HRMCTF REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 13, 2013
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: September 4, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

AIMMTMTCMDAMTUr - TMTPMILL.L-T-T-R.V-MMTV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
4.
4 SEP 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence
FROM:
Director of Information Resources
SUBJECT: HRMCTF Report
OIR's response to the HRMCTF Report is presented in two
parts. (Both are attached.) Attachment 1 is a summary of
the views of OIR employees, reflecting consensus opinions
but in some cases also incorporating minority viewpoints.
It is organized according to the features in the HRMCTF
Report. Because OIR is a diverse office in terms of
occupational categories, I believe Attachment 1 provides a
set of views that are representative of a wide spectrum of
the Agency population. Attachment 2 presents my views on
the features of the Report and some suggestions on how to
proceed from here.
Attachments:
As Stated
cc: C/MPSS
ADMINISTRATI USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
SUBJECT: HRMCTF Report
Distribution:
Original - addressee
1 - C/MPSS
1 - C/DSD
1 - C/MPD
1 - C/ISD
- C/PDD
1 - C/ACSD
1 - C/IHS
2 - OD/OIR
DD/OGI)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Attachment 1
SUMMARY OF OIR EMPLOYEE COMMENTS
OIR is an Office with a wide diversity of personnel in terms of grade
levels, experience and occupations. Responses to the Human Resources Task
Force Report are reflective of this variance, ranging in scope from the
generally supportive to the strongly opposed. As such, we have included as
part of our submission comments from two individuals within the Office whose
positions represent these opposing viewpoints.
We have summarized the feature-specific remarks on the following pages.
There are positive comments, particularly about the proposed benefits program,
dual career tracks, and the concept of improved career development and
training systems. There is, however, a fair amount of skepticism about a
number of the plan's features. Much of the skepticism is driven by what are
perceived as serious shortcomings in many features of the proposal, and the
lack of sufficient information in the Task Force Report. Some of the more
general comments are included below because they convey employees' broad
concerns about equity, the need to change, the cost of the program, and the
perceived inability of Agency components to implement the plan. They provide
one barometer of our employees' opinions about the proposed package.
- Equity - Many employees are concerned about the fairness
of the proposed system and believe that changes could
increase competition and hamper teamwork. Comments reflect:
1) concern that the system is biased toward "superstars" at
the expense of solid performers, support people, and/or
employees in professions with only small Agency
representation, 2) perceptions that education rather than
experience and ability to perform will determine
advancement, 3) concern about management's ability to
equitably administer an incentive pay system, and 4)
skepticism that automating the personnel management system
will necessarily create better managers.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
py1iN131KAIIVE. - INIERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
- Need for Change - Most employees think there is no need
for a total system overhaul. They believe that we could
correct many of the "problems" with the current pay system
and personnel management practices within the framework of
the current compensation system. The majority of OIR
employees would seemingly opt for the current system with
appropriate changes, rather than an entirely new system with
so many unknowns.
- Cost of the Program - A number of employees are concerned
about the cost of the program. They question the assertion
that all employees performing acceptably would be better off
financially under a system that is designed to cost only 2-3
percent more than the current system. Straight mathematics
would indicate that either more money is required or the
average employee will lose out. Others wonder if money
spent automating the personnel evaluation and career
development systems will be money well spent since it could
lead to a growing and costly Agency bureaucracy.
- Ability to Implement the Program - Many employees believe
that we may be 'biting off more than we can chew", and are
specifically concerned about the ability of the Directorate
of Administration, and the Office of Training and Education
in particular, to handle the increased responsibilities
indicated by the proposal.
- Quality and Trustworthiness of the Report - There are a
number of comments about the "sketchiness" of the
report--that there just isn't sufficient information on many
of the features of the program to make an informed
judgment. There is also the perception that the study is a
"sales pitch" and is not objective. Quite a few employees
point out that the report contains a basic inconsistency.
It asserts that "employees driven primarily by money do not
work for CIA;. ..and that the proposed system is designed to
provide recognition and incentives...to reinforce a sense of
accomplishment, and to make CIA a more attractive place to
work". Nevertheless, the proposed package focuses on
revising the pay and compensation system to provide
employees with greater financial reward.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
(:) PROPOSED PAY AND CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURES
FEATURE 1 - OCCUPATIONALLY DEFINED BANDS
The majority of OIR employees express significant concern about the
proposed pay and classification structure. Some think that banding is a good
idea because it will provide greater flexibility and improved salary
potential, and will be an attractive factor in Agency recruitment and
retention. Tbe majority, however, are concerned about the effectiveness and
applicability of market surveys, the lack of specificity concerning banding
categories outside analytic and managerial bands, the perceived difficulty of
moving between occupational categories when making a career change or going on
a rotation, and the apparent rigidity and reliance on training for advancement
found in the secretarial system and implied by this report.
Positive Comments
- banding will eliminate
the artificial grade distinctions
of the GS system
- should provide improved salary
potential
- delegated authority for job classification
will allow managers greater flexibility in
staffing and provide better capability to
react to specific needs
- will provide broader opportunities for
growth within a specific assignment
without requiring formal promotion
Concerns
possible inequities between
occupational categories
in the creation and
functioning of the banding
structures
what will happen to more
unique, specialized
occupations? will they be
lost in the shuffle?
banding won't necessarily
result in greater salary
potential across the board
how will movement along a
band and advancement
between bands occur?
don't see how we will be
able to fund such a drastic
change
loss of the "identifiable
status" of the GS system
many question the use of
civilian market surveys in
light of job uniqueness and
area cost of living
(Cont'd)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
AntsiTMICTRATTVF ? THTFPHAI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 1 - OCCUPATIONALLY DEFINED BANDS (Cont'd)
Positive Comments Concerns
- concept not fully
understood by all; more
information is needed; when
will it be available?
FEATURE 2 - INCENTIVE PAY
Office employees are universally concerned about the incentive pay
proposal. While most favor the concept of pay for performance, the vast
majority are skeptical about the fairness and objectivity of the
implementation of incentive pay. Many in the Office, particularly those in
support positions, feel that incentive pay will largely benefit higher level
employees at the expense of those in support and other lower level occupations.
Positive Comments Concerns
- concept of pay for performance is good
- likely to encourage better performance
and increase motivation
- should provide employees with better than
average compensation
many question managers'
ability to implement
incentive pay fairly and
objectively
likelihood of inequities in
implementation; concern
that most money will flow
to high demand occupations,
e.g. computer programmers
- increase in competition at
the expense of teamwork;
creating "winners" at the
expense of others
many are skeptical about
our ability to obtain the
additional funds required,
and the vulnerability of
those funds to budget cuts
possible increase in
grievances because the
system is more subjective
incentive pay system
provides greater advantages
to upper managers and
experts than to lower level
employees (Cont'd)
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
- 1NILKNAL USL UNLT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
0 FEATURE 2 - INCENTIVE PAY (Cont'd)
Positive Comments
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM
FEATURE 3 - PERFORMANCE PLAN
Concerns
- the "superstar" employee
will benefit greatly but
? at the cost of the average
employee
- salary vs. bonus issue --
will bonuses calculate into
retirement benefits?
