(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 48
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 28, 2006
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: July 31, 1972
• Content Type: FORM

Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/1 118 A-RDP 00170025-4
SECTION D NARRATIVE COMMENTS
Indicate significant strengths or weaknesses demonstrated in current position keeping in proper perspective their relationship to overall performance. State
suggestions made for improvement of work performance. Give recommendations for training. Comment on foreign language competence, if required for
current position. Amplify or explain ratings given in Section C to provide best basis for determining future personnel action. Manner of performance of
managerial or supervisory duties and cost consciousness in the use of personnel, space, equipment and funds, must be commented on, if applicable. If
extra space is needed to complete Section D, attach a separate sheet of popper.
SECTION E CERTIFICATION AND COMMENTS
j BY SUPERVISOR
MONTHS EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN
IF THIS REPORT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EMPLOYEE, GIVE EXPLANATION
UNDER MY SUPERVISION
DATE
OFFICIAL TITLE OF SUPERVISOR
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE
2. BY REVIEWING OFFICIAL
COMMENTS OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL
:i
DATE
OFFICIAL TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME AND SIGNATURE
..;?acr~. F.,F.aAUUeamcwe rr-a... x,,,.... ., ...?..,...,... ,...~_ ....,: _,,......W _.....,
Approved For Relea e 20 11128: CIA-RDP82-00357ROb06OO170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
SECTION A -GENERAL
The items of this section should be completed by the appro-
priate administrative or personnel officer. Special instructions
for completing or omitting items of this part of the report
should be carefully observed on Field Transmittal - Fitness
Report, Form 45a.
SECTION B - QUALIFICATIONS UPDATE
Use this Section to indicate whether the employee's qualifica-
tions are updated during this reporting period, and whether
they are attached.
SECTION C - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC
DUTIES AND OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN
CURRENT POSITION
Rating Scale
The rating scale as set forth in this section in Forms 45, 45k,
and 45m, Fitness Report, is to be used to reflect evaluation of
Specific Duties and of Overall Performance. Use a single
rating letter without the addition of decimals, plus or minus
signs, or other modifications. In making your selection of the
adjective evaluation for Section C and in completion of the
narrative in Section D the following factors should be con-
sidered as appropriate:
Cost Consciousness Mobility
Security Consciousness Initiative
Ability to Think Clearly Versatility
Supervisory Effectiveness Productivity
Acceptance of Responsibility Decisiveness
Foreign Language Competence Resourcefulness
Effectiveness of Oral Expression Cooperativeness
Effectiveness of Written Expression Records Discipline
Rating of Performance of Specific Duties
In this section the supervisor will list in order of importance
the most significant duties the employee has performed dur-
ing the rating period. Each duty shall be described in suf-
ficient detail to provide information which may be useful later
in considering individuals for other assignments. Your evalua-
tion should be recorded by entering the appropriate letter
in the box provided for your evaluation of each duty.
Rating of Overall Performance in Current Position
In making this rating the supervisor should, in addition
to performance on all specific duties, consider the em-
ployee's conduct on the job, his productivity, working re-
lationships and adaptability in order to arrive at a rating
which will reflect an employee's overall value on the job.
Although promotability may be considered in the evaluation,
no specific promotion recommendations will be made on
Fitness Reports. (P omotion recommendations will be made in
TAATT"L_ accordance with
SECTION D - NARRATIVE COMMENTS
In this section the supervisor describes the employee's demon-
strated abilities or deficiencies in the performance of his pres-
ent job>. a~l for C`ttrcrr 7iovisoncil 1 1 i,: riTicd
t "i ,,, cc,Ir Full
knarrative comments should be made on each appropriate
element. The narrative comments may include reference to a
specific duty. Any weakness noted in a prior year's fitness
report must be commented on in the subsequent fitness report.
Statements such as "no change from previous report" will
not be used. Any relatively high or low ratings in Section C
should be explained or amplified by supporting statements.
In addition, the supervisor may comment here on any ex-
tenuating circumstances which might affect the productivity
and effectiveness of the employee. Comment should be made
on the relative performance of the person being rated with
other people known to the rater doing comparable work.
Manner of performance of managerial and supervisory duties
and cost consciousness in the use of personnel, space, equip-
ment, and funds must be commented on for all emprloyees
who have responsibility for managing Agency assets 9
~~i? ;ic.,l. u+ -i in? nr,? ;n rtiun o.
(If the employee being
rated does not have such responsibilities, a statement to that
effect must be included.) In evaluating managerial and super-
visory effectiveness, the following factors should be con-
sidered:
Delegation of responsibility
Establishment and maintenance of clear lines of authority
Use of personnel, space, equipment, funds, etc.
Formulation and coordination of programs
Developing teamwork
In completing the ratings on Career-Provisional Employees,
comment should be made on the intent, capability, and desire
of the employee to fulfill the service obligations of the Career
Service to which he is assigned. All reports for Career-Pro-
visional Employees, including Reassignment and Special re-
ports, will contain specific statements concerning (1) the
employee's suitability for continued service and (2) his poten-
tial for conversion to a Career Employee. The 30-month
reports will be forwarded with Form 45r containing the recom-
mendation of the Head of the employee's Career Service as
to whether he should be converted to a Career Employee.
SECTION E - CERTIFICATION AND CQMMENT.S
iRatinn officers will ecrify on tl,e Fitnl)s, I2r'iaori that poor
kpe r c:,rIr ince, v hen rt r, curs;, hers b n o ;uryjr?ci o t i~:!
.roll with the einlrloycr ptt'or?rbly br for^ itui al Ic:a:.i al lie
tire' of llie liincss rcl,c,rt.
tpf e i, wind nfiirinls arc rr } rui t},1n fnr o.;itliny ihot all ii'-
p_tr1: m ,xo by rnlinci oiliu,trs ,ntci:r thou I nr,h 1rc?n rr
'sisl +rit cane rcilrct uiiif' rni si'i drrrds of ,':portrnct. lhrourih
ih} co?n niinn r;nc1 sur r r i ' : . i r ? r of r c , it ci -tIlirictls, is i *vvinct
utl r:t,s cell frilly a ut rictr rr ic; in inri,rr my the. opc ra.ti-n
poi I ui I iIiiCS-; i r Bo~~ i11, virtue.
In .ulrirlort., rcvu.v,'inci cflicicrir--, should, e. a ineltr,r of pruc-
tticc?, pr e virlc their own :^val+-rri, ,ii I)y is ivrt comer-lit on it
, in snh ictritieii cli curtr merit ,,,I 1I ih, ruiin t r:ffic.iol ,,
r1r ?.houl l ch~ct the alu,.ri,c a viii, hr. r',tn ri cull +I r,.irl
_
pt}r: -rill ioyec. Follow-op nch,!n can tie i,5rvryinc+I cu10 tin
sn,i:.fact try rr.~liuq, is also a i .viewing
Ih? ;tcr:,itn }Juiruri lol?:rl itt++y citl=.u-h to 1i, Filri' C rrert e
tttc,,uOrurnrlum r.. ittainnr,.i nrr romrnc'ul he f? ei.,
cO r r i l U , c ic' i n r,.cord of h };i' p rio:rn ice. r},.u mare
rcn inin v,ill I,, iiuchc'd to ii c rii. in.:rl l'tr inclit,i, n in t1 l'!
kO1 ;civil Pr.rsonrn:l Folciir.
