SELECTION CRITERIA FOR ATTENDANCE AT SENIOR SCHOOLS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2008
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 25, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FRO EXTENSION NO.
OTE 83-1030
DATE
1026 CofC 23 September 1983
TO: (OFRcer designation, room number, and DATE
building) OFFICER'S COMMENTS (Number each comment fo show From whom
INITIALS b whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED FORWARDED
~p
1/Fd~D24, HQS.
'8ga
y9a
6
--
I
,
ti
rlr ~ '~' (~;'_'rN
~
(
:~ 111115 ll
,
o
~~~LIL
~
~ '
-~~
,
,o ,
3.
A Q ~-
2 6 S
P 1983
4.
5.
o /~
~?
~
e ~ /ns ~,
6.
7. ,
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM ~~ O USE PREVIOUS
I-79 EDITIONS
DD/A Registry
-y33
Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optionol)
Selection Criteria for Attendance at Senior Schools
F M:
~arry E. Fitzwater ?,
EXTENSION.
~
NO.
DDA 83-4338/1.
Deputy Director for Administration
DATE
7D 24 Hqs ~.~ ~;- - _ ,
26 September 1983
TO: (OfReer desigmfion, room number,:_ond
) ~ - ~~ -
ildi
b
DATE
-
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment fo ahow hom whom
ng
u
~. '.? =~
INITIALS
; b whom. Draw o line ocroaa column aher each comment,)
` ,. ._
. RECEIVED ?
FORWARDED
,;
1Fxecutive .Director :;
-
-~ .:
John, :- . ~.
~ ~ Y'
-
t
t
of i
b
d
h
at
_
7~z~ ~,,,~~~-~ M~ ~,
~
~
~
~
~~, _ ~t
~ ~
> f
~` ?
.~, ~;
eres
n
may
e .
e
tac
;The
"to=you, however, I~~d,eubt::that you
d
t
th
d
d
i
su
~. ~
.~
.
A~
~ ~ ~ .~
~
~ ~
~-
~
~r~ -
a an
a
se
e:
at
rpr
will~be ~
,
~
`$
`
~
`~
,.
~
s ~
r
tio
b
~ v
~ ,
4
l,s f "4
~;~ '
'~
3
?_~
~~~~L_
?y ~~k'ti ~~
''t.
li a"~'~
,~
M
n
se
va
o
++ ~:. ~ f1 Ufa, .t_ N?{ t~
~.,~ . A,, ?
w~?
Deputy I7ireeT:o~~o :
.
~?~
;~~
~~~~,~
I.ige ~
Central;Fnte~
`~
' ~~
~;=
~ - ~,.
.
-x..~~~~
~
,
4. 9 z,~
y
~~~~
~
~
..
~.
a ~
B i~t[s
.a1}
.~
.~!,
~ ~
~
ai. ~.d r - ^ i
~
-- .14 .w.n
~
a~ , '' ~s
.
~r '-.,~~ ~ ~..,~
3~r
-r
~
...
7~
_
r
fir,:-
6 ,
7.
-
i++
1
-- 8.
r
,~
10.
a
~ i
DDA:~IEFitzwater:'~ng (26 Sept 83)
11
I ~ Distribution:
.
I
~ Orig PRS - DDCI via E?iDIR w/att
1 - ER w/att
j
1 - DDS Subj w/att
~,
i
I
1 - DD.~ Chrono
~
1 - HFF Chrono
33.
Att: ~?Temo dtd 23 Sept 83 to DDA
I
~ fr D/OTE, same Subj
__
la.
~
I
~ (DDA 83-4338)
15
I
(
.
I
FJ~,~ ~~ ~ USEOITICIOUS
I-79
Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
OTE 83-1030
23 September 1983
P~EMORAPJDUh1 FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
Director of Training and Education
SUBJECT: Selection Criteria for Attendance at Senior Schools
1. At a recent DDA Staff Meeting, you made mention of the
fact that the Deputy Director had expressed some interest in or
concern about the selection criteria employed for choosing both
students and speakers for senior schools. The Office of Training
and Education (OTE) is neither responsible for nor consulted about
the selection of Agency speakers to address programs at senior schools,
and I do not feel competent to address that part of the DDCI's concern.
However, as regards the selection of students to attend senior schools,
OTE is involved both in the conduct of the Training Selection Board
and subsequent processing and support of selected candidates. In this
area, I believe OTE has data and observations which may be of interest
to Mr. P~cMahon.
