CLERKS 
85 
vindicated the impersonal testimony of the tests. For in 
stance, one girl, very unattractive in appearance and un 
gainly in her movements, was held up by a certain office 
head as a particularly flagrant error on the part of the 
examiners. This girl was finally transferred to another 
office. After the expiration of the usual time, the follow- 
U P clerk asked her new superior “How is Miss 
getting along?” “Oh, she’s doing good work,” was the 
'^mediate reply. Actually, this girl, considered a failure 
b y her first superior, was considered a success by her 
ne xt, although she was doing work in which her previous 
experience was of no decided value. Another instance of 
a similar kind is the case of two clerks who had been 
r ecommended on the basis of the tests. After the ex 
piration of a few days, their superior complained about 
*; le ir ability. “Why Miss even thought that the 
mted States Government was a company!” exclaimed 
be office head in despair. When he was informed that 
oth of these girls had passed the tests, he agreed to 
^thhold judgment for a few days more. At the end of 
le month, he was again asked to express his opinion of 
ese clerks. “They will do,” was the rather reluctant 
ttbsw er. Situations of this kind arise constantly in an 
mce made up of several units, due to the fact that the 
ea d of every unit has his own peculiar ideas as to what 
a cjerk should be and how she should perform her work, 
ms lack of a uniform and impersonal standard makes 
Te task of following up the results of selection an ex- 
d'emely intricate one. However, by force of instances 
me those described above, the office heads concerned are 
f e alizing more and more how unreliable their personal 
lrn pressions are likely to be, and at the same time, how 
°rthy of their consideration is the selection made by the