/Fr n rr ,?,n on r r;: i-il,c n without havrw1
,, r n 5i,o Hn iti:. Fulness :r-prul, :i ins inu.;','h ii upon thre Core :t
rvico 10 helve tilt., rc itort.rshvwn toI?7c incl tCLy :._.._.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approv or Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP8 357R000600170025-4
I. BELL AND HOWELL. Basically, the Bell and Howell appraisal system
employs the management by objectives concept. In addition to
assessing current work performance, their system emphasizes the
identification and development of employees with potential for
advancement to more responsible positions. The appraiser is directed
to define in advance two or three major goals or critical objectives
in the employee's position that can be described in terms of accomplish-
:ments and then periodically evaluate his performance with respect to
these objectives. Narrative statements are used in the process in lieu
of rating scales. In addition, the appraiser must list and comment on
the employee's strengths and weaknesses. The information is used for
determining the kinds of experience or training needed to help the
employee improve. The balance of the appraisal process deals primarily
with evaluating the individual's potential and the validity of his career
development plans. No adjective or numerical rating is given.
The appraisal instrument relies almost exclusively on a narrative
evaluation of employees and is quite general in nature, allowing the
individual appraiser a great deal of latitude in the appraisal process.
By design, this appraisal system relies heavily upon successive upward
reviews so that more than one appraiser usually weighs performance and
promotability. The company feels this is additional assurance that
.differences among appraisers will be tempered as appraisals are
transmitted up the line. Discussion of appraisal results with employees
is optional.
Two features of this system are of interest: (1) Replacement Planning,
and (2) High Potential Listings. Replacement planning is made a part
of the regular appraisal process and the supervisor is asked to identify
replacement candidates for the incumbent being evaluated on both a short
and long term basis. At the same time, the supervisor is asked to pre-
pare a High Potential Listing form. This consists of the identification
of "comers", age 35 and under, who seem to have the proper combination
of education, training and managerial characteristics conducive to
success in the. company. No justification is required at the time of
submission, but each nominating supervisor is expected to be prepared
to discuss each of his recommendations with an Organization and
Management Development Committee at a later date.
 TX. GENERAL DYNAMICS. The appraisal systems utilized by the General
Dynamics Corporation varies among its subsidiaries. However, like
Bell and Howell, management by objectives is the general approach.
The system is "results-oriented" for supervisory and professional
personnel.
Supervisors are asked to describe the employee's major assignments
,during the period being evaluated, explain the degree to which
performance requirements and job objectives were met, summarize agreed
upon job objectives for the next appraisal period, list strong points
and areas needing improvement, outline the employees' career goals
and highlight the employees' attitude toward his appraisal and his
feeling regarding employment with the corporation. In addition,
supervisors must rate overall performance on usually a five point
scale, potential on a four point scale and rank employees doing
essentially the same work numerically. Therefore, the appraisal
process not only assesses current performance but serves as a gauge
of potential, determines the maximum salary attainable at a particular
level of performance and establishes the appraisee's standing among
his peers. In all cases, the results of the appraisal are discussed
in detail with the employee. Salary changes may or may not be discussed
at the time of the appraisal.
As stated by General Dynamics, their major challenge "is to assure that
our management is properly oriented and trained in the completion of
the instrument and methods for effectively communicating results to
the employee being reviewed. This has required management development
and training of supervisors." General Dynamics goes on to state that
"The appraisal forms have been effectively used to,evaluate performance
of personnel for promotion and to determine their performance and
potential for future growth. It has been well received and supported
by our management." Of special interest, is the care exercised in the
attempt to classify appraisees in terms of their contributions to the
company.
Approved or Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Appro For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP8,0357R00060017002f.74
III. DETROIT EDISON. Detroit Edison considers employee appraisal primarily
in the context of management development. Company policy states that,
"Effective development of munag rncnt personnel requires the periodic
inventory of management resources in light of future needs, planned
selection and development of personnel with potential to meet these
organizational needs, continued improvement of such individuals-in
handling their current assigiunents, and encouragement and opportunity
for self-development." The system is basically"results-oriented" and
predicated on previously established goals and objectives set during
annual planning sessions.
Emphasis is placed on informal day-to-day coaching and on-the-job
development. At least once a year, a discussion is.held with each
subordinate to review work progress and to plan for the period
ahead. However, no formal rating is given. Formal, confidential.
summary appraisals of performance and potential are made every two
years by the immediate supervisor and may include other knowledgeable
parties, as participants in the process. Appraisals are reviewed at
successive organization levels, and a summary report made to the
president. Appraisals focus on results achieved, methods employed,
strongest single qualification, greatest development need, potential,
recommended action for improvement and readiness for promotion, rated
on a six point scale. Biannual appraisals are not discussed with
employees.
Three factors are of special interest in Detroit Edison's appraisal
philosophy: (1) the annual planning interview, (2) the status code
used in appraisals, and (3) the. confidential nature of the biannual
summary appraisal.
The annual planning interview serves as a performance barometer and
gives the subordinate and supervisor the opportunity to talk over
the work situation and results achieved, set new objectives and plan
for the work period ahead. They discuss problems inhibiting results,
how these can be eliminated and reach common agreement as to how to
best meet their new objectives. Another interesting feature of the
process is the "status coding" of individuals to indicate graphically,
by color coding their name and position on organization charts, their
potential and promotability. Through this process, the charts readily
reflect the organization's "health" by highlighting problem individuals,
"comers," "dead enders" and areas where replacement or corrective
action is needed. Finally, use of the confidential, biannual appraisal
summary by Detroit Edison is in variance with the emphasis on participa-
tive management by most other organizations studied. Despite annual
planning sessions, employees cannot really be expected to know where
they stand in the eyes of management with respect to their promotion
potential in view of the confidential nature of the.summary appraisal.
 Appr010 For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP 0357R000600170025-4
IV. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS. Texas Instruments' management philosophy is to
achieve company goals in a manner that motivates individual employees
to achieve their personal goals. The corollary of this approach is
the need to identify, evaluate, develop and reward all key individual
contributions (all employees, not just top management) to company
efforts. To accomplish this, Texas Instruments has developed a rigorous
system called Key Personnel Analysis, under which each employee is
judged on a criterion of his contribution to the. achievement of?company
goals.;
In support of Key Personnel Analysis, the company uses a narrative
.appraisal instrument, combining. results and person oriented factors
through which the employee and the supervisor identify and list specific
job related and personal goals (both long and short term). In the
context of the duties assigned to the employee, accomplishments are
then outlined which indicate progress toward and/or completion of these
previously established goals. These data then serve as the basis for the
performance appraisal discussion between the employee and his supervisor.
As a part of the appraisal process, supervisors evaluate employees
semi-annually, in terms of the degree to which they achieve established
goals on at least four factors considered common to all jobs: job
knowledge, dependability, quantity and quality of work. If considered
appropriate, supervisors may utilize additional job related factors
as for example, technical competence, commitment to organizational
objectives, ability to motivate people, acceptance and responsiveness
to decisions, and others. A five point scale ranging from unacceptable
to outstanding is'utilized. Finally, employees are given an overall
rating, utilizing the same five point scale, ranging from unacceptable
to outstanding. All aspects of the appraisal, as well as the ratings,
are discussed with employees.
Following this phase of the appraisal process and starting with the
immediate supervisor, individuals are rank ordered on the basis of
their relative performance and contributions. An adjustment to their
salary may be recommended at this time, but this is not an automatic
requirement. The ranks are then combined at successive levels of the
organization until the department level is reached. The department
manager identifies "benchmark" people among the various sections reporting
to him. Benchmarks are those people judged as having made equal contri-
butions to the company, even though they are in different functions and
job grades. This procedure allows different groups to be combined equally,
according to Texas Instruments. Each person is then placed in one of
five comparative rating units of 20% each. The top 20% unit is paired
compared, that is, each person is paired with every other person and
one of each pair is selected against the contribution criterion. From
this, a new rank ordering is achieved. Division managers next review
the top two units and combine the top contributors from among their
departments. Finally, group managers repeat the process again by
benchmarking among divisions and pair comparing the top 5%.
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Therefore, this evaluation process serves many purposes including
incentive awards, base salary adjustments, identification of development
needs, identification of high talent individuals, and present and
future manpower resources. This same process is used by Texas Instruments,
in the appraisal of their nonexempt employees, except for the complex
.rank order technique.