2. Based upon my ttvo-and-a-half years as Chairman, Training
Selection Board, I believe that the Board is an effective instrument
and that it consistently selected viable candidates for senior school
programs. By saying that the selected candidates are viable, I am
avoiding deliberately any statement which would imply that these candidates
consistently represent the best the Agency has to offer. The point I want
to make is that the Board is selecting the best officers among those nominated
to it. For a variety of reasons, the nominations made to the Board by the
Career Services often do not represent the best the Agency has to offer
nor those officers who would benefit most from such a training experience.
I am aware of no case, however, tiihere the Board has selected an individual
to attend a senior school where there was any indication that the nominee
did not meet reasonable tests of benefit and representation.
3. In the course of the executive development survey that this
Office conducted in all of the directorates, the subject of attendance
at senior schools was addressed. In the data gathered by the survey,
I believe there are at least partial answers to the question of why
nominations presented to the Training Selection Board frequently fall
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
SUBJECT: Selection Criteria for Attendance at Senior Schools
below the high standards ideally desired. There is attached hereto
a summary of data from our survey relating to senior school attendance.
I believe this data is interesting and self-ex p1anatory and that it may
be of interest to the DDCI.
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 ~L
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
23 September 1983
SUBJECT: Selection Criteria for Attendance a Senior Schools
1. The DDCI recently raised the question of selection
criteria used for attendance at a senior school. The recent OTE
survey of Executive Development provides some insights based on
interviews with 87 senior Agency executives. Some of the data
derive from the structured portion of the interview, but most
relate to personal observation and experience. Our conclusions
are necesarily tentative, but appear to be consistent with other
sources of information.
2. The following questions come to mind when one considers
Agency selection of officers to attend the senior schools:
--How do the component senior managers view the senior
schools? Do thev think the senior schools are highy valuable?
What bene its are expected -- for the individual, the component
and the Agenev?
--A slight majority (5796) of Agency senior managers finds
the senior schools highly valuable, based on survey responses.
Benefits to the individual include contacts with counterparts in
other government agencies, and the opportunity to take time to
reflect on one's career and profession. There exists the notion
of senior schools as training plus reward. Benefits for the
component or directorate appear to be more elusive.
--Do senior managers think senior schools are essential in
the preparation o Agenev o icers or senior level
responsibilities in their own components or directorate
No, even the strongest supporters of the senior schools do
not make them a requirement for executive status.
--Does the view of senior schools differ across
directorates?
We found the lowest support for senior schools in the DO.
The other services found them more valuable. Executives in two
services-- the DI and "E" service-- ranked senior schools as key
events in the preparation of their executives. We attribute this
to the vital need for officers in these services to develop their
external contacts, plus the fact that many of them have attended
a senior school .
--Does the view of senior schools differ according to
whether component senior managers themselves have attended senior
schools?
Yes. Executives who have themselves attended senior schools
are more likely to recommend them for their subordinates. This
may account for the somevrhat lower support in the DO for the
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
senior schools. Only three out of the 23 DO executives
interviewed had attended a senior school.
--Are there significant differences among the senior
schools with some rated more valuable than others? Are there
unique opportunities o eyed by di Brent schools?
Yes, based on the interviews it appears certain schools --
The Royal College of Defense Studies, the National Defense
University and the Harvard Executive Program-- are uniformly well
received. For other programs there are mixed reviews. Brookings
stands out as the least valuable of the lot. ICAF appears to
offer a good program for officers in the imagery field. There was
also a high attendance rate at the war colleges by DI officers
involved in military analysis.
--What criteria are used by the nominatin components in
choosing candidates or senior schools? Are the "best" officers
-judged by either per ormance or potential- always chosen?
Performance and the potential to move on to higher levels of
responsibility in the Agency are factors in the selection of
candidates for the senior schools, but not always the-only
factors. Frequently other factors come into play and good
officers, but not the best are made available. One deputy
director said we must send only our best because they "represent"
the Agency.
of icers to attend the shorter programs at Harvard and FEI
than
the ten-month programs at the war colleges for this reason?
Yes, one executive revealed this to be true from his own
personal experience. He had been scheduled to attend a senior
school, but was withdrawn at the last moment to fill a more
urgently-needed line position. In general, long courses pose
problems. Less than half (48%) of the executives interviewed
thought long courses were practical for executive development.
4396 said they would have difficulty releasing their best officers
for programs longer than four weeks.
--What other factors enter into the nomination process? Are
officers requently nominated because o burn out or or other
negative reasons?