- will we continue to get
government-wide cost of
living increases?
- will a Career Service Panel
type structure still
exist? will it decide on
bonuses? will panels be
cross-Directorate?
Most employees support the concept of improved employee-supervisor
communication. Many believe that the current Advanced Work Plan, used
effectively, would serve the same function as the proposed performance plan.
Automation is discouraged since it reduces supervisory input and creativity.
Positive Comments
- it is an objective way to look
at performance
- if it fosters more frequent and
better communication, it's a
good idea
ADMINISTRATIVE
Concerns
- employees will get
nothing but standardized,
boilerplate plans.
automation will reduce
supervisors' input and
creativity; plans need to
be tailored to meet
individual and
organizational needs
- may be too rigid -- plans
should be flexible and
take into account changing
work priorities (Cont'd)
- INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
AWTMTCTPATTVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
(:) FEATURE 3 - PERFORMANCE PLAN (Cont'd)
Positive Comments
FEATURE 4 - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Concerns
- plans need to be kept
current
- does this just add to the
bureaucracy? we got rid of
AWP's once -- a form does
not necessarily make a good
manager
Comments are equally divided between supporters of a new performance
evaluation plan and those who believe the current system works well.
Detractors are concerned that automation will emphasize numeric ratings at the
expense of more descriptive, personalized narratives which can highlight
special accomplishments and achievements.
Positive Comments
using five levels to evaluate
performance is fairer than using seven
the new system sounds more accurate
than the current system
Concerns
not much different from the
current system - why change?
under banding, evaluations
should be longer and better
written, not shorter and
more standardized than
current PARs
automated evaluation system
could penalize employees
whose performance plan
was not updated to reflect
changing job requirements
this new evaluation system
will require training for
managers and employees
will the increasing
importance of numbers in
the promotion and bonus
processes make employees
increasingly dissatisfied
with being solid performers?
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
0 CAREER DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
FEATURE 5 - OCCUPATIONAL CAREER HANDBOOKS
Most employees believe that occupational career handbooks are useful if
the books are updated frequently and each employee has his or her own copy.
Some people mention that no dramatic system change is required to produce a
handbook. Some mention that OIR's Career Handbook is particularly useful.
Positive Comments
- handbooks are an excellent tool for
career counseling
- should be implemented now
FEATURE 6 - INDIVIDUAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Concerns
- overkill - OIR already
has one
- seen as devising strict
occupational tracks making
it difficult for people to
move from one occupation
to another
- will handbooks be written
for employees in unusual
occupations with only a
small number of Agency
participants?
- will handbooks be kept
current or will they be
left on the shelf after the
first edition?
Most employees feel that individual career development plans will be
useful. Some mention that good managers already use them.
Positive Comments
creates an incentive for both
employee and manager to discuss
career development regularly
can be implemented now
Concerns
- OIR already uses these
- better handled between
the employee and the
office career development
officer
can't this be included
in an AWP?
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAI Y
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 7 - OCCUPATION-SPECIFIC TRAINING
The concept of improved training is almost universally embraced, but many
employees doubt that the Office of Training and Education has the resources to
provide the necessary training for all occupations.
Positive Comments
- will encourage the development of
courses in occupations that
currently have limited training
opportunities
FEATURE 8 - IMPROVED AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING
Concerns
will require substantial
funding -- Congress has
already proven itself
reluctant to fund training
will be difficult to
accommodate all the
employees wanting to
take the new courses
too much emphasis on
courses; other, more
effective and less
costly training methods
should be considered
(for example, more liberal
reimbursement for books,
journals, and computer
software)
has been proposed many
times by OTE and never
fully implemented because
of cost
OIR employees clearly favor improved availability of training. Some,
however, warn about getting "carried away" and basing advancement decisions on
completion of courses rather than acquisition of skills.
Positive Comments
- many support the concept of improving
the availability of training
- take-home courses will be useful
ADMINISTRATIVE -
Concerns
-.not clear if training was
to be taken on own time
if classroom instruction is
replaced with videotaped
courses, there is a concern
that training will lose the
value of personal
interaction (Cont'd)
INTERNAL USE ONLY
n.,-inecifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
MUNiNiIKAIirt - INICKNAL UJt UNL1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
? 0 FEATURE 8 - IMPROVED AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING (Cont'd)
Positive Comnents Concerns
- will also lose the value
of meeting personnel
from other agencies
who take the courses
- could create additional
hardships for offices
if too many employees
take training at the
same time
- will training be provided
for employees overseas?
FEATURE 9 - DUAL TRACK
There is general agreement that this is one of the best proposals in the
Human Resources Task Force Report because it rewards substantive expertise,
and at the same time, has the potential to improve the management cadre. Many
employees, however, do not believe experts and managers should have additional
bonus and leave carryover benefits.
Positive Comments
- will retain expertise and
not force experts into management
- managers will be evaluated on
personnel management
- will keep analysts who are not good
managers out of management
Concerns
concerns about expert/
manager relationship
managerial jobs will
become unattractive
because managers will not
be compensated for
taking on additional
bureaucratic hassles
not sure we need that
many experts at
higher grades
expert track might be
limited to certain
occupations and
not equitably spread
across the Agency (Cont'd)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
? I 1 I I v1. V
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 9 - DUAL TRACK (Cont'd)
Positive Comments Concerns
- how will experts be
evaluated and by whom?
- where do these expert
positions come from?
what do we lose to
create them? how many
positions will there be?
FEATURE 10 - PROMOTION
There is a pervasive feeling within the Office that there will be a
significant loss of prestige and psychological rewards with the proposed
system. Under the current GS system, employees like the idea of more frequent
promotions, and are comfortable with the status associated with particular
grades. Most other comments are actually questions about how the promotion
process will work under the proposed system, i.e., How will panels make
promotion decisions? Who will participate in the panels? Are there
time-in-band requirements?
Positive Comments Concerns
completed training seems
to be more important for
promotion than job
performance (as with the
new secretarial system)
this is one of the most
important topics covered
in the report and it
is not adequately
explained
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINITRATIVE - INTERNA1 HSF nmne
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PROPOSED BENEFITS PROGRAM
FEATURE 11 - FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PROGRAM
Although this program raises several concerns, it is greeted positively by
a majority of employees. The general sentiment is that the flexible benefits
program should be implemented regardless of the rest of the pay and
compensation proposal.
Positive Comments Concerns
- best feature of the whole program
- will help make the Agency more competitive
with the private sector
- will help retain people
FEATURE 12 - LEAVE CONVERSION
- geared more toward senior
officials, and not really
beneficial to new employees
- will employees be able to
change benefits, or once
selected, will the decision
be irreversible?
- likely to be a costly
undertaking -- is Congress
likely to approve?
have other benefits been
considered - complete
health insurance coverage,
dental plan, maternity
leave benefits - at reduced
cost to the employee?
- more information is needed
on the specifics of the
program
This proposal is met with interest across the Office. People react
favorably to the concepts of donating or converting leave and to the annual
leave buy back proposal.