Texas Instruments believes that their system is "pretty good but not
perfect" and although most employees and supervisors support the
system, the company "encounters problems in communicating goals up and
'down within the organization.". Of interest, beside the rather rigorous
"system of paired comparisons, obvious is the importance Texas Instruments
attaches to the performance appraisal process and the special training
and preparation of supervisors for the appraisal interview. In this
regard, superviisors are scheduled for preappraisal orientation training
dessions prior to each round of interviews. In this context, they have
a very useful handbook which outlines many of the important "do's and
don'ts" of performance appraisal discussions.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170025-4 I
 Approve or Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP8200 57R000600170025-4
V. GENERAL ELECTRIC. At General Electric, each of the company's operating
.components develop their own performance appraisal procedures and
instruments, therefore, there is no "company approved" system of format
for such appraisals. The system described in this section is utilized
by the international Sale Division of GE and is considered by the
company to be an excellent example of an integrated approach to
measuring performance, based on job responsibilities and tied to
manpower development. The general practice is to have a formal perform-
ance review at least every 12 months. GE's Corporate Management
believes that their approach has been successful and has met with the
approval of both managers and,their people. The disadvantage they,
cite is that the process is time consuming for managers to carry out.
As such, it requires active top management support or it will fail.
The International Sales Division of GE utilizes the "results-oriented"
approach to employee appraisal and it is comprised of two phases.
Phase I. Position Performance Analysis
Purpose:
- Determine what is supposed to happen
Determine what did happen
Phase II. Employee Performance Appraisal
Purpose:
- Measure employee performance
- Utilize the measurements to achieve improvement
PHASE I
To carry out Phase I, GE utilizes the two processes described below:
1. Work Planning Process. This is the process by which work
goals or objectives, related to the employee's position or
functional assignment, are established. It is the means for
making known to all concerned, what is supposed to result
from the position. Efforts are made to reduce these items
(specific things the supervisor and employee mutually agree can
be accomplished in the job during a stated period of time,
and within certain quality parameters)to writing.
2. Work Plan Reviews. This technique is utilized to determine
what did happen in the job, in terms of established goals.
Making known the goals is only the beginning and GE believes
the most important part of the total process is the Work Plan
Review. They encourage it on a planned cycle every I - 2 months.
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Their system provides for a business type review in an
atmosphere of two members of the organization attempting to
accomplish a specific plan, analyzing how successful the work
product has been to date, and mutually solving problems
and breaking down roadblocks that may have prevented more
complete or total job success. The company believes these
sessions result in major achievements if the supervisor
establishes his credibility as a manager who is interested
in seeking a solution, not a conviction.
General Electric believes that Work Planning and Work Plan Reviews
should take place throughout the year. They contend that their real
purpose and effectiveness is in getting things done, and as such, at
annual performance appraisal time they provide an excellent record of
work accomplishments. The processess described above apply mai.nl.
to the company's Exempt positions. However, they believe that the
system has application to many nonexempt jobs as well.
Throughout the Work Plan Review, GE insists upon a distinction between
Position Performance and Employee Performance. While admitting that
the distinction is a fine one, they point out that frequently the
accomplishment of established objectives is not entirely the result
of the employee's efforts or capabilities. By concentrating on the
position's accomplishments and shortcomings, they contend it, is an
easy step for the supervisor and employee to mutually analyze what
must be done to make the position more effective. Since this step
is not considered the employee's performance appraisal, they argue
that this process should be limited to an attempt to measure the
effectiveness of the organization and/or position, unclouded by the
influence of personal emotions.
PHASE II
In Phase I, the employee and his supervisor discuss the functional
work of the position, the degree to which goals and objectives were
accomplished and what changes should be effected to achieve improvement.
Phase II is.d,esigned to take a look at the "other side of the coin",
to determine what elements of the individual's personal performance
contributed to that degree of functional success or failure. Elements
of Personal Performance highlighted by GE for Phase II of the evaluation
process are:
- Know-how
Problem Solving and/or Action Taking
Responsibility Assumption
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
The Performance Appraisal Instrument utilized is composed of three
parts, all requiring a series of narrative statements to describe
achievements, performance and personal characteristics. The evaluations
are based upon the three elements of Personal Performance mentioned
above. In addition, employees are assigned a numerical rating on a
five point scale for each evaluative statement made in Parts I and II
(Performance Identification Code). The sum total of the Performance
Identification Codes determines Company salary action.
Part'I of the instrument provides for statements by the supervisor:
1-Analyzing the degree-to which the employees' position objectives
were accomplished.
2. Stating his observations of the employees' personal overall
performance of the position objectives.
3.. Strengths demonstrated, and
4. improvement needs.-
In Part II, the supervisor is instructed to evaluate the employee in
terms of his performance on projects, programs, special tasks or
improvement goals assigned during the appraisal period.
Part III of the instrument asks the supervisor to discuss those observed
personal characteristics of the employee that have helped or hindered
his performance and to offer constructive suggestions for improving
the subordinate's capability.
A composite numerical rating on a five point scale is then assigned,
which indicates the supervisor's overall assessment of performance
(Performance Identification Code). Finally, a Manpower Action Code
is assigned, utilizing a five point spread to indicate the employee's
readiness for advancement to a more responsible position.
This completes the formal appraisal process, except for a review of the
appraisal with the employee's second level supervisor and the indepth
discussions of the results with the employee. Employees are furnished
a copy of their completed appraisal instrument.
Of special interest in the GE program is (a) the effort to separate or
distinguish between position performance and employee performance, (b)
the effort spent in an attempt to achieve a complete understanding
between the employee and his supervisor regarding work goals and
objectives (c) the total lack of secrecy in the-process and (d) the
relative complexity of the system.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Appro For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP8 357R000600170025-4.
VI. WESTERN ELECTRIC. There are a number of appraisal systems currently
in use in Western Electric. However, they are still experimenting
with new concepts and techniques in an effort to secure greater
acceptance by supervisors, which they consider key to the=success of
appraisal programs. Despite the differences in the systems, however,
the major purpose of all of Western Electric's employee appraisal
.programs is to provide an objective, periodic assessment of the per-
formance of employees for salary and promotional purposes, including.
developmental needs.
The system currently utilized for salaried personnel employs a relatively
simple instrument that it utilized for both appraisal and employee
development purposes. Its major characteristic is an assessment of per-
formance on objective criteria or attributes such as quantity and quality,..
of work, job knowledge and skills and sense of responsibility. Therefore
Western Electric is attempting assessments of behavior they believe is
directly observable and that affects job. performance. For each of the
five (5) critical attributes, supervisors appraise performance on a
three (3) point scale as "limited," "good" or "outstanding." For per-
formance judged as "Limited" or "Outstanding," supervisors are required
to record critical incidents in support of their conclusions. The
critical incident method is not required for evaluations falling in the
"good" category. In addition to the assessment of attributes, super-
visors must evaluate the employee's attendance record and punctuality,
assign an overall rating for total performance using the same three
point scale; specify skills requiring development and recommend action
.plans for achieving this. Finally, they must judge promotability by
field of work in terms of "Ready Now," "Ready Later" and "Not Promotable."
Western Electric officials point out that the weakness of this system is
the failure to require supervisors to officially discuss the appraisal
findings in detail with employees. If the employee requests, he must
be permitted to review his appraisal but no "face to face" interview is
required. Company officials further point out that they have not
adequately fulfilled the critical need of properly training supervisors
in the administration of the program and the conduct of the appraisal
interview, both crucial to the success of performance appraisal. To
this writer,' another significant deficiency of this system is the lack
of predetermined performance standards or guides against which actual_
performance can be measured.
