CLERKS
85
vindicated the impersonal testimony of the tests. For instance,
one girl, very unattractive in appearance and ungainly
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 expiration
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 exd'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