Positive Comments Concerns
- provides individual flexibility
- many would like to be able
to donate leave to a
particular individual
rather than a leave bank
(particularly sick leave)
(Cont'd)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA:RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
(:) FEATURE 12 - LEAVE CONVERSION (Cont'd)
Positive Comments
- leave buy back and conversion are
more equitable than losing leave
Concerns
- must somehow ensure that
people retain enough leave
for their own emergencies
- people might opt for the
extra money over needed
time away from the office
FEATURE 13 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEPENDENTS
Although there are few specific positive comments, this feature is
generally greeted favorably.
Positive Comments Concerns
favors married employees
with children and longer
term employees
have other types of loans,
such as home mortgage loans,
been considered?
leave secured loans could
be risky
is this appropriate?
why not extend to spouses?
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
AnMTILITcYnmur Ttirrnilat irr AkiiV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 14 - STAFFING MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Sentiment on this feature is mixed. While some feel that these tools will
allow for greater flexibility among upper management, many feel that these
options demonstrate favoritism for SIS-level employees at the expense of lower
level personnel.
Positive Comments Concerns
- will allow increased headroom
for managers and experts
- will help retain senior and mid-level
officers
- retention bonus is a good tool for
upper management
PROPOSED DATA-PROCESSING SUPPORT
FEATURE 15 - SYSTEM CONTROLS
FEATURE 15 - PROJECTION TOOLS
possible inequities in
applying retention bonuses
allowing retirement at
age 50 may cause an exodus
of the talent that the
program is designed to
retain
early retirement should
apply to everyone
uncertain about selection
criteria for the "experts"
who would qualify for early
retirement
These features are addressed jointly by most employees, with few positive
comments regarding either one. The most frequent comments are that neither
explanation was clear, and that more information is needed to make them fully
understandable.
Positive Comments Concerns
- aids can only be useful to such a system "bureaucratic nonsense"
could take years to develop
and implement
examples of the
overemphasis throughout the
proposal to the development
of ADP tools to assist in
management
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
-
August 19, 1987
?
MEMO TO: Director, OIR
FROM: Chief, Document Services
SUBJECT: Critique of Preliminary Report on Proposed Banding System
I find myself as I prepare this report to you in disagreement with most of
the individuals in my division. As asked, I obtained comments from each of my
branches concerning the new bending proposal prepared by the Human Resource
Modernization and Compensation Task Force. I think the Task Force report was
prepared in such a fashion that it was difficult to read and it therefore
easily misled the less critical reader. I have attached to the back of this
memo the comments from my three branches and I find them uniformlly more
upbeat and positive than my own comments. I have also attached a memo from my
special assistant that has some questions that trouble her. This memo will be
my personal impression of this proposal and not the summation of the comments
from my division.
After having read all the various papers and studies prepared by the Task
Force, I find myself in a somewhat philosphical mood. The primary question
that I have running around in my head is; "what constitutes a pay system?" In
my own simple fashion I think a pay system has five basic components. The
first requirement is that a pay system present in some fashion a variety of
specific salary options that can be applied to the various jobs being
performed by the staff of the organization. The pay system needs to also
contain a -description of the various jobs that it wants its various people to
perform. Any system must then provide some management process that associates
these various jobs and the various pay levels defined. There must also be a
management process that outlines how people are selected for various jobs, how
their pay will be determined, and how they are moved up or down this pay scale
(rewarded or demoted) according to their ability and performance. Lastly a
pay system must provide some schedule of benefits, that is somewhat
independent of salary and specific jobs, that applies to all personnel
employed by the organization.
Having lived with our present personnel system for almost a quarter of a
century I admit that it has some bad aspects. It is particularly difficult
and frustrating for managers and employees to reclassify jobs as organizations
are restructured and the work changes. In our present system, it is also
possible for low performers to continue to advance. The gap in salary between
the best performer. and the worst performer is fairly small. Having been a
manager for 20 years, I find the system particularly ineffective in dealing
with inefficient or misguided managers. In addition, the benefits package
that is available in our present pay system is very rigid. For most of these
situations there are fairly simple solutions--ones that do not require a total
overhaul.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/99/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADNaNISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
I have found over the same period of time with the Agency that there are
some aspects of our personnel and pay system that I Particularly appreciate.
The system does provide managers with some flexiblity to solve local problems
if you know how to use the system and attack it with some vigor. Within the
system that we presently have there are a wide variety of opportunities to
personally recognize and reward individuals for superior performance. Our
system also provides a certain degree of stability in areas of pay and
benefits particuiarly when we ask people to move into job situations that: have
very little stability. Agency staffers frequently are more willing to take on
temporary assignments or explore career changing opportunities knowing that
these moves will have no short term impact on their salary or benefits.
So having read all the handouts and books concerning this proposed change
I have to ask; "why change?" The only worthwhile aspect to all the proposals
being presented by the Task Force is contained in the flexible benefits
package. To implement these changes requires none of the other changes
associated with banding and the automation of the personnel decision process.
In fact a flexible benefits package is primarily based on availability of
funds. In the presentations coming from the Task Force they avoid a lot of
specific details concerning the changes to benefits because these are all
predicated on approval from Congress and the need for special funding. If the
approval is denied or the funding is not provided, most of these benefits will
not be available. I find all other aspects of the plan either ill-advised or
doable under our present pay and compensation system. And if it was desired
to do them, these changes could be implemented without the trauma that will be
associated with the more general changes to the personnel system as is being
proposed.
Below I will provide a few specific comments concerning my impressions of
problems associated with the various features being proposed.
FEATURE l - OCCUPATIONAL DEFINED BANDS
When I read the descriptions of the occupational bands and the process
that is being proposed, I find my mind moving ten years into the future and my
mind tells me that we are going to have problems with this system in several
areas. The Agency hires a wide variety of people and I speculate that ten to
twenty percent of these individuals* not now and will not in ten years find
themselves as natural members of some occupational band. There will always be
some artificiality to the banding proposal for a fairly sizable portion of our
professional staff. I also see slots and personal services funds being
allocated to these specific occupational bands. With time the professional
requirements for the people in these various bands will change and the system
that will reward one professional band with time will of necessity be required
to subtract funds from another occupational band. It will not be possible to
continually add funds to one without this subtraction. This now occurs in a
very subtle manner in the classificaltion review process, but will be much more
brutal and visible in the occupational band process. Are we and our employees
ready for this?
ADMZNISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 1.CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
?
It is stated that the evaluation systems to be used in the occupational
bands will be 'factor-based' and therefore will provide more consistency
throughout a large organization. I speculate that consistency is only
obtained when the managers of managers are very carefully evaluated by their
superiors according to how their subordinates evaluate their people. These
evaluations now occur very haphazardly and I have no confidence that a change
in personnel systems within the Agency will change the upper level managers
willingness to require their subordinates to be more effective in their
personnel evaluations.
I think this report has totally overlooked the psychological rewards
people achieve from the present day promotion system. It is substituting a
salary check bottom line for our present system of ackowledging good
performance. iaving already had to explain to several individuals in the IS
system how they needed to look at their salary check as opposed to the
frequency of promotions to fully understand how we were recognizing their
performance, I think this organization is in for terribly negative response
when promotions are stopped.