For their supervisory and managerial employees, Western Electric is
currently testing an experimental management appraisal concept and
instrument. If differs from the system described above in that emphasis
is placed upon "accountabilities" or performance standards mutually
established in advance by the supervisor and employee, following the
management by objectives concept. A brief narrative statement is
required to describe the results achieved in terms of the predetermined
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
standards for each goal or objective established and the accomplishment
is also rated on the same three point scale of "limited," "good" and
"outstanding." As described in the previous system for salaried employees,
an overall rating is also assigned. With this experimental system, the
company does insist on a joint employee-supervisor review of the appraisal
results and the employee's signature on the completed appraisal instrumexit
is required.
The company's formal procedure for assessing the potential of supervisory
and managerial personnel is satisfied through another form (Management
Potential Inventory), separate and distinct from the appraisal process.
This instrument prepared annually, requires the presentation of a rather
complete summary of the employee's background including age, years of
service, time in rank, education, corporate development programs attended,
special assignments and a chronological listing of work experience by
specialization and geographic location.
In addition to an overall assessment of potential for specific fields
of work, managers are required to describe briefly the individual's
areas of demonstrated competence, list in priority order the specific
activities recommended for developing the individual's managerial
potential, explain how the recommendations will satisfy the identified
needs and provide a timetable for accomplishing each recommendation.
In finalizing the Management Potential Inventory, managers, using the
critical incident method, must support each conclusion and recommendation
by citing "live" examples from the work situation.
Annually, following the completion of all Management Potential Inventories,
each manager meets with his peers and his superior to discuss how the
potential of his supervisors and those of his peers can best be developed.
Based upon these meetings and a detailed review of the instruments, Specific
Action Plans are developed for those employees judged to possess the
greatest potential.
There are several interesting observations that can be made following the
review of the Western Electric appraisal systems and their experience with
them. Among the more important are:
1. It is difficult for a single appraisal system to best meet the
multiplicity of demands placed on it. Consequently, one or
more of the demands is apt to suffer.
2. The effectiveness of any system depends not only on the type of
instrument, concept or system employed, but on the way it is
presented and administered within the organization.
3. The best conceived and designed appraisal system will "fall
flat on its face" unless it is fully accepted by management and
supervisors.
4. One important way of assuring acceptance is through intensive
training, utilizing small workshops where practical experience
can be obtained by actively participating in practice appraisal
interviews, both as a subordinate and a superior.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170025-4 I
 Apprc For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP 0357R000600170025-4
VII. IBM. The present IBM Employee Appraisal and Counseling Program was
installed on a corporate wide basis in 1969, when a decision was made
to change from a traits-oriented approach to one based. on performance
against stated and understood job requirements.
IBM's new appraisal program has four principal objectives: (1) to
let each employee know what is expected of him; (2) to let him know
how he is meeting expectations; (3) to assist him in his self-develop-
ment'efforts, and (4) to pay him according to his contributions
to the business. To achieve these objectives, the Appraisal and
Counseling Program consists of three parts:
1. Performance Planning and Evaluation.
- To ensure that each employee understands what is expected of
him in his job.
- To provide a more objective basis for evaluating his
performance.
2. Employee Development Planning.
To assist employees in their self-development efforts.
3. Promotability or Reassignment Recommendations.
To assist managers in identifying employees who should be
considered for promotion and reassignment opportunities.
The Performance Planning and Evaluation phase of the IBM Appraisal
and Counseling Program follows pretty much the clas.ic pattern. The
employee and supervisor discuss the requirements of the position,
identify and briefly describe the four or five major elements of the
job, mutually agree upon and reduce to writing the performance factors
and/or results that can reasonably be expected to be achieved during
the coming period and then rank order the major tasks or job elements
in terms of their relative importance.
At the close of each appraisal period (employees are appraised every
six months during their first year of employment and annually thereafter),
the supervisor briefly describes actual achievements and then rates
the achievement of each previously identified job element on a five
point scale ranging from "far exceeded" to "unsatisfactory." The IBM
appraisal instrument also requires the supervisor to describe (1)
additional significant employee accomplishments during the period, (2),
other continuing responsibilities not included in the previously
identified major job elements, if they had a significant positive or
negative effect on overall performance, and (3) significant positive or
negative employee influence in job related relationships with others.
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
An overall rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" is then assigned.
It is interesting to note that IBM has established four gradations of
"satisfactory" ranging from "far exceeds job requirements in all
key areas" to "results achieved meets job requirements.'T Also two
levels of "unsatisfactory" have been identified. These are "marginal -
must improve" and "inadequate - on notice."
The supervisor and employee then meet to discuss the appraisal in depth.
The supervisor must also counsel the employee on his strengths and
areas where improvement is suggested. These items are also recorded on
the instrument. Significant items or comments resulting from the
appraLsalinterview are also recorded by the supervisor and the employee
is then afforded the opportunity to record his comments regarding
the performance plan or his appraisal. The instrument is then submitted
for management review at the next higher level.
To comply with part two of the Appraisal and Counseling Program,
Employee Development Planning, supervisors prepare an Employee Develop-
ment Plan annually for each subordinate. This instrument provides for
a brief narrative description of the employee's (a) interests and
aspirations, (b)-his growth potential in the next 2 - 5 years, and
(c) developmental needs. A specific action plan to meet identified
needs is then outlined along with the results achieved from action
plans developed for the prior appraisal period.
The final phase of the IBM program consists of the preparation of the
`Promotability or Reassignment Recommendation instrument. This is also
done on an annual basis for each employee. The supervisor is expected
to do two things. First, indicate whether the employee is (a) promotable
now, (b) reassignable now, or (c) not ready now. If the supervisor
concludes the employee is "ready," he then must describe the assignment
he recommends in terms of the organization level, company function,
geographic location and division, if possible.
IBM reports that their new program is accepted by all levels of
management, especially as the underpinning of their merit system,
as it relates, to compensation and advancement. Since the program was
recently introduced, they are now in the process of assessing its
overall effectiveness, identifying major strengths and weaknesses and
developing appropriate changes to optimize strengths and eliminate or
minimize deficiences. From information collected to date, they feel
that, generally, the program is supported by all of their people. They
admit that some concerns have been expressed about paperwork requirements
and scheduling rigidity. However, they express confidence that these
.issues can be resolved if their current study indicates they are, in
fact, problems.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA- JDP82-00357R00060017 4-4. - mm E
.1 tL u U ~. i 4. 1 $xoculivo klogiotry
100-01 1
31 July 19 72
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director - Comptroller
SUBJECT Revision of Fitness Report System
1. Throughout business and government, the fitness re-
port remains one of the more maligned vehicles of management
but also one of the more valuable tools available to managers
and employees. Any large organization--particularly one in
which there is a fair degree of mobility--must have a system
which provides a written record of the employee's performance.
The Agency is too large to depend on personal acquaintance or
knowledge of an employee when significant personnel decisions
are being made. In its present form, the Agency fitness re-
port is far superior to earlier versions and is reasonably
responsive to the needs of the Agency. Nonetheless, the
system needs additional refinements to make it a more mean-
ingful tool for both manager and employee. MAG believes that
any plan for revision should take into account the following
broad objectives.
2. One basic key to the success of the fitness report
is the attitude of the supervisor. If he regards it as a pro
forma exercise,, the value of the report is diminished consider-
ably and the system itself loses credibility. As a first
objective, therefore, MAG thinks that the supervisor's role
in the total procedure should be reviewed and that specific
steps should be taken to strengthen his ability to use the
system wisely and fairly. Specifically, MAG recommends:
a. That every supervisor be given a written set of
instructions and guidance on preparation of fit-
ness reports. If the system is in any way re-
vised, new instructions and/or oral briefings
should be given.
Approved For Rel
21@0557R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
b. That every supervisor be specifically rated by
letter (in the section on "Specific Duties") on
how well he prepares and handles fitness reports
for those he supervises. Samples of fitness re-
ports could perhaps be included in his own
personnel file.