We surmise that this is the case. Training and rotationals
in general have on occasion been used to move sei?~nlior officers
out of the way temporarily.
--Are the individual's ocvn development needs considered? Do
individuals request to attend the senior schools? Po individuals
sometimes refuse to attend a senior school for personal reasons
Many times the only way high potential officers can assure
--Is releasibilit_y a factor? Are the best officers not
nominated because they cannot be spared? Is it easier to get
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
their attendance at a senior school is to publicize Htell their
desire to do so. Otherwise they may not be spared. One
executive we interviewed had turned down an opportunity to attend
a senior school for personal reasons, and then regretted having
lost his "one chance." It is generally understood that there is
just one such opportunity during one's career. Officers are
expected to take advantage of this opportunity, regardless of the
personal or career implications.
--How competitive is the selection process at the component
and directorate levels? Are there more candidates than slots
available? Are some senior schools more competitive than others
The selection process is not that competitive. One
executive remarked that there was plenty of room for any
candidate he wished to recommend. In general training and
rotational assignments opportunities identified by career service
panels frequently go unused for lack of a suitable candidate.
The assignments panel process is considered too complicated. It
is often difficult to arrange replacements for those who move on
and even more so to find positions for those returning .
Bureaucratically, it is easier not to nominate a top candidate
for a senior school. This seems to be true even for the more
prestigious programs.
--Is attendance at a senior school a factor in the
consideration of executive promotions? If so, should the
selection process be improved? How? Is it viewed as part of a
broader program t'or executive development in the A~ency'
Yes and no. The Agency managers in our interviews mostly
were concerned with the development of management skills, such
as budgeting and personnel planning. In their view, it would not
be cost effective to send someone to a ten-month senior school
just for these reasons The senior schools were not seen as
essential. In fact, many said they were not cost effective--too
much investment for a limited return. Problems in the selection
of the appropriate candidates for the senior schools are similar
to those encountered in other aspects of executive development
such as assignments outside the parent career service.
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
IS ATTENDANCE AT PRESTIGIOUS SCHOOLS HIGHLY VALUABLE
CELL COI~ITEIVTS ARE....
~IEiEC
ID@~IE
CELL COUr1TS
ROn~ PERCE.fJ7
COLUPaN PERCErJT
E~
YES
3ES
I,LGiOLI
rJ0
S
U
fJSURE
T
ROW
OTALS
DDI
1
9
1
1
I
2
I
12
I
75.0
I
8.3
I
16.7
1
100.0
20.9
1
7.7
I
11.1
I
16.?_
I--
------
---
------
---
------
1
DDO
I
7
1
6
1
d
i
21
I
33.3
1
2.8.6
1
3t>.1
I
100.0
i
1e.3
I
46.2
I
44.4
!
28.4
1--
------
---
------
---
------
I
DUST
1
9
1
3
1
2
1
14
i
64.3
1
21.4
I
14.3
I
100.0
I
20.9
I
23.1
I
11.1
1
18.y
1--------------------------I
DDA
I
10
1
2
1
4
1
16
!
62.5
I
12.5
I
25.0
1
100.D
i
23.3
I
15.4
1
22.2
1
21.6
1--
------
---
------
---
------
I
OTHER
I
8
I
i
t
2
1
ii
1
72.7
I
9.1
1
1ti.2
I
100.0
I
18.6
i
7.7
I
11.1
i
14.9
TGTAL rl
43
13
18
74
RO'v1 PCT
5b.1
17.6
24.3
1D0.0
COL PCT
100.0
100.0
1G0.0
lOD.G
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85BO1152ROOO2OO31OOO2-2
UI~ICLASSIFIED
IS ATTENDANCE AT PRESTIGIOUS SCHOOLS HIGhILY VALUABLE
CELL COrJTEn1TS ARE....
CELL CUUrJTS
t2OW PERCENT
COLU~HN PERCEfJT
OFFICE
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY OFF
DIR
ROW
--YES-------n1o--~--UI~ISURE- TOTALS
1 3 1 1 1 f 4
I 75.0 1 25.0 1 I 100.0
I 7.0 I 7.7 1 1 5.4
1-------r-------------------I
1 3 ~1 I 2 I 5
I 60.`B' ~I I 40.0 I 100.0
1 7.0 I I 11.1 I
{--------------------------1
I 17 I 6 I Fs f
1 54.8 I 19.4 I 25.8 I
I 39,5 1 40.2 I 44.4 I
i--------------------------1
i 17 i 6 I 5 I
60.7 I 21.4 1 17.9 i
1 39.5 I 46.2 I 27.8 I
i--------------------------I
2 I I 1 I
1 66.7 i I 33.3 1
I 4.7 1 I 5.6 1
I--------------------------I
6 . r5
31
100.0
41.9
28
1G0.0
37.8
3
100.0
4.1
1
1
1
1
2
I
3
I
33.3
I
I
66.7
1
100.0
I
2.3
~
1
11.1
I
4.1
TOTAL r,!
