REPORT ON DECEMBER 1954 SELECTIONS FOR THE PROGRAM FOR THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIOR PERSONNEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: February 11, 1955
• Content Type: MF

Approved For DDp78..04718A001700150021-6
.1.11.1..11.11.134"6"ftem.
-121
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman? Administration Career Board
la February 1955
SUBJECT
: Report on Deoether 1954 Selections for the Program
for. the Career Development of Junior Persomnel
REFERENCE : (a)
(h)
Agency Notice No, dated 26 May 19549
as amended, copy attached
Synopses of Reports of Working Committee an
Selection for JCD Program, in the cases of
eleven cardidates from the DD/A organisation,
attached (classified EYES ONLT)
1. Under the authority of referenoe (a)0 there were selected in
mid-Dezember 19540 two oandidates for the Jenior Career Development Pro-
gram, for which the Deputy Director (Administration) organisatien supplied
12 candidates, 11 of them with favorable endorsement by your Boards Neither
of the sunottesful nominees was from the compensate under the purview of the
AdministrationCereer Board; both were from the Deputy Director (Intern-
genes) organisatien? Candidates from the Deputy Director (Administration)
organisation :me supplied by the following Offices and Staffs,
Management Staff 2 (only one was endorsed)
Cemptroller 7
Logistics Office 1
Security Office 2,
2, A total of IS eandidates was entered into the competition 12
from DIA, 1 from DOP and 2 frem DR/10 Of this neither, initial tests
and interviews by the Working Committee on Selection eliminated 7? Of
the remaining 8 candidates, all of whom were subjected to the additional
screening of a couplet: assessment, conducted by the Assessment and Evalua-
tion Staff, Office of Training, 6 were frem DD/L.
36 Following assesswent? telection VAS narrowed to 4 candidates of
whom 2 ware from DD/A? ranked third and fourth respectively. The first and
second choices were the only ones accepted, based partially on what the
Working Conmittee regarded as '''considerabae distance" in relative qualifi-
cations between the second and the third eandidates.
4. The number of candidates competing for the Prograntwes generally
disappointing, Part of the trouble lay with the system for distributing
the enabling Agendy Notloe? Although it shoulc_LberLrecalred_
e011 7
.1?1??,: 77,
Ne;:i
'WM.: Ha 7]-1
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA- N -0 #500.1.7001500216 Gri
Ii
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/08/0 : CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
distribution, it was not sent out on an "All Employee** Wits, ani in
some Wilma it is doubtful that it reached even as far as the division
level. Unfortunately, this has net even been corrected in the revised
issuanee of the Natick, dated 25 January
5. I have carefully reviewed the reports of the Working Ccemittee
on Seleetion for all 15eandidates and have read in detail the **asso-
nant reports on the 8 nen $o eramiLed0 There appear to los to to several
reasons why the DIVA organisation did not fare tatter in the final *else-
tions
a0 For the most part, the DOA candidates did not seen to
represent
the best available tanreaver. in the appropriate grade
range from the Offices and Staffs supplying them. I cannot
esoape the conalusice that at least ieveral of these people !mere
sponsored for this Prop** on the thew, that it repreeented a
reseceable reassignment that would be in the beet interests of
all concerned. This is borne out in the reports of selectione
and is evidenced by the feat that several candidates openly ad
-
pitted. that in competing for the Program they wee motivated solely
by a desire to ?mks a ohmage - any change.?'
be k good many DD/A candidates revealed under questioning
by the Working Committee that their ?caterer development plans?
attached to their applications did net represent their reel
eareer eine at all; that they had been eritten in an atteupt to
**ell? the Committee, or under the direction of a supervisor or
training officer who did not really know the applimant,s inters.
tions.
e, Despite the fact that the enabling Natio* points out
that it is the respensibility of the Head of the respective
Career Service to "notinate individualse,0by requesting
them to submit applicatiage . ." and that nearly all of the
DOA applicants sere thusly encouraged to apply, the Working
Colmittee reports take pains to point out that they discovered
a very low interest level an the part of about half of the DOA
applicants, who gave them to understand that they had *paled
under pressure,* end that consequently, they knew little or
nothing about the Program and were passive about their amass
for success in being saleeted. Those who did the best in the
interview* uith the Working Conmittee were the applicants who
nade a real effort to ?sell" themselves and their career plane.
6. I also believe that the selection process and the criteria see
ployed by the Working Committee are not without blemish. Prinstipal ameng
gy critical cbservatione are theses
2
ediVIIMIMP"
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 20111~001A-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
a. The Working Committee, composed of
Chiefs &mien. Officer Training Division, OTR, Pro 25X1A9a
IllaChief ? Ateesament and Evaluation Staff, OTR, and Mr.
25X1A9a
Chief, Placement and Utilisation Divisions, OP, with
saitialgi support ofDr. _,Ali:loputy Chief, Junior Officer 25X1A9a
ttt.2 Division,OTRInaArffic111111111111111, Placement Officer, 25X1 A2 a
PDD/OP, appeared to be largely on its own in developing and adminis-
tering selection criteria, without the benefit of any strong policy
guidance from above. To the bast of my knowledge, the Director of
Training and the Assistant Director for Personnel participated only
twice in the selection,once at a preliminary organisation meeting
establishing the Workig Committee, and again in an iabwriatirlth
the four finalists.