C. That OTR give some attention to fitness report
objectives and procedures in management classes.
In particular, consideration should be given to
requiring all supervisors to attend the one day
Performance Appraisal Workshop run by OTR before
they prepare their first fitness reports.
d. That supervisors in a given office, division,
staff or component get together periodically to
discuss problems, procedures and goals in re-
gard to fitness reports.
3. A second broad objective of revision should be to
involve the employee more intimately in the procedure. The
fitness report vitally affects his future and is the vehicle
by which he sees concrete evidence of the esteem or lack
thereof accorded him by his supervisors. Yet, he may play
only a limited--even perfunctory--role in this vital process.
At present, the rater writes the fitness report (and may or
may not discuss it in depth with the employee), the employee
signs it and the reviewer comments on it. The element of
genuine dialogue is all too often missing, and the supervisor
loses a unique opportunity for counseling and guiding. Further,
the report itself contains no record of an employee's reactions
or comments. To remedy these deficiencies, MAG recommends:
a. That the fitness reports carry a separate section
for employee comments and that employees be /
encouraged (or perhaps even required) to utilize
this.
b. That a statement be incorporated in the report
(possibly just above the signature) which
affirms that the supervisor has fully discussed
the employee's performance in terms of strengths
and weaknesses and has set adequate goals for
the future.
Approved For ReleaeA7'?1Z100357R000600170025-4
P
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
ADMINISTRATIVE
c. That a further statement be incorporated in the
report which specifically advises the employee
as to what his signature implies (his acquiescence
to the report or merely that he has seen it?)
and what grievance procedures are available to
him if he takes exception to the report.
d. That the employee (and rater) be permitted to
see the comments of the reviewing official.
e. That an employee be given a copy of his report
for retention if desired.
4. Still another problem is the widely divergent manner
in which various offices rate their employees. Although in
some cases differences among components may be ascribed to
the differing abilities of managers to communicate in writing
it seems more likely that inconsistencies stem from management's
failure more effectively to standardize the system. MAG there-
fore recommends :
a. That serious study be given to the problem of
devising objective criteria for evaluation
which are applicable to all Directorates. (OCI
made an effort to do this in a memorandum of
January 1970 which spelled out more precisely
what each letter category represented.)
b. That other offices adopt some version of the OCI
use of a box score printed on the fitness report
which lists OCI percentages in a given letter
category against the overall Agency percentages.
The reviewer thus has some feel for what the
rating means in terms of the Agency as a whole.
5. To ensure that the revised system meets the needs
of both manager and employee, MAG feels continual review and
study of the system is necessary. At present, an employee
who is unhappy over a fitness report or a supervisor's attitude
toward the process is in somewhat of a dilemma. If he does
not choose to make a formal complaint to the Inspector General,
he has no recourse to a less formal means of review. Even
should he be permitted to write his own comments on the fit-
ness report itself, he may still feel the need to discuss
- 3 -
ADMINISTRATIVE
CIA INTERNAL USE. ONLY
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
problems with someone not directly in the chain of command.
MAG also feels that some of the reluctance to change the
system in the direction of greater openness and candor might
diminish if some objective studies were made. MAG specif-
ically recommends:
a. That a kind of "ombudsman" be appointed in each
Directorate with whom employees could consult
about problems in fitness reports. Such a con-
sultation would not constitute a formal complaint,
but the ombudsman could use his own discretion
about informing higher management about problems
with a particular rater.
b. That objective study and research be undertaken
on such questions as (1) to what extent do the
rater and reviewer disagree and (2) does the
requirement of showing the entire fitness report
to the employee make a substantial difference in
the way the report is written.
6. MAG considered several other possible changes. One
MAG member felt strongly that the only effective way to rate
employees honestly would be through reports which were never
seen by the employee. Majority sentiment was opposed to this
method. At the other extreme, a MAG member suggested that the
employee-supervisor dialogue on fitness reports should be
maximized by having the employee summarize in draft form his
accomplishments during the period, as he saw them, and then
discuss these with his supervisor. The supervisor in turn
would use this summary and the ensuing dialogue to shape the
report itself. A related suggestion was to have the supervisor
show a draft copy of the report to the employee before formal
submission so that the rater could make constructive changes
as he saw fit before making the report final. Both of these
dialogue-maximizing suggestions sought to create a flexible,
rather than a "take-it-or-leave-it," atmosphere. MAG believes
that, while these procedures may in fact have been used
successfully by some supervisors, they should be used only
by highly skilled people who will not allow the process to
degenerate into one of negotiation or bargaining. This
approach therefore is not advocated for general use.
ADMINISTRATIVE
,CIA INiE'RNA LSE ONLY
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-SpP,(82-00357R000600170025-4
ua 111i:..Jilt/LL. 4J~.ii,. U1~L.1,
ADMINISTRATIVE
7. MAG also considered the possibility of abolishing
letter grades to force more attention to the narrative section.
The suggestion was made that, since some 76 per cent of the
ratings given in the Agency in 1971 fell into either the
"strong" or "outstanding" category (with another 23 per cent
in the "proficient" category); the present rating scale is
worthless and should be eliminated. MAG, however, hopes that
its suggestions will help to make fitness reports more
accurately reflect actual performance. Finally, MAG con-
sidered and rejected the idea of including in the report an
employee's comments and requests relating to assignments,
training, and so forth. We recognize the need for continued dis-
cussion on these aspects of an employee's career but believe
the fitness report is not the proper mechanism. Certain
offices have devised procedures to handle this aspect of
career development (e.g. OCI's EBAR--Employee Biennial Assess-
ment Review) and these could be studied with an eye to appli-
cation elsewhere.
8. MAG in particular wants to emphasize that the fitness
report should never be a substitute for a continuing dialogue
between supervisor and employee. The evaluation in a report
should come as no surprise to an employee. Rather, what is
written in the report should reflect what has been said all
along as to an employee's weaknesses and strengths, his
progress, his attitude and his goals. Changes in the fitness
report procedure will merely correct surface deficiencies.
The basic need is for on-going and candid communication.
9. MAG sees the Fitness Report as a good basic tool
which, with modifications and increased utilization, could f
become more valuable to all. From management's viewpoint,,'
increased use of the reports as a personnel counseling
vehicle, coupled with imputs from the employee, could do
much to enhance the value of the fitness report.
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
CIA INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-0 357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
1 9 JUL 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Review Staff, OP
SUBJECT , : Agency Fitness Report System
1. At your request the SP Junior Advisory Panel reviewed and
discussed the present Agency fitness report program. This memorandum
presents our comments on what we believe is a most important part of
any personnel management system. Individual comments by SPJAP
members are attached as attachment A.
2. Over the past twenty-five years managers and personnel officers
have been deluged by a flood of literature on employee performance appraisal.
We too have actively studied this question and, like our counterparts in
government and industry, agree that performance appraisal is a necessary
ingredient in an effective personnel management system, yet difficult to
administer. Our fitness report system has been scrutinized and modified
several times during the Agency's relatively brief history, but in spite of
our best efforts we still find that it is an imperfect tool. Too often there
is wide disparity between the real man on the job and the description of the
man found in the official personnel folder. Each of us has his personal
collection of cases where lack of proper documentation in fitness reports
has demanded the valuable time of a Career Service Head, a Deputy Director,
the Executive Director, and ultimately the Director. Less serious cases
have caused poor personnel decisions which, in turn, have affected
adversely both the Agency and its employees. Our appraisal mechanism
is far from perfect, but then no organization has been bold enough to
announce that it has developed a foolproof system that guarantees accurate
information all the time.
3. Why does our fitness report system fail to realize our high
expectations? We personnel officers have concentrated on the purely
mechanical side of performance appraisal and overlooked the purposes
of our system. We have made changes in areas like the number and type
of rating scales, requirements for narrative comments, and the schedule
for submission, yet we have never effectively defined why supervisors and
managers need to prepare good fitness reports and how they can use them.
