COMMENTS CONCERNING THE REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IN CIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 12, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 31, 1962
• Content Type: MF

3 c%z- '..1,573
Approved For Release 2000/08SI . P80-01826R000300100001-1
ne each
Lu referenee
tive for 447;
fundementel
iving verieux
such
as itentUt
and concepte of
policy OPPrOval ni3 aet,tm
6
least partially incorrect underntendings of
practice* of the Ageney. Limay, there im a greet
not be telly waderstandine of sone of the recommendati
that was undeeatood by the Teak Wirce.
v
ble molation to
Agency personnel program.
cenerated by widely divergent
authorities, high security cospertmentat
of organization and command. tee fact is, however,
cit and mechanise ham been evoived. *ere as I strongly erori
proposed to continue our studiee end further evolve and strenethen our
personnel atenagenent eystem, I ;ie., not agree and iedend think it would be
1.4ost detrimeatal were the AGenty to "abolish" The entire Career Service
eyetem. also must disagree tbat the present witted l'hes served to die-
sipate tht comnand renpuesibilities of the line executives.`' Ti:xeminetien
fet our numerous career eerviees discloses that they basitally conform to
the orgardzationil structure of the Agency and are operated under coonarA
the related Deputy Director congenial() eep miume beleroerinte, rIffiCe
a subordinate to him.
easour. As you knee this is bei done.
Mnour. Study has been cestedorted end set
rec RP/ CATE 119" sy 02-7 it-
ORM COMP Affriame_clEck_Relefase42600/
ORM CLASS PAGES REV CLASS
JUST _ NUT REV.--VW *NTH: HR 10-2
tRDP80-0
0001
014011P 1
liclutled ROI 140,111.atic
downgradiki 100
declass:Maki
Approved For Release 2000/0
rft,
-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1
think that the real reccessendati
r than in Recemmendation No. 4 as statet.
this needs to be studied in greeter
12epth. The s out the individual's fitness report
is, in many 1natnce, unable to advise the individual of exactly where
he stands in competition vita his contemporaries. To be effective,
think that this probably have to be done at as higher level
ve are now organized by name bigher echelon in the Career Service.
Recommendation MO. 5: 1 have serious reservations as to the wisdom of
issuing such a notice. I believe that there are other is to aceom-
plish the same objective and that this alone would not do much to boost
aerdie) in fact, unless it were followed by tamgible evidence of some
kind it could do harm. I am perticularly doubtful as to the wiadom of
the apparent proposal contained in parsexaph 4 of the suggested notice.
I believe that a special exercise requiring a conference between each
ganyee end his supervisor would tend to slam the employee body at
large rather than reassure it. decondly, as indicated in my coenects on
iccommendetion No 4, I do not believe the first-line supervisor is in
a position to couneel the apployee to the degree implied in the draft
notice with respect to hi* "precise status" and "future prospects.
:Recommendatioes, 6, 7 and bleu pertain to the Agency ;yet= of fitness
reports. In this connection I 'wish to paint out that the Agency has
only in the past few moethe put into use a nsw? and we believe sigeifi
cantly improved, form of fitness report. My basic position is that we
should coneentrate all of our efforts toward ensuring that the require
nents and ratim!, standards of the new form are clearly understood end
allowed by all supervisors. A close system of mooltoring, not only by
he Office of Personnel but by all levels of line supervision, mill be
required. My specific ccunter-recommendation is that the Director of
Personnel immediately develop a joint nonitoring and correction system
in co1laboration/A.1th each of the Directorates and that the latter
exercise strong leadership in requiring greeter perception and depth
in perfornance rating process and in bringing about greater oniformity
in the use? of rating ',tendert*. Subject to these general statements,
TRy specific cements on recommendatioos 6, 7 and 8 fellow.
leleoemendetlamilno. 6: This is au objective wail worth striving for;
however, I ma not optimistic that any system can be devised which will
eliminate the human aspects of asking out fitness repekts. We mant
every supervisor and revieving official to be completely honest in his
evaluation of at individual. Iam not sure that this is consistent with
the eetablisbment of an administrative requirement that a certain per.-
centage of all employees must be rated in the lower, middle, or upper
category. There are just too mem human judgmeots involved to allow
the actual distribution to coincide 'with the theoretical.