13
18
74
ROW PCT
58,
17,6
24,3
100.0
COL PCT
1~~0.0
1~U.0
100.;1
MISSING CASES =
13
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85BO1152ROOO2OO31OOO2-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2.,SS I F I ED
KEY EVEr1T 12
EXTERtJr1L TRAIr~IIraG - FULL YEAR
CELL COt1TEr1TS ....
CELL COl1r;TS
FLOW PERCEr,IT
COLUi~~1rJ PtRCtrdT
fSEYlEUEi
JIS
.l2
QiBEC
ROW
IQBDIE
YES
NO
TOTALS
DDI
I
9
1
2
1
11
I
81.,9
I
18.2
I
100.0
i
52.9
I
50.0
I
52.4
I-----------------I
DDO
1
2
I
2
1
4
I
50.0
I
50.0
I
100.0
i
11.8
I
50.0
f
19.U
I-
-------
---
------
I
fJGST
I 1
I
I
1
~
1100.0
I
I
10U.0
I
5.9
I
1
4.8
I-
-------
---------
1
DDA
I
1
1
i
1
I
100.0
I
I
100.0
1
5.9
I
I
4.Fi
I-
-------
--------
I
OTHER
I
4
1
I
4
1100.0
1
I
100.0
I
23.5
1
I
ly.C
TOTAL tJ
17
4
21
ROW PCT
b1.0
19.0
100.0
CCL PCT
11)00
100.0
100.0
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
ui~i~~ASSIFIED
KEY EVErJT 12
EXTERrJnL TRAINIIJG - FULL YEAR
CELL COrJTEr1TS~:
CELL COUr~TS
FLOW PERCENT
COLUMN PERCEr~iT
K 0 Ir1
TOTALS
I 1
1
2
I I lao.
I
loo.o
I i 50.0
I------------- ---
I
I
9.5
I 1
I 1
I
2
1 50.0
I 50.0
I
100.0
5.9
I 2 .0
I
9.5
I------
--
---
- ----I
OFFICE I 6
1
I
6
DIRECTOR
11CU
0
!
I
100
0
,
.
I 35
3
I
I
.
2b.6
.
I------
--
--
------
t
DEPUTY OFF I 7
i
1
7
DIR 1180.0
i
I
100.0
I 41.2
I
I
33.3
TOTAL r.l
ROIL FC7
COL I'CT
I 2
1 I 3
1 66.7
33.3 t 100.0
I ll.t~
I 25.0 1 14.3
i------- ---------I
1 1 I I
{ 100.0 i 1
I---5-9~,--------I
4
19.U
lUU.O
1
100.U
4.8
21
100.0
100,0
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 ? Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
_>' EVEIVT 13
EXTERhlAL TRAIPdifJG - OTHER
CELL COf~ITE(?1TS ARE....
CELL COUtJTS
KEW PERCEfdT
COLUMN PERCENT
ROW
YES fJ0 TOTALS
DD 1 1 I 1 I 2
I 50.0 I 50.0 I 100.0
1 6.7 I 33.3 1 11.1
i-----------------I
ADD 1
t
1
1
1
1
I
2
50.0
i
50.0
1
100.0
6.7
t
33.3
1
11.1
I-----------------I
OFFICE t 5 1 i 5
OIRECTUR i .100.0 I I 100.0
333 I I 27.8
1-----------------I
DEPUTY OFF I 8 1 I 8
DIR 1100.0 I I 100.0
I 5:5.3 I I 44.4
I-----------------I
STAFF I 1 1 1 1
I 1100.0 I 100.0
1 I 33.3 I 5.6
TOTAL fl ~' 15 3 16
r~(Ow PCT 833 16.7 100.0
CCL PCT 160.0 100.0 lOU.U
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002=2 ~LASSIF IED
KEY E~EfJT 13
EXTERr1AL TRAIiJIrJG - OTHER
CELL COf~1TEr~1TS ARE....