The authors of the proposed plan imply that the system of moving people up
within the bands and between the bands will be a lot more objective than the
present system of promoting staff employees. I think that this is terribly
naive on their part and that managers will learn to abuse this system just as
easily as they have learned to abuse the existing system. That unless they
are challenged by their superiors the end result will be no different than our
present state.
FEATURE 2 - INCENTIVE PAY
The incentive pay proposal sounds very nice but I find it has several very
troublesome aspects. Clearly 50% of the people in this system will be
informed On an annual basis that they are in the lower half of the
professional employees in their grade. These individuals now know that they
are not superior performers but the organization does not find it necessary
nor desirable to tell them on an annual basis that they are in the lower half
of the group. With time I think this will have a very negative impact on our
professional staff unless the managers of the system decide to modify the
process. One modification would be to reward people on alternate years.
Other schemes I'm sure will be devised. All of these will make the system
more palatable to the employees but less acceptable to the Office of Personnel.
Another aspect of this incentive plan that concerns me is that the amount
of money to be allocated to the incentive system is not known until after the
Comptroller determines how much money is available. We could easily find
ourselves in a situation where employees are being forced to pay for new
collection systems out of their salaries because the Comptroller has allocated
more money to nonpersonal services and less to personal services.
I assume that each of the pay bands in each occupational group will have a
maximum salary level. This is not stated in the preliminary report. This
would mean that some individuals would be at the top of the pay scale for
their band and therefore permanent salary increases would no longer be
available to them unless they were promoted to the next higher band. With
time therefore we will probably find individuals gravitating towards the top
of the pay scale and the fine distinction between performance levels stated in
this proposal will be lost.
ADIYENSTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
AnMTNTSTPATrjF - TN777Pr. T1q7 nNLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 3 - PERFORMANCE PLAN
The Agency has gone through a variety of processes for managers to use to
instruct their employees in what is expected of them on the job?advanced work
plans, letters of instrution, etc. Each time we go through one of these
phases there is a big push for every manager to produce these documents and
with time this requirement is waived. The experience I think has been that
good managers utilize those tools in various ways for the various employees in
their unit?This may mean that some individuals would get a very precise work
plan, but it may mean that others have a more informal working arrangement
with their supervisor. Experience has shown that bad managers, even when
required to fill out long forms outlining what their employees are to perform,
still manage their employees poorly. Therefore, I find no unique or
innovative value in this feature.
FEATURE 4 - PEAFORMANCE EVALUATION
Performance evaluations are very important. It is particularly important
that they be written uniformlly across a population of employees. It is not
possible to assure that performance appraisals are written properly and
uniformaily'by creating an elaborate process for their creation. Uniformity
and quality can only be assured when the supervisors of these managers include
PAR writing as a major factor in the manager's PAR. And the manager be
evaluated over a long period of time by how his/her people progress
professionally. This can now be done with our present PAR system. No change
is required. And unless senior level managers honestly evaluate their
subordinates on their PAR writing abilities this system like all others will
fail.
FEATURE 5 - OCCUPATIONAL CAREER HANDBCOKS
Occupational Career Handbooks when current and professionally prepared can
provide a tremendous amount of infOrMation to an employee who is in the
process of making some career decisions. The best occupational career
handbook, however, cannot make those decisions for the employee. Each time
this Agency or one of its components has spent the time and energy required to
produce these handbooks their value has been very short lived. Normally
little effort has been spent in keeping them current. Looking back over my
own career and the decisions that I have made, I find that never once would an
employee handbook have helped and, therefore, I have some doubt as to their
utility. In our own office we have prepared them and they are being used. We
will attempt to maintain them because we are finding them to be of some value
to individuals attempting to move from clerical/ technical ranks to
professional positions. Mast offices do not have the same mix of people as
ours and I think the professional handbooks will be of little value.
FEATURE 6 - INDIVIDUAL CAREER DEVELCPMENT PLAN
Any smart manager now prepares individual career development plans for
their employees and any smart employee has some idea as to where they might
want to go in their career development. I do not find this proposal new, nor
necessarily linked in any way to the overall study.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINI=A7Tv7 - Tm77RNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
FEATURE 7 - OCCUPATIONAL SPECIFIC TRAINING
I think occupational specific training can be very good. I do not think
C the Agency will be willing to pay for the actual training required. I find
this proposal one that'is included to make the plan sound good when in fact it
actually has very little to do with the banding plan. If the Office of
Training and Education was now interested in providing occupational specific
training, this training could be provided. Unless there is a specific
increase in their budget, OTE will continue to provide more basic Agency
training courses and the occupational specific training will be left to
individual components as it now is.
FEATURE 8 - IWROVED AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING
Here again I think many of the items identified in this feature if
implemented, would be of significant value to the staff of this Agency. I
would encourage people responsible for these various activities to pursue
them, but this improved training has really very little to do with the
proposed changes in our pay and compensation system.
FEATURE 9 - DUAL TRACK
As a manager in long standing I find little value in a dual track system.
There are a few individuals in our organization who have very unique technical
skills which need to be preserved and rewarded. Within the directorate we now
have the capability of recognizing these individuals. Most people, however,
that look forward to a dual track system are those who are interested in
increasing their salary without any increase in responsibility. To be a
manager in CIA now requires one to take on an added level of bureaucratic
hassle and frustration, in addition to having some technical competence. A
dual track system would encourage those individuals with any technical ability
to stay strictly in their technical field and would create a class of
non-technical managers. These managers would not even be compensated for the
additional burdens that they would take on and so I think these managerial
jobs would become very unattractive. In the end we run the risk of having the
less involved, the less intelligent, the less dynamic people being in a
position of managing our system. I find this troublesome.
FEATURE 10 - PROMOTION
I find the description of the promotion process so poor that I do not
understand it sufficiently to comment.
FEATURE 11 - FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PROGRAM
I think anything that can be done in the area of flexible benefits would
be beneficial to the staff in CIA. In no way are these options linked to
banding and so I think they should be pursued regardless of the outcome of the
discussion on banding. I have a major concern in the proposals being
discussed in this book; many'of the options require Congressional approval and
additional funding. This is not made clear to the reader. I suspect that the
authors of this book have raised the expectations of the staff beyond that
point where they will be able to deliver. This is most unfortunate.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL ,JSE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ALmINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
FEATURE 12 - LEAVE CONVERSION
Sounds good. I do think it is important that each employee be required to
take some minimal amount of annual leave or lose it. It has been my
experience over time that everybody, including the workaholic or the
workaholic's family, requires some break fro7 the daily routine of working. I
think 80 hours is a low figure and would favor something like 13 days. The
slck leave banks and other aspects proposed are good if they can be arranged.
FEATURE 13 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEPENDENTS
I do not necessarily have any problems with the things proposed under this ?
feature, however, I feel like I am reading a union contract. The authors of
the contract fi,nd it necessary to throw in a few gold watches that will make
the primary aspects of the system, which would otherwise be unacceptable, more
palatable to the masses. If the Office of Personnel is interested in Agency
funding tuition assistance, why didn't they propose it 25 years ago?
