“obliging, willing and ready service” “industry and intelligence” “general information” “calm, cheerful nature” “honesty of purpose” “patience under criticism” “politeness and willingness to oblige” “loyalty, faithfulness and goodness” “accuracy and systematic methods” “neat and ambitious” All these things are fine, I agree, but there is not one of them that suggests the possibility of advancement to a position of command where administrative ability and initiative will count. I do not suggest that these qualities are absent, but I think the record shows that we are not on the lookout for them and possibly do not value them as we ought. Only once in a while do I find a suggestion that a tendency toward such qualities is of interest, as when, one assistant is commended for “independence and good judgment” and another for “resourcefulness”. And when we come to the “weak points” reported, the same facts stand out. Here are some of them: “lack of accuracy and system” “too sensitive” “too reserved” “often thoughtless” “not sufficiently painstaking” “too deliberate” “tries to work too fast” “lack of poise” “rather slow” “hesitates to ask for needed help” “lack of system” “impractical and idealistic” “not very responsive” “so eager that she is a bit aggressive at times” Here, too, the deficiencies reported are predominantly those that would make a bad subordinate; although here and there we may detect one of the other kind; for instance, “does not know how to find and develop the best in her assistants” “not self-reliant” “disinclined to assume responsibility” These are all faults of poor executives. We shall never be able to pick good officers if we do not know how to detect in our privates the qualities that would fit them to command and how to encourage the development of such qualities when there is anything on which to base it.