CELL COUNTS
ROW PERCE(JT
COLUMN PERCENT
I-----------------1
i 3 1 I 3
1100.0 I I 100.0
t X0.0 1 I 16.7
I-----------------I
I 2 ! 1 2
1100,0 I I 100,0
i 13,3 I I 11.1
-----------------
TOTAL f1 15 3 18
ROW PCT 83,3 16.7 100,0
COL PCT 100,0 100.0 1G0.0
r,~ISSING CASES - 69
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
uwt,LgSSIFIEO
LACK SKILLS 3
WAR COLLEGE
CELL CorJTENTS AR.E....
CELL COUrJTS
RO~rJ PERCEPIT
COLUMPJ PERCENT
DIf3EC
IIIBOIE
YES
NG
RO~~J
TOTALS
DDI 1
2
I
2
I
4
I
50.0
1
50.0
1
100.0
1
50.0
I
40.U
I
44.4
I-
-------
--
-------
I
DDO 1
2
1
1
1
3
I
667
I
33.3
I
100.0
1
50.0
1
20.0
I
33.5
I-
-------
--
-------
I
DDST I
1
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
I
100.0
I
1
20.0
I
11.1
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
UNCLASSIFIED
LACK SKILLS 3
WAF2 CGLLEGE
CELL COrITEfJT ....
CELL COU~JTS
FZ04i PEkCENT
COLUMN PERCEfJT
R 0 4i
YES ~JO TGTALS
DD ! I 3 I 3
I 1100.0 I 100.0
1 I 6U.0 I 33.3
I-----------------i
ADD I 1 1 1 1
I 1 100.0 I 100.0
I I 20.U I 11.1
I-----------------1
OFFICE 1 2 1 1 2
DIRECTOR 11C0.0 ~ I 100.0
I 50,0 I 1 22.2
I-----------------I
DEPUTY OFF I 1 1 1 1 2
DIR 1 50.0 I 50.0 I 100.0
I 25.0 ! 20.0 I 22.2
I-----------------I
STAFF I 1 1 I 1
1 100.0 I I 100,0
i 25,0 I I 11.1
TOTAL tJ 4 5 9
f"tON PCT 444 55.6 100.0
COL PCT 100,0 lUO.G lOU.U
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
viv~~ASSIFIED
nFtE LOrJGER THnfJ FOUF: Ir1EEK COURSES nLL RIGHT
CELL COrJTErJTS ARE....
CELL COU~JTS
ROnI PEKCENT
COLUh1N PERCEt~JT
DIBEC
ZOBOIE
TOTAL fd
f? 0'.~1 P C T
COL PCT
RJw
YtS NO Ui?JSURE TOTltLS
8 76
1CO.U 100.0 1C0.('
Approved For Release 2008/06/27 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
 Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2
UPJCLASSIFIED
ARE LO(VGER THAN FOUR WEEK COURSES ALL RIGHT
CELL CO!vTEr1TS ARE....
CELL COU~JTS
ROW PERCErdT
COLU~~1~1 PERCEr1T
ROW
ra0 U^1SURE TOTALS
' 00 I (2/ I 12> I I 4
50. I 50. I 1 100.0
r 1 5,6 t 6.3 1 I 5.3
ADD
~ OFFICE
DIRECTOR
~ CEPUTY OFF
DIR
STAFF
~/
OTHER
i-----.---------------------I
I ~ t ~ I 1 I
1 50. I 25. 1 25.0 I
I 5.6 I 3.1 I 12.5 I
1---- -------r------------I
I ~ 1 11/q~ I 3 i
1 44. I 47. I 8.8 I
I 41.7 I 50.0 I 37.5 I
1--------------------------I
4
100.0
5.3
3 4
100.0
44.7
I
16
i
11
1
2
1
29
I
55.2
I
37.9
I
b.9
I
100.11
1
44.4
I
34.4
I
25.0
1
38.2
1--
------
---
------
---
------
t
l
1
1
I
2
1
3
I
33.3
I
l
60.7
1
100.0
I
2.8
i
I
2~.0
i
3.9
I--
------
---
------
---
------
I
i
I 2
i
l
2
I
1100.0
I
I
100.0
i
1 6.3
I
I
2.0
TGTAL I~ 36
32
8
76
I;OW
PCT
47.4
42.1
10.5
100.0
CGL
PCT
1U0,0
1t~0.U
1~)G.0
1~~G.0
Approved For Release 2008/06/27: CIA-RDP85B01152R000200310002-2