FEATURE 14 - STAFFING MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Since I am an SIS and am one of the individuals who will benefit from this
particular package, I find it easy to say that it stinks. The Agency will
operate under a fixed personal services funding amount as prescribed by
Congress in the budget process. The greater percentage of those funds that
are allocated to the elite at the upper end of the pay scale, the fewer funds
will be available for those individuals at the lower ends. I am suspicious
that this was put in as Feature 14 with the hope that those people who are
reading this preliminary report would get tired before they got to this point
0 and wouldn't know what was happening to their funds.
FEATURES 15 & 16 - SYSTEM CONTROLS AND PROJECTION TOOLS
Having watched the Office of Personnel over the last two decades attempt
to provide some tools of use to the managers of people and finding myself
still producing small data bases on my personal computer, I think there is
little chance that any meaningful tools will be prepared that I will find of
use. The Office of Personnel track record in this regard are particularly
poor and I hope that any changes to the personnel system that we accept are
not built in any way on the assumption that centralized management tools will
make our job any easier.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
npnlassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
19 August 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Information Resources
VIA : Chief, Information Services Division, OIR
FROM
SUBJECT : Comments on the Banding Report
1. Attached you will find my comments on the Preliminary Report on
banding. I am commenting separately from the rest of my branch, ESPB, because
I do not want my comments to bias the response from those who have not worked
closely with the concepts embodied in the report. My work on the occupational
panel for Computer Systems Analyst/Programmers has hopefully given me a
perspective somewhat different than one would get from just reading the
report. Additionally, I am commenting on the System Design (blue) section of
the report, as well as the Executive Summary and Proposed System Summary
(green) sections others will have read.
2. I fully endorse the main concepts presented in this report, although
I have some problems with particular implementation or design issues.
Particularly important is my strong view that senior managers should have
maximum control over the personnel resources needed to accomplish the mission
for which they are held accountable. They do not have that now, given the
constraints of position ceiling, average grade, and position classification
authority vested in the Office of Personnel. Unfortunately, they must devote
effort to working around the system, but the system should be working for
them.
3. Some of my comments may be caustic -- particularly as they relate to
current position classification and some of the plan's provisions that relate
to performance plans and performance evaluation. My intention in the attached
comments is provide the full effect of my thoughts, at the expense of writing
style. In addition, I have included a notation behind paragraph numbers to
indicate which section of the report I am addressing: (G) means the green
Proposed System Summary section, (B) means the blue System Design section, and
(G&B) means both. Comments are structured by feature.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
narlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized CoPv Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
STAT
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 2
Banding Report Comments -- from
Feature 1 -- Occupationally Defined Bands
1.(G&B) These sections are well written, and they make a strong case for
banding. Two of the most important features of the new system are described
well: funding control replacing ceiling and average grade for system control,
and job classification authority delegated to Directorates.
2.(G&B), What was not discussed are the present distortions we suffer as a
result of ceiling, average grade, and classification authority vested in OP.
The shell-game that has been played with both numbers of positions and grades
for those positions leads me to believe we are now far from optimally
organized. If the funding control and classification delegation features are
implemented, Agency managers will for the first time not have to work around a
system. Indeed, they will be the key components of the system, and I am
convinced they will make the most of it by doing more with less resources.
The focus will change from how many personnel are managed to how well one can
do with the limited personal services budget available. We should see a much
more effective and efficient organization as a result.
3.(G&B) The break from the GS system is essential, in my view, if the
gains from classification delegation are to be realized. Otherwise, some of
the same inappropriate OPM classification guides and concepts now used will
permeate the new system as well. We need a clean break from the OPM guides.
At least in the case of Computer Systems Analyst/Programmers, the guidelines
are totally out of place in the Agency environment. Unfortunately, I did not
know those guides were being used by PMCD until I served on the occupational
panel.
4.(G&B) Although the China Lake and other experiments have used a tie to
the GS system, our proposed banding structure will allow us to better focus on
what is important to the Agency. The compensable factors can more easily be
tuned to reflect Agency values. For example, the focus can be on the impact
of the individual's actions on products or operations, rather than on how
broad of a spectrum of the Agency those actions serve.
5.(G) On page 34 a statement is made that considerable effort remains to
completely define the band structure for each occupation. That is very true,
and it should be done before proceeding to some of the later steps (such as
performance specifications, performance evaluation, and career development).
The input of managers and a broad spectrum of affected non-managing
professionals must be solicited and incorporated into the occupational panels'
reports before this system begins operation.
6.(B) The importance of relative weights used in a factor evaluation
system cannot be overemphasized -- although they have been largely ignored in
this report. For example, a "resource management" factor can have a different
importance for the DI than for the DS&T. In large part, this will refer to
contract funds, and the DS&T places a premium on contract management. Not so
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - TWTFRNAT usE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 3
in the DI. Therefore, when it comes time to interleave different jobs in the
internal job evaluation system (using constant weights across Directorates), a
high relative weight for resource management would probably disadvantage a DI
analyst relative to a DS&T project management engineer. A low relative weight
would give the opposite effect. I point this out because it probably means
the Senior Task Force is in for some hard bargaining in the future.
7.(B) Expanding on the issue of relative weights, our occupational panel
had strong differences of opinion on whether constant or Directorate-specific
weights should be used in trying to maintain consistency across Directorates
within a profession, if that becomes necessary. My strong preference is for .
Directorate-specific weights; let each directorate evaluate the appropriate
level for a,computer professional based on what is important in its
environment. In the case of the resource management factor, we do not want to
send the signal to DI computer professionals that they should concentrate on
obtaining and managing contract funds. Some of us need to, but certainly not
all of us.
8.(B) In the middle of the first paragraph on page 19, a sentence states
that Task Force members and "representatives of the occupations" are
developing relative weights for factors. I know of no such effort involving
the occupational panels. If not us, who is working on the relative weights?
Feature 2 -- Incentive Pay
1.(B) I, along with several others I have talked to, question the funding
to support incentive pay. Where is it to come from? I realize we turn in
special achievement award money, but the proposed incentive pay requirements
look like they would exceed the amounts from step increase, QSI, and
achievement award funds. We need to check this out very carefully. If we
take our current estimates to the Hill, obtain approval, implement, and then
come up short and have to ask for more funds -- we could kill the whole
program.
2.(G&B) Nowhere in this report do I find any reference to the effect of
going to a permanent salary plus bonus concept upon the retirement benefits of
Agency employees. With retirement benefits based upon high-3, would bonuses
be included? If not, are we trading improved compensation while employed for
reduced benefits after retirement?
3.(G&B) Again addressing the permanent salary plus bonus concepts, are
we disadvantaging our employees in qualifying for home mortgages? How would a
mortgage banker look at income from bonuses in comparison to permanent salary
levels?