Approved For Release 2000/
DP80-01826R000300100
1
culn.piizii awn automatic
g:W="44V
Approved For Release 2000/
-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1
4?prit
24a.cosaszatra: While I have no objection to ehangiag the current
fitness report form, the ink is hardly dry on our latest effort in this
regard. This fore requires sepervieore to be rated on this aspect of
their perfermance. This is not to say that this or any other fora veto-
not be improved upon, but I do not think that the form is really the key
to the problem. Whet you have to do is try to get people to be honest
ana completely objective in sulking out fitness reports on soy fora and
throude any system. I doubt very seriously that a new form will /n and
of itself accomplish the desired result.
catin c.Nere again I concur in the objective, but I sub-
.,'a--t--7-----Va&-'-t--hesaa:orvisor (rating officer), in moot cases, is not in a
position to advise an employee of his re/stive standing.
Neeonmoaation No.": I believe that the thrust of this recoensed t on
Is stated in paragraph 10 rather than in Recommendation No. 9. 1 concur
In Reecommendatice No. 9 in primelplej however, there is a at deal of
work to be done beers it can be effeetively lenlemented, and I wad
like to see a system devised and approved by the DOM beer* attempting
implementation.
loo No..10: I weula vant to see a
commendation before concurring.
Id not and probably could not 'War *cross the board.
probably are many positions monatlich there is a defi-
nite *oiling and in ehieb employees very definitely can continue to do a
superior job indefinitely without promotion.
The Director of Personnel is not in a position
aration allowances. Assuming that our present
compeneation is a sound erecedent, it revires
of the Budget, Civil Service Commission,
President's Personnel Advisor, Attorney General, Cametreller General,
and four Cangreasional Committees. If vs are successful in implementing
Recommendation I. 1, this will be pretty veil Uktua care of.
aecammeniation No. /2: I concur in the recommendation. However, I am
firmly (*evinced that in the final analysis, no wetter shot the AgonoY
6oes, a surplus employee will or will not get a. job elsewhere deeeodiag
to every high degree on his personal qualifications and the impression
which he is able to make mon a prospective employer. 'aviary prospective
employer is eoing to search for the answer to his qpestion, "why did
CIA let this man goTm. Assuming that me can provide a good answer to
this question, ninety per cent of the problem still rests with the indi-
vidual and his ability to convince a prospective employer that he has
something that the employer need*.
3
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/ _ P80-01826R000
otiOtle 1
. IVO automatic
00triat/ 4-1
Approved ForRelease2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1
eirepiri#Eltettkitim
It seems to me that the primary rimmommmdation
in paragraph 14 rather them in the specific TtCOMMOV*
ewe that this is a probing **kith needs much deeper
oma reservations about the effect on the moral* of
JOT's if each JOT is esraarted as belonging to that
ch ere to be cbosen pecrple to till the *geese* key
tbat the JOT's might mell be dieillusioned at a
Approved ForRelease2000/08/16 :CIA-RDP80-01826R00030010 0 0oUriiiingutaarillniatIC
declassification
Approved For Release 2000/08
DP80-01826R000300100001-1
$ as
orament of this
on and
At the
that
214:.' Concur.
ati
Does paragraph 25 man tbat the flD/P bee tone
went than other Agency cormorants? The
more centrali Led control in personnel
re a final position can be token on this
I still believe that the Area Division
r.
Distribution:
- Mreeueo
1 - DD13 Chrono
I - DD/B subject w/basic
3 - D/Pers (Subject)
ApproVediYr Release 2000
OQ u
-RDP80-01826R00030010 P 1
alltlIbtrIorn automatic
I
-downgrading and
declassification