Personnel regulations simply say that, "The continuous evaluation of the
performance of employees by their supervisors is an essential element of
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4 I
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA 4DP82-00357R000600170025-4
.
`'
the Agency's personnel management program, " but do not give any
further guidance. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising
that many,view fitness reports merely as a once-a-year bureaucratic
requirement with little or no meaning. Regardless of the mechanics
surrounding performance appraisal, the best evaluations will be written
by supervisors who see the reports as an integral part of their personnel
management system. In some cases, the reports are just a paper
exercise because both the supervisors who write them and the managers
who read them have alternate systems to evaluate their employees --
feedback from the "good old boy" net or informal peer ratings. Written
evaluations often run a poor second to these other "tried and true"
techniques although they have become less and less useful over the past
few years. Our formal performance appraisal system will be more
effective when supervisors and managers believe that fitness reports are
not only useful but also necessary. As it now stands, the report is just
another form that must be completed.
4. Under the Agency's decentralized personnel management
system, Deputy Directors and the Heads of Career Services are
responsible for most personnel decisions. At the same time, however,
we in the Office of Personnel struggle to develop a single fitness report
system that will be all things to all people. It would be more profitable
to have Directorates and Career Services first examine why they need
fitness reports and then study how they use them -- one may see them as
a vehicle for motivating employees, another for planning assignments,
and still another for identifying managerial potential. These and a score
of other reasons are all valid, yet how many components have worked with
us to study their unique requirements, tailor the fitness report form to
their needs, and explain their viewpoints to employees, supervisors, and
other career services. Instead of tinkering with the mechanics of the
fitness report, let's help the Executive Director and the Deputy Directors
analyze why they need an employee appraisal system and what they can
expect from one. Let's then assist the heads of career services and
subordinate offices to identify their own needs within the broad guidelines
provided by top management. This approach would not require components
to create new forms or rating schemes but would force them to review
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11128: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
and rationalize their performance appraisal systems. Once supervisors
and managers see fitness reports as their system, not just a creature
of the Office of Personnel, we will have taken an important step toward
more meaningful reports. True, we will not have a neat Agency-wide
package on fitness reports, but we will have something more useful.
Chairman
SP Junior Advisory Panel
Attachment
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Individu~i i Comments by SPJAP Members on Present Agency Fitness Report Program
1. Adapt narrative comments to meet not only Agency-wide needs but
individual career service needs.
2. Require reviewing officer comments that are negative or in disagree-
ment with rating officer comments to be shown to employee concerned.
3. Require that all fitness reports be shown to employee concerned if not
by a command structure by career service.
4. Schedule supervisors for performance appraisal training before they
become supervisors. This training should include the interview process also.
5. Adopt management by objectives philosophy in order to increase communica-
tion effectiveness between employee and supervisor. This could be
tailored to include grade levels where a direct management by objectives
approach is worthy of the effort.
6. A long term approach would be to establish within the Office of Training
an assessment center where employees could be sent to identify
management potential.
7. Reviewing Officer comments should be shown to employees.
8. Reviewing Officer comments should not be shown to employees.
9. Three ratings should be used - Outstanding, Satisfactory, and
Unsatisfactory. An over-all rating should be used instead of
individual ratings for each duty.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approv For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82_00357R000600170025-4
. 0
POI: A.;..... CS Comyonenz Chiefs
SOME=
. .J
T1. 1..a'iI:VJ/` Report ?J1 it \. eL+IA. ..''r~'s
~.J\1i ir.7.poa which .`a ,. v'r
~t,y oduc .i.on of the Evaluation ~io.v:cJ. sya~i.vii''. .~wi:.ica.....J
1
~'C
.
. ~.
?
_.-w. ... oily ......1.
..?_~~:.
ti~
~
~.. 1.
2o .a. .7 Vv good l4?. than ~.. to ... ....:~. l.i .L-_ '- 'V?-
/l~
and .a.ia?.lwiois U..ant .i. L. s. J,, t_:
which `i lJ a . U1.7 ?.. major `iii;. r. w?ic..O.l..._c i'i:ic i... -
_w.. probability J U . Sinca 1 am sure - all of you
VS iscas of your own an .._..._,.J g1. -v :~a.. e1.i., .. .% l ...
a .:J
. ....ate
2
? would .,._..i\U ?.. '.1 .... ll ......y j. i7 "s1._.-1.+._.. rw`.ii,L
.. _._, ,. ..V ..1~.,.A~V v,... v ?.~_illi~ ?. ... V.: :. i.: .~ .. 1.J ,. ... .., 1.i 1+ 4ai ~ A" WGUI.:
100 4o see O..L,:.ii:.i..:Us. on ..:..._..7 a~.i l-,.~... :J ... V..... ... J~? J.., _.~ .,..?c-. -, i..
way Do ,rep ' .cam;' yc;`,. oils _ , yal: revs.01V OAS; -.
of llo ....."rJ who :.ve salvos on
?...; .~ ` t, l% w 4.1: CJ? for / W U t:. ..... \% O Y
11 i =17131 2?
NC,.
w. .a. - a. L... .
Ot no have r ? t:.... 1. ... ~Ji.:i .J OW
'. z f All DNA
... ?. ..- l ....._ ........... .... ?,. a.. . ,. ~. 1. i ..:l
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
nosed !1 f .1l R S -, O.
.ul J. J V J. . 1J 4. ,L. J. V .. ,. -L V ,. .4 + ? l_ \/ a , { 1 l+i. V .A. V , '.l . a ? ~.1 \.J s l"i .7 o }. t a L.J 1 3 s . V v~.V i l 4
iaL.3ii:.is ~J C3flL.a 0S.
1V .4 VJ \4~rJ li'~1'. ~r 1.1i: /. '%L ..1 iJti C.ha V 1. to l
r.. ?.. o i'J .i. j,; ; Gr 1? V i ~j ~. L~. :~ a x V :'x 1 i .i J 'v ~J . ~ ?ti a .. L i z O
.L L.% 1L~U /V~.. IJa. V'i ? ,. V.~. .L. 1+... 1J+1v iJ .L L.. `J wllu J.v +~V~
s 10
.v . V s V O :i C.. L,; l.U.... '~' 4 a ~. U `~ l.i ~ ..L. 4 .`.., .i ., U ~i , ,., : L L. 4 w V iZ ~'v .i. iu i i S 1 i:v ?.J L:% O '...~. -
,1J~;.. J. 4:J rr 3~J \.. ~..1 V,? V t ` + +. +. V .., ~.. u?L,a....1 ~ti ..,,1-pt+l{, .
L..,. A .~ J .
.., ~ic'.J'I .L IV,iiil~Y,1 t. 1'i~ \'!1 ?rl. ~+.. ..+~li~nt.%u, t, u~~ al.;. ~.. \% l.LOy33 V.. a...... a.
.. V + l.) v 1 J. \i V l.i ~J . a ... ... 1.. c c ; Y - ...: l , . , . 4 ~? 6 L.: J 'l+ ~.J , e 4 V \ i 1 / ~.-~ L.i , .. . J... ~J 4 c-~ / . u w .. a
u.. by i... t,ri V. l':i:.LFJ .,.V y,\;je C.J A,iU-L l.l:. .. iiV4 ?U, V?~?.L~^?+-?
J. L VL:i J.LS -
.. r ..4% ?.,. ... \.: 1rU~.. i.. ~.. .. ~.. `.~~., .. Li a. v ;.J ~.~... 1.J 1J _.-~. ?4uJ . 1w 4rv liw.... ~.. \i `'~ ; __ r
~?L V A l V C+A i t.,. L L: V ?.: ~.. ..1. a..,l~U a_ l+ . '
ti.V ILIIL: ..?4 .~ \i J. LJ .. ~:i ... a., J.a+.. ~.;. ~:.. `'li 4.v {/4... V;J Ji.ti,.. ?l. 1:....1.,
+.~~r Ai ." CGA7.C.~1:411 v.