4.(B) In developing an incentive pay planning grid (e.g., 20%
Outstanding, 30% Superior, and 50% fully satisfactory), are the same
percentages to be assumed for all components? Are there inequities involved
in comparing two components, one of which warrants a distinguished unit
citation and the other literally plodding along? At what level in the
organization would these percentage be assummed--Agency-wide, by Directorate,
at the Office level, or lower? Do the differences by component get taken care
of in the panel system?
AnUTITTCMDATTUV TUTCOMAT fleD AUTV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
IMMTNITSTRATTVE - TMTPRMAT ITCP ()WY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PACE 14
5.(B) On page 23, a statement is made that incentive pay would be
allocated to each Directorate based on its population. Does that not defeat
the whole purpose of modernization? It will certainly penalize the lean and
mean or the Directorate with the highest salary levels. This is where the
going will get rough in the EXCOM meeting.
Performance Evaluation System, General Comment
Contrary to what the report says on page 25, our occupational panel did
not agree that any change in the reward system would focus on the performances
evaluation system and then conclude that modifications to our performance
appraisal system would be necessary. In fact, we came to the opposite
conclusion. We came to the conclusion that the existing performance
evaluation system would accommodate pay-for-performance if managers are
performing adequately. The concept of performance standards was not well
received by our panel.
Feature 3 -- Performance Plan
1.(G&B) The performance plan envisioned in this report is simply a more
complex AWP, with all of the same disadvantages. I personally think this
concept is the worst idea in the entire plan. Contrary to the text, the
performance plan is still going to be a static document; the idea that
employees would be evaluated on what is specified in the plan versus what they
actually did during a rating period is appalling. It is highly unlikely in
our environment that their efforts were not diverted to other tasks or
projects during a rating period, and any rating system which only addresses
what was in the plan (and did not get done) and excludes the unforseen efforts
is a gross injustice.
2.(G&B) To expand on this further, we pride ourselves as an Agency that
can respond to events, rapidly adjust and redirect our efforts, and capitalize
on new targets of opportunity. In addition, our entire culture depends upon
cooperative efforts -- a collegial environment, if you will. Rigid
specification of tasks and personnel evaluation based on a priori assumptions
will destroy those attributes just mentioned.
3.(G&B) That strong objection stated, if we absolutely must have
performance plans, then we also must have supplemental tasking or effort-
diversion files to go along with them. The paper trail must exist that one's
efforts were diverted from the plan by management request, others' needs for
assistance, or the host of other very valid reasons why many of us do not
accomplish everything we think we will by a specified time. Put more bluntly,
the manager who evaluates only on the plan and ignores the other efforts
during a rating period would do so at his or her own peril. The supplemental
tasking file would provide the institutional assurance that employees are
evaluated on relevant work during the rating period. Both the manager and the
employee would make entries into the supplemental tasking file.
4.(G&B) The performance plan, at least as envisioned by OP, implies
performance standards. There are some rather routine jobs for which they make
AnUTUTCTDATTUV _ TUTCOMAT nor nutv
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ALMIDUJIMAIIVG INitABAL U3C. L./M.1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 5
sense. But for more senior personnel (or for junior personnel performing
O analytic functions), performance standards are either meaningless because they
lack content or they are specific enough to preclude flexibility and
creativity. In either case, the Agency looses. If our employees do not know
what is expected of them or how their performance is perceived by their
supervisors (without a performance plan), we have a problem with our managers.
Feature 4 -- Performance Evaluation
1.(G) The text states that the supervisor must evaluate against the
expectations in the performance plan for each responsibility. My comments
under Feature 3 apply here.
2.(G&B) The intent with a new system is to reduce the narrative section
from today's PARS. But English is still our most expressive language, and I
am particulary suspicious that an attempt might be made to adopt some
quantitative measures, to be tied to the incentive pay awards system. That
would be a disaster. A two-point difference in numeric PAR grades between
Directorates sometimes exists under our present system, and even CEF scores
from two like-minded supervisors for the same individual could vary
dramatically. .The text is important and it must be retained.
3.(G&B) That said, some improvements to our existing PAR forms are
probably in order. For example, some of the attributes found in the CEF forms
are seldom discussed with the employee. Perhaps they need included on the PAR
-- particularly if we go to a pay-for-performance system and if qualifications
for promotion do depend upon such attributes as leadership potential or
dedication. Some of those attributes certainly need discussed in depth with
an employee at full performance level who is considering which track to take
in a dual-track system.
4.(B) The Directorate-specific makeup of performance panels is essential
for some occupations, and particularly for the Computer Systems
Analyst/Programmer profession. Expectations, cultures, methods of operation,
formalization of team efforts, and expectations for what senior personnel are
expected to do vary dramatically across directorates in my profession. My
work on the occupational panel was an eye-opener. These comments do not imply
that any Directorate is right or wrong on some of these attributes -- just
that we are different enough that evaluation should be performed by
Directorate-specific panels.
5.(B) I agree with the concept of the appeal mechanism proposed in this
report (outside of the grievance system), and there should be no stigma
attached to an employee's appeal. I liked the China Lake terminology: a
"Request for Reconsideration."
6.(B) In the discussion on employees on rotation, I agree that the home
component would have promotion responsibility. However, I would modify the
incentive pay decision responsibility to read: "...the host component would
have the responsibility for the incentive pay decision, in consultation with
the home component." This would help ensure no major disconnect between the
two components' interpretations of what the rotational assignment was all
about and what was expected of the employee.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 6
Feature 5 -- Occupational Career Handbooks
1.(G&B) Proposes career handbooks be developed by Occupational Panels.
Problem here: Occupational panels can only make a stab at it. These handbooks
will require extensive management input, as well as a degree of coordination
among at least all experienced personnel in the profession. Two iterations
are likely.
2.(B) Discussion mentions recommended and required training. Focus is
erroneously on training, rather than the acquisition of skills and knowledge.
Training is only one vehicle to that end. At least in the computer
profession, we need to explore other approaches to the acquisition of skills,
perhaps at less cost than what we spend for normal training courses. For
example, liberal book and periodical purchase moneys may be far more effective
than what we pay for some courses. For some computer professionals, a loaner
computer may do far more good than courses costing thousands of dollars.
3.(G&B) No mention is made of the potential for university training. For
some professions, this is critical. Improvements need made in evaluation of
various educational programs offered by both universities and commercial
firms.
Feature 6 -- Individual Career Development Plans
1.(G&B) Keep it optional. Not all employees will need this.
2.(B) Assignments section, regarding matching automated biographic
profile with vacancies by machine_ WRONG. Automated systems will never
have the intelligence to make a determination as to who is fit for a
particular position and who is not. Selection of individuals is a management
decision that can not be made on the basis of rules. When a vacancy exists,
management has an obligation to consider any rational application. To do
otherwise means some individuals may not even be considered for a position
who may, in fact, be the best choice. This automated concept might, in
addition to creating rigidity in the system, prevent some of the career-
broadening assignments advocated in an earlier paragraph.
3.(B) The automated search capability for employees is, however, a good
idea.