As a corollary to the above it should be mentioned that
-the unofficial Chairman of the Working Committee, Dr. MI; 02- 25X1A9a
served to me that he felt the enabling Notioe was "far too
and'non-isfinitive" in setting up what the exact purposes of the
Program were (0f,,, paragraph l.a of reference (a)) end in the ab-
sence of clear-out definitions the Working Committee, "had tried to
approximate what they thought need be the proper screening calla:via."
Additionally, the Chairman stated that the Committee "had chosen to
vier the JCD Program as a form of valuable intra-Agenoy scholarship,"
and that therefore their sights had been set entxemAT high I eannot
but observe with the personal backgrounds of several of the members
of the Working Committee and other parties to the final selection
mechanism, that there appeared to he a strong prodilemftentowart
"admission criteria" not dissimilar from those utilised in a first
class educational institution when considering applicants for admis-
sion through financial aid, The result was intense conoentration on
the sheer intellectual capabilities of the applicants, to the exalt-
sion of some of those other important qualities whish often distinguish
valuable contributors to the Ageney,s welfare.
c, Both final selectees were apparently well.qualified young
research types from the DD/1 organisation with whose credentials
Mr,
any dust. school dean would have been ;leased. One of theme a
is himself a former Junior Officer Trainee, who
worked under the supervision of the Chairman of the-Working Cottee,
and whose past performance had already been thoroughly evaluated by
the Office of Training.
do Lastly, I believe that the Working Committee on numerous
occasions fell into a trap of their, own waking - resort to inclusive
catch phrases and bromides to describe their own inpressions of the
candidates. Terms such as "firatuvate candidata, "inconsequential
25X1A
15NOMMIleb
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
Approved For Release 20416101.: CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
person,' "lacking in executive potential," "little evidenoe
of leadership qualities," and *lacks high level potential,"
"lacks strength of parereality," "lacks breadth and depth"
abounded in their reports, frequently in contradiction to
earlier stated personal reactions of the Coamittee to the
applicant* "friendly!, open, congenial, frank, eto." On ques-
tioning the Chairman of the Working Committee about the use of
these term, he admitted that seam of their reactions mey have
appeared stereotyped, but this wee a fenetion of the difficulty
in redeoing humn behavior to a set of desoriptivo term (of.,
Fitness newts),
7, While I have no doubt that the Working Committee is sincere
in its efforts I cannot but express some doubts about the judgment they
displayed on several occasions, as evidenced by their reports. What they
were really shooting for les selection of Junior Officer Trainees, using
the highest standards applied in that area. I feel that they were too
unwilling to take a chance an individuals who had less than what the
Committee regarded as requisite formal edation and social intelligence.
O. The following are the criteria embodied in the actual request
for assessment of candidates who survived the initial tests and interview
by the Working Committee, It was with these things in mind that each
candidate was evaluated during the full endorsee:Tit of nearly three der
in the Office of Training*
a, Interest in CIA as a career,
te Amount of ambition and drive.
n, Measure of "executive potential" (net further defined)
d, Stability under stressful situations.
GO Adaptability, flexibility,
f. Potential for growth within the organisation,
so Initiative and criginalltro
he Ability to "get lame with other people?
L Leadership and persuasiveness capabilities,
J. Facility with ideas,
k, Willingness to assume respensibility.
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
Approved For Release 20011111,11111WCIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
9, Per the information of the Chairman, Adidnistration Career -
Board, and for the membership of the Board, I have attached synopses
of the final reports of the eandidates from the DNA organisation,
Theeeare BYES mu dosuments and should be protected accordiney,
10, SUMMARY* The failure of the DD/W organisation to place avec&
in the infair4d1) selection appears to be a function of nomination of
lees thinvantheally qualified candidates, and the vagueness of the Working
Committee in establishing valid selection criteria, with the net result
that all their selections tended in the direction of pinking an 'intellec-
tual Jack Armstrong,* with leadership potential not less than at the
Assistant Director level,
110 AggimpAymis If the Board agrees with what has been said,
I proposeViTietipt, designed to improve the chanes of the Deputy Direc-
tor (Support) organisation in the forthcoming (March 1955) selections*
a, Candidates from the DD/S organisation be esmiefely
selected by their Office** and Staffs with a view to nominating
only those outetanding individuals who would fill in the cate-
gory of ?ambitious young people I would bite Ulan," It is
suggested t t the JCD Program not be regarded as a device to
promote the reasaignuent of individuals who may be miscast
in
their present Jobe,
b, Proposed that discussions be held between the Assistant
Deputy Director (Support) acting for the Administration Career
Board, the Director of Training and the Assistant Director for
Peremeemilvto attempt to mere clearly define the purpoees of the
JCD Program, so that eventually it be structured so as to serve
the purposes of all Major Components in the development of sound
Jager and senior supervisory personnel with qualification@ per.
ticular to the needs of each
pec SA
3aapaty Director (Support)
Approved For Release 2001/08/07 : CIA-RDP78-04718A001700150021-6
25X1 A9a