L ..1 1 V :.+ L 4 ~J :..1 a \ 41 4r as .W .._ L' A IS
e
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170025-4
 25X1 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Next 4 Page(s) In Document Denied
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Appr
For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDPW 0357R000600170025-4
Proposed CSCS Fitness Report Schedule
FY 73
Proposed
Date
iracie
Eval.
Board
Schedule
FR
Current
End Date
Current Date
FR Due in
from Field
FR
Proposed
End Date
Due in
from
Field
S-08
05 Jul - 21 Jul
30 Jun
31 Aug
28 Feb
30 Apr
3.1 Jul - 28 Aug
30 Sep
30 Nov
31 Mar
31 May
S- 10
05 Sep - 20 Sep
30 Sep
30 Nov
30 Apr
30 Jun
;S- 12
25 Sep - 27 Oct'
06 Nov - 15 Dec
30 Jun
31 Jul
3.1 Aug
30 Sep
31 May
3 0 Jun
31 Jul
31 Aug
S- 13
29 Jan - 16 Mar
31 Oct
31 Dec
30 Sep
30 Nov
-IS- 14
26 Mar - Q4 May
31 Dec
31 Jan
30 Nov
31 Jan
16- 5
14 May - 15 Jun 31 Jan
31 Mar
31 Dec
28 Feb
.S-,.6
29 May - 15 Jun
28 Feb
30 Apr
31 Jan
3i Ma r
- o t e :
Dates for GS-08 - GS-10 Boards are approximate.
 Rating
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
FITNESS REPORT EATING S
cry 1968 CY 1970
numerical
Definition
(1 Dec 67 thru 30 Nov 68)
(1 Dec 69 thru 30 Nov 70)
CSCS
Agency
CSCS
Agency
CSCS
Agency
1
Unsatisfactory
Less than.1%
.1%
.1%
.1%
0%
0%
2
Marginal
1.1%
1.0%
.5%
.4%
.3%
.4~
3
Proficient
21.8%
24.0
22.9%
23..9%
20.7%
23.3%
4
Strong
70.14%
67.2%
70.4%
67.81,
71.9%
68.6%
5
Outstanding
6.7%
7.7%
6.1%
7.8%
7.1%
7.7`/
Data From OP/SRB
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
.UM:.
CY 1971
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
CONFIDENTIAL
AGE NDA
Topics for Discussion at PMC Meeting
PMC Members are invited to state their views
concerning the following changes in fitness report
instructions and procedures which have been proposed
by PMC Members, Evaluation Boards, and the Office of
the DDP/OP:
A. Require that narrative evaluation by Raters
and Reviewers be related to Evaluation Board precepts,
which call for evaluative judgments to be made on the
basis of:
(1) Quality and level of performance;
Productivity
(2) Growth potential
(3) Personal characteristics and
qualifications
B. In collnectioll with the a.bovcl, estaahlif;il tt
procedure to rubber stamp or overprint on the fitness
report form the statement:
"Signature of employee and rating officer
certifies to the fact that they have read and
understand the current Evaluation Board pre-
cepts for the grade level concerned."
C. Require specific comment, as appropriate, on:
(1) Agent development/recruitment
(2) Language development/maintenance
(3) Quality of fitness reports prepared
on each officer's subordinates.
D. Require that operating components issue "Letters
of Instruction" to each officer (1) which spc;rii'y e irrent
respol.ls:ll-i:1itic ti, oh;jcic;tfV(n-r sold rr.nrl (?) W1111-01
will be used as the base against which performance is
evaluated.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
ONF IDE TI"
Agenda
Page 2
E. Establish the practice that the rated employee
participates in preparing the list of duties he has
performed during the period. Prohibit, however, the
practice of the Rating Officer asking the employee to
prepare his own fitness report to include evaluations
or evaluative statements.
F. Supplement fitness report with a statement of
accomplishments for the period prepared by the employee.
G. Require that the grade of the position held
by the employee be included in the fitness report.
H. Require that Reviewing and Rating Officers'
grade be indicated on the fitness report.
1. Require that the rated employee certify that
the Rating Officer discussed his performance with him;
require the rated employee's comment on the extent to
which adequate goals or standards for his performance
had been established. (See "Letters of Instruction"
proposal -- Item D above.)
J. Require that Reviewing Officer's comments be
shown to rated employee.
K. Adopt use of plus and minus ratings (e.g.,
"Strong Plus") to provide greater differentiation in
evaluations. (See Table of Distribution of Overall
Ratings, Tab E.)
L. Revise current practices of sending Chief of
Station fitness reports to the field for review and
signature in(view of security problems involved (AF
suggestion).
M. Prohibit promotion recommendations on fitness
reports by Rating and Reviewing Officers.
Approved For Releasq,24 0 /; j ,2,$ -;QI RV 82-00357R000600i 70025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
UN W EN HAL
Agenda
Page 3
0. Prohibit comments in fitness reports con-
cerning an employee's marital status, his spouse, or
members of his family; comments concerning medical
problems or other sensitive personal matters. Repre-
sentational ability should be commented on only with
reference to the employee and not to his or her family.
(When necessary to provide the the CS
the record, a memorandum
Sensitive Files
P. Require that Rating Officensinquire of women
employees their preference as to title to be used in
the fitness report: Mrs., Miss, Ms., or no title.
Q. Prohibit comments concerning race, color,
creed, or national origin of employee being rated.
21 A
25X1
Approved For Release 20{ f,Y.T28'? rM-f'?R$2-00357R0006001'70025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
C NHIDEIrIIAL
MINUTES
?OF THE
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
17 JULY 1972
PRESENT :
Chairman:
Members :
Guests :
Secretary
AGENDA: Fitness Reports
Agenda Items were reviewed by Members and the follow-
ing recommendations were made:
Item
A. Require that narrative evaluation by Raters and
Reviewers be related to Evaluation Board precepts, which
call for evaluative judgments to be made on the basis of:
(1) quality and level of performance; productivity,(2) growth
potential,(3) personal characteristics and qualifications.
Members agreed to the need for Raters to
address themselves to the evaluation factors listed
above in preparing narrative evaluations. It was the
consensus that Reviewing Officers should bear in
mind the factors but would not be required to make
specific comments on each factor in preparing the
Reviewing Officers statements.
B. In connection with the above, establish a pro-
cedure to rubber stamp or overprint on the fitness report
form the statement: "Signature of employee and rating they have officer thEe preceptsdfordthe
undndersta
grade level concerned."
Nearly all members were against the stamping or
printing of the proposed statement on the Fitness
Report form. All agreed that the promotion criteria
specified in the Precepts (Section entitled "Factors
to be considered by the Board in Evaluating Officers")')
vered by
should be made available to all employees co
d revi PWer
an
Pr
+ he Evaluation c l e -in and to raters
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
NPIC/D-329/72
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
SUBJECT : The Abominable Fitness Report vs Your Friendly
and Personal Career Audit
1. We continue to struggle with one or another version of the fitness
report, even though we know that it does not satisfy, has never satisfied,
and often is contrary in effect to our individual and management needs. I
propose that we try a different approach to satisfying these needs.
2. Our needs are for ways of communicating about:
a. The individual's views on the work he is and will be doing,
and on the strengths and weaknesses of his capability to do that and
other kinds of work in the future.
b. The responsible supervisor's views on the work that the
individual is and might be doing, and on the strengths and weaknesses
of-the individual's capability to do that and other kinds of work in
the future.
c. An understanding -- implicit or explicit -- about what lies
ahead for the individual.