Feature 7 -- Occupation-Specific Training
1.(B) Contrary to the text, our panel did not identify specific internal
training courses to match job requirements and skills. We regarded that task
as totally inappropriate for computer professionals for two reasons: some
professionals learn more efficiently through methods other than course work,
and our profession has too many specialty areas to develop such course lists.
We did identify a familiarization course that was needed, and periodic
refresher and update briefings--but those are independent of the level or
(:) assignment of the individual.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE?
2.(G&B) Representatives meeting with OTE to define training needs must
include managers. The occupational panels are not qualified, generally, to
make that determination. The scope of applicability of several professions is
simply too broad to cover all components' needs. The text also stated that
the purpose of training was skills acquisition; but what about the
acquisition of knowledge?
3.(B) Regarding the issue of measuring effectiveness of training--the
first step is to ensure that our people to not engage in training from
inadequate vendors. This means that some organization -- OTE, most
appropriately -- must do the work to find out where the best-quality training ?
is available. This is particularly important in the computer field.
Feature 8 -- Improved Availability of Training
1.(B) Let's not get carried away on the extended and expanded mandatory
entry-level training, for the following reasons:
-- We will loose some new employees if this phase is too
long, because most of them (hopefully) want to get to
work;
-- Too much familiarization, too soon, will be counter-
productive because the students will be overwhelmed;
-- For many of the familiarization goals, some familiarity
with the organization will be a prerequisite; and
-- We need to find out early on if a new recruit is going to
fit into the organization, and that will be impossible
with extended entry training._
2.(G&B) Missing is book, journal, and computer software reimbursement out
of training funds, and loaner computers or VCRs for home study. Note
reimburesement, rather than acquisition, because some of the most useful
material may be found while traveling or in bookstores while browsing.
3. The rest of this section is well done.
Feature 9 -- Dual Track
1.(G) System Summary write-up is excellent. Now to the System Design
section...
2.(B) I resent nearly all of the contents in the second paragraph,
beginning "Each of these programs " In the interests of looking forward, I
will not go into the inaccuracies as I see them.
3.(B) The issue of heirarchy of experts in the organization will generate
a lot of heat, so here are my strong views:
- Heirarchy is not that important.
-- Experts should be assigned to whatever organizational
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 8
level allows them to work most effectively and most
efficiently, be it branch, division, staff, office,
directorate, or Agency level.
-- There is nothing wrong with a level 5 expert reporting to
a level 4 manager, if both have the maturity to work
together for the purposes for which they are both being
paid. If there is a conflict, one or both either lack the
maturity for their assignment or they suffer from a
personality defect. There Is always higher management to
resolve conflicts or policy differences.
-- Some managers will likely be concerned about control of
the experts. They needn't be -- there is a panel system
they sit on which can ensure that "loose cannons" do not
survive.
-- Some experts, in the qualifications and responsibilities
sense, may be overly concerned about a "pecking order" in
the organization and act accordingly. If so, they are not
expert material. The true expert will realize that a high
degree of.trust has been placed in him or her and act
accordingly. The expert will also realize that along with
some autonomy goes responsibility and a requirement to
operate as a team player. The Agency and component missions
and the responsibilites of their position had better be
their primary focus.
4.(B) Selection Process: Great wording. Only one thing wrong, and that
is the idea of petitioning for entry into the expert track. It is really a
binary decision. Once at the full performance level, an individual either
sets a goal for management or for expert. If not destined for management, why
petition for entry into the expert track? That decision is made by default,
so I fail to see the logic in the petition concept.
5.(B) The Management Track: Troublesome area, as it relates to when a
first-line supervisor is or is not a manager or in the management track. In
some components, a first-line supervisor is definitely a manager--such as most
(but not all) DI branch chiefs. In other components, section chiefs follow
the more classic concept of a "work leader." Something has to be different in
the concept of when a first-line supervisor is or is not actually a manager.
This area is going to need a lot of work. We have to face up to the fact that
at least some firstline supervisor positions have been set up to increase
grade of the next-higher chief--often with an associated increase in the
number of personnel. I suspect this will cease when funding control rather
than approved positions become the driving force for Agency managers. Good
recommendation for funding control.
6.(B) Manager-Expert Incentives: Good, but I recommend giving a
futuristic twist to this in the first paragraph, next-to-last sentence, by
rewording as "...substantial and sustained impact on the work, directions, and
products of the organization.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
AnUTUTCTDATTUC TWITRNAV USP MILS'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 9
Feature 10 -- Promotion
1.(G) The minimum 10-percent salary increase with promotion bothers me:
it is nice to have, but not mandatory. I would hate to think that someone's
promotion was delayed due to a lack of funds. Why not keep the salary
increase optional or an amount to be set by a career service panel (much like
the China Lake system)? This codified salary increase could be a difficult
issue during a particularly lean year in the Agency's budget.
2.(B) In the last paragraph, a reference is made to promotion criteria
established by the career services. A provision must be made for allowable
exceptions. For example, if we hire someone with Level III credentials,
performance?and experience as a Level I, do we not have an obligation to
promote that person to the level at which they deserve to be paid for pay
comparability with their peers? Familiarity with the Agency must, of course,
be factored in, but rigid time-in-grade or training criteria are counter-
productive. Why encumber a new system with two of the major deficiencies in
the secretarial system?
Proposed Benefits Program, General Comment
My largest personal concern is that additional costs of the proposed
benefits program (over costs of the current program) might kill the entire
modernization effort. I would hate to see such worth-while concepts as
funding control, banding, pay-for-performance, and dual track sacrificed
because we asked for too much in the benefits package.
Feature 11 -- Flexible Benefits Program
1.(G&B) I suspect a flexible benefits package will cost more because some
of the existing benefits are essentially unclaimed under the present system.
For example, if a husband and wife are both Federal employees, only one will
take out health insurance.
2.(G&B) Notwithstanding my comment on costs, I do like the flexible
benefits approach. The use of pre-tax dollars is appealing. Having been
through some of the different phases mentioned in this report, I can relate to
different benefit needs at different phases in one's career. I have no stong
feeling about any of the specific approaches discussed in the report.
3. While we are discussing benefits, I would like to propose two that
would be important to me and some other technical professionals. They may be
infeasible, however, because of legal constraints.
a. Is there any way the Agency could allow employees to buy
equipment, software, or other items at the Government
prices--for example on IBM's GSA Schedule? Given how
much of my income I spend on computer equipment and
software, that would be an excellent benefit. There is
something in it for the Agency, as well: those willing
to invest in their own computer equipment need far less
computer training. Please note that this same concept
ArklavivrAMTITT TfTMTnITAf M.," ^IRV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
? AnUTUTCTnATTIM. Tfin.nmk,A, Trvn ^11TV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 10
could apply to an S&T electrical engineer who might
want to purchase an oscilliscope for his home lab.
b. Is there any way the Agency could intercede with the IRS
to allow deductibility of computers or other work-
related equipment? I have purchased approximately
$8,000 of computer equipment for home that I cannot
deduct simply because I am an employee, and not
operating a business.
Feature 12 -- Leave Conversion
1.(G&B) This section is well done. However...
