and  retention.  Unless  such  a  record
is  kept,  it  can  not  be  ascertained  with  any  degree  of  certainty ­
  how  successful  the  selections  of  the  employment
manager  are.  As  has  been  repeatedly  pointed  out,  the
dismissal,  resignation,  or  transfer  of  an  employee  is  by  no
means  a  proof  that  he  was  poorly  selected.  Unless  some
other  criterion  of  success  exists,  these  incidents  may  be
attributed  to  a  hundred  different  reasons.  The  record  illustrated ­
  will  furnish  at  least  an  approximate  means  for
judging  the  success  of  selections,—or,  it  may  be,  forjudging
the  success  of  the  supervisor  in  handling  his  subordinates.