3. I propose for your consideration that we experiment with what I
would call a "career audit" technique, in which both parties -- the em-
ployee and the supervisor -- exchange and record their views about the
employee and his career. No number or letter ratings would be used in
.the record of this exchange. A narrative summary and assessment would be
given -- prepared by the supervisor.
4. I have attached a sample record of such a career audit to illu-
strate the kind of approach I have in mind. The purpose of the record
format would be to assist both the supervisor and the employee to discuss
and explore in an organized way those aspects of the employee's career,
performance, and potential which are most relevant to the employee's
future. The record also would serve as a reference relevant to consid-
erations of personnel actions affecting the employee.
5. I see several ways in which the "career audit" would be of value.
It could be used in combination with the Fitness Report, such as using it
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
SUBJECT: The Abominable Fitness Report vs Your Friendly
and Personal Career Audit
one year and the Fitness Report the next year. Or, it could be used at
the initiative of the supervisor or the employee. My concept at this time
is that the "career audit" be tried in place of the Fitness Report, and
that it be used at least once every other year. Also, we should consider
different ways in which the audit discussion could be made most useful --
for example, it might involve not only the employee and his supervisor but
also a career counselor or another officer with more knowledge about careers
and training than that possessed by the supervisor.
6. I suggest that we seek an opinion by management psychologists on
this kind of approach -- it may have been tried elsewhere. If we are
given an encouraging-opinion, I suggest that we introduce it in a limited
way to gain some experience with it at a sampling of various grade levels,
I have some doubt about its use at the lower grade levels.
7. You might also wish to seek the reaction of the Management
Advisory Group.
Executive Director
National Photographic Interpretation Center
Attachment:
Instructions for Career Audit
2
Approved F 1 l ~C7'S2-W57R000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CAREER AUDIT
PAGE 1 - SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT
This is to be written by the supervisor after the factors on the following pages
have been reviewed, discussed and recorded by the employee and the supervisor.
The Summary and assessment will include the main points from that review and
discussion as well as a narrative discussion by the supervisor concerning the
employee's future capabilities in terms of the employee's strengths and weaknesses.
Future capabilities should include his expected near future performance in a known
job, and any generalizations which can be made about long term career potential.
PAGE 2 - EXPERIENCE AND INTERESTS
Include brief descriptions of the kind of job, and useful facts such as dates,
grade, title, location.
Do not include experience which the employee and the supervisor agree is
unlikely to be relevant to considerations of the employee's future.
When listing jobs in which the employee exercised leadership and supervisory
functions, indicate the number of persons led.
The employee and the supervisor should discuss the employee's present and
future career interests and record an agreed version of that discussion. The
discussion and the record should include the supervisor's comments and opinions
concerning the employee's capabilities pertinent to his present and future career
interests.
PAGE 3 - TRAINING GAINED AND TRAINING NEEDS
Include subject matter of education and training courses, length of course, and
year or years.
The employee and the supervisor should discuss the kinds of training which
would assist the employee in the performance of his present job, and the kinds of
training which would be useful for the employee's career development. They should
record an agreed version of that discussion, which should include the supervisor's
comments and opinions concerning the employee's prospects for training
opportunities.
Under the supervisor's and employee's signatures, the next senior officer should
sign, indicating that he has read the report. If this reviewing official
which wishes will be
comment on the audit he may do so in a memorandum, one copy
provided to the supervisor.
Note: Copies of the audit will be provided to the employee, to the supervisor and to
the personnel offices maintaining personnel files on the employee.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 Approved or a ease 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
NAME John Doe
DATE 10June 1972
PRESENT POSITION: Chief of the Eastern Research Branch of the Research Division, Office of Intelligence Assessments.
AGENCY SERVICE: 11 yrs. TOTAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE: 11 yrs. TIME IN PRESENT POSITION: 1 yr.
SUMMARY and ASSESSMENT
Mr. Doe has been and continues to be a highly competent intelligence analyst and writer. He has extended his
proven competence in the area of Indochina to his analytical work in OIA on the Far Eastern area.
The supervisor is of the opinion that Mr. Doe should not aim at or be encouraged for assignments in which
supervisory responsibilities are an important part of the job, at least for the forseeable future. His strong potential and
paramount enjoyment are more likely to be realized as an analyst and writer.
Mr. Doe's talents would be equally productive in OCI or OIA analytical work. He has indicated some preference for
working on Indochina, and Supervisor will consider--and ask OCI to consider--assigning him to work on that area.
Supervisor will look for and arrange a short course on supervision to assist Doe in strengthening himself in his present
supervisory responsibilities. Supervisor also will continue to counsel Doe in this area.
SECRET
(WHEN Fri(,,[ P9 IN)
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R00060
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
EXPERIENCE
(TO INCLUDE: DOMESTIC, OVERSEAS,
CIVILIAN, MILITARY)
Newspaper work
CAREER AUDIT
- Summers & part time from 1957 to 61, as a - Mr. Doe continues to be most interested in
copy boy and local news reporter. intelligence analysis and reporting as a career. He
d that kind of work including the
Intelligence Analyst
enjoys oing
writing involved.
He feels most comfortable and confident
working on the Indochina area, for which his
- CIA/OCI, Indochina area, 1961-1966. 91
Current intelligence analysis and reporting on academic training and the bulk of his work
military and political activities. experience best qualifies him.
- When queried by Mr. Supervisor, Mr. Doe
Intelligence Analyst indicated that he much preferred analysis and
reporting work to administrative and supervisory
- CIA/OSR, USSR area, 1966-1967. tasks, but that he was prepared to cope with the
Loaned to OSR's Regional Analysis Division for latter if necessary to gain grade and pay
one year and assigned to current analysis and increases.
reporting on Soviet ground forces. - Mr. Doe has a strong interest in spending a
specific period of time--say, two years-- working
Intelligence Analyst in the clandestine services to gain experience
with clandestine source reporting procedures.
CIA/OCI, Indochina area, 1967-1969. Mr. Supervisor agreed to investigate the
Returned to current work on military and possibility of arranging such an assignment, but
political activities in Indochina. commented that the "cost" to OIA in terms of
services of one officer for that long
th
l
i
e
os
ng
Also assigned as a section chief, responsible for seemed excessive compared to the value to be
two other analysts. gained.
We then discussed the possibility of Doe
Intelligence Analyst returning to the work of OCI. Doe agreed that
he would enjoy working in OCI again,
CIA/OIA, Far East area, 1969-7 1. depending, of course, on the assignment. We
- Assigned on loan to OIA's Research Division to discussed the possibility of Doe accepting an
do assessments concerning political, economic analyst assignment in OCI--one without
and military aspects of Japan, South Korea, supervisory duties. Supervisor urged that Doe
Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Phillippines. consider doing so because it is Supervisor's
judgment that Doe's main strengths--present and
Branch Chief potential--are as an analyst, not as a supervisor
or manager.
Eastern Research Branch, Research Div, OIA, - We agreed that we would investigate with OCI a
1971-72. Responsible for assessments described return to that office.
in foregoing item. Supervise three other analysts
and a secretary.
NAME: DATE:
Approved For Release 2006144R4-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
 /11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
CAREER AUDIT"
NAME John Doe PAGE Three
TRAINING GAINED
(TO INCLUDE: COLLEGE,
UNIV, SPECIAL COURSES)
- B.A.-International Relations, U. of Chicago, - Mr. Doe feels that if he continues in his present
assignment, it would strengthen his performance
1955-59.
Sui.leFvl51U11 dUIU Illallayelllelll,. vUC Ulu 1JUL ruluvv
of any specific courses relevant to his needs, and
~.'u
ate what minht he
e rv isor will investi
p
g
Supervision course, one week, given by OTR.
1968.
SIGNED:
SIGNED: REVIEWED:
SECRET
)WHEN RI(4.E91h)
Institute and the Uept. of Agriculture.
I
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170025-4
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170025-4