2.(B) The example on page 41, relating to an SIS officer, ignores some
fundamental concepts -- such as present value, real versus nominal dollars,
and the fact that a substantial part of what the Government pays out is
borrowed money.
Feature 13 -- Educational Assistance for Dependents
1.(G&B) One major flaw here -- the focus is on children of Agency
employees. But what about the spouse of an Agency employee? Having gone
through this situation in the early 1970s, I am particularly sensitive to the
needs of some new Agency employees. In my ease, there were numerous programs
for student loans for children, but none for my wife who needed another year's
study to complete her B.S. degree. We borrowed on signature (at a high
interest rate) and run up some charge accounts to finance her education. The
effect on family finances under these situations may be amplified by the fact
that there is a change from a two-income to a one-income family.
2.(B) Assuming that interest rates are a function of risk, if the Agency
guarantees an educational loan I see no reason why a 3-percent subsidy should
be required. Such a loan would effectively have the full faith and credit of
the U.S. Government behind it, and it should therefore have a lower interest
rate attached to it. It should be a safer investment than a new car loan, for
example, so why should the interest rate not reflect that fact?
Feature 14 -- Staffing Management Tools
1.(G&B) I have no problem with any of the provisions of this section.
However, care must be exercised that those who have exhibited a lifetime
committment to the Agency are not treated differently than their peers who are
more inclined to move from organization to organization. A committment to
stay with the Agency should not be interpreted as a lack of mobility or demand
from other organizations.
2.(B) The retention bonus needs to be a quite exclusive tool for either
very key individuals, or for a collection of individuals who cannot be
replaced by virtue of their totally unique skills. This concept should not be
applied to an occupation.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
nunlatoirtAlIVL - ihltANAL UNLI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
PAGE 11
Feature 15 -- System Controls
1.(B) I view the change in focus from position ceiling and average grade
constraints (discussed in the first paragraph) to only personal services
dollars as one of the two most important concepts in the entire modernization
effort. The other is delegated classification authority. These two combined
will allow our senior managers to truly manage .their human resources and
obtain the maximum value for the personal services budget.
2.(B) The next-to-last paragraph refers to Comptroller guidelines for
growth in Agency average salaries. Is this not a step backward, similar to
average grade constraints? This strikes me as an a priori decision that we
have the optimum number of people and mix of skill levels, Agency-wide, right
now. We should at least entertain the idea that slightly fewer people with
slightly higher salaries might be preferable -- or more people at slightly
reduced salary levels.
Feature 16 -- Projection Tools
1.(B) Another problem related to formal coursework. The first paragraph
refers to "currency of education, particularly in technical occupations where
knowledge is perishable." Again, what is important is the currency of
knowledge and skills--not coursework. For some occupations, extended reading
of journals may be more important than coursework. Personally, I would
prefer a physician that was a voracious reader of medical journals to one that
reads little and attends one course per year. I can make the same analogy in
the computer profession.
Proposed Implementation Strategy
1.(B) This strategy anticipate Computer Systems Analyst/Programmers as
one of the first two occupations to be converted. We have a long way to go,
and several problems remain in the areas of performance expectations,
performance evaluation, and career development. Our panel did its best to
define the levels in the profession and attempted to cover all computer
professionals (except some in the Computer Assistant occupation).
Nevertheless, there is no doubt in my mind that we have missed some unique
jobs, missed important items under compensible factors, or defined some
criteria that can legitimately cause particular people heartburn. Our report
needs extensive review by managers (particularly those on the career service
panels) and by non-managing professionals in this occupation.
2.(B) Our panel had severe doubts about the advisability of developing
performance expectation and evaluation criteria, and in fact we have not been
able to develop them to date. We have many reasons for our opinions -- such
as stifling initiative, flexibility, and responsiveness. However, we will try
again when the UT representatives become available. Our profession covers
such a broad range of specialty areas that developing meaningful criteria is a
formidable task. Again extensive review and modification by managers and non-
C) managing professionals will be essential.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
" PiLMILNIJIKAIIVZ 1n1ZMNAL USL ONLY
g
Attachment 2
D/OIR Recommendations
My recommendations regarding a pay, compensation, and
management system for the Agency are derived from the
following conclusions:
- -
The Agency cannot afford everything in the HRMCTF
Report.
Some features in the proposed system have serious
flaws, if not in concept then almost certainly in
implementation.
Chances for Congressional approval in the near term
for some elements of the proposed system are slim
at best.
- We cannot compete across the board with private
industry.
Any attempt to implement the entire proposal could
jeopardize chances of accomplishing some of the
most beneficial aspects.
So what do we do now? Expectations have been raised,
appetites whetted, and the Agency population energized. We
must start soon to show real progress in trying to improve
the attractiveness of Agency employment. We should pick and
choose areas in which we may have a competitive advantage
with private industry or at least a chance of being
comparable. We should devote energies to making changes
that are productive and relatively easy to implement (early
payoffs) and to changes that may require a long term effort
but have significant payoff. At the same time the Agency
should pull back from those features which are not well
understood, particularly in terms of long range
implications.
Specifically, I recommend the Agency pursue the
following:
Funding control with classification delegated to
directorates. It is time that Agency line managers
have control over personnel resources; it makes
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approvedfor Release76-1T6-9713-7.-CIA:11515-88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVh - iNTERNAL USE ONLY
- -
- -
little sense to assign responsibilities without
commensurate authority over all resources.
Improvements in the benefits packages for Agency
employees (Feature 11). Although such changes
require Congressional approval, they are worth the
long term effort because they are by far the most
universally attractive feature.
'Improved availability of training and occupational
specific training (Features 7 and 8). These are
also almost universally endorsed features.
Increased resources for OTE and for components
would be needed to ensure significant improvements
in training.
Leave Conversion (Feature 12) is a potentially
useful addition to the compensation package for
Agency employees.
Education Assistance for Dependents (Feature 13)
appeals only to a segment of the Agency population.
It may be worth pursuing but probably not at a high
priority.
Making real progress in these areas would demonstrate
to employees that the Agency is sincere in improving their
work environment and would make the Agency more competitive
in attracting new employees.
I recommend we stop pursuit of a banding system and
those features which apparently are part of that program --
Features 1-4 and 10. At a minimum, I believe this proposed
system should be put on the back burner while other features
are pursued. I am not convinced that we understand all of
the implications of banding; those aspects of banding which
I believe I understand appear to have some serious
shortcomings, particularly over the long run. For example,
the requirements for a banding system contain a degree of
bureaucracy and a lack of flexibility which are more
constraining than those we have today. More importantly,
our preliminary analysis indicates that a banding scheme
would provide greater monetary returns for a relatively
small segment of the Agency population.
There are other features in the HRMCTF which are
attractive, but these features can be developed and
2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized bOISTAPProvecT icir?Relea-se?iFff/b-6/1 3 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
n
implemented at the office, directorate, or DCI level. Most
of these should be part of good management practices
regardless of the pay system.
- -
?=1. ???
- -
- ???
Occupation Career Handbooks (Feature 5). When
professionally prepared and maintained such
handbooks can be an extremely valuable tool for
employees and for supervisors. We have had good
reaction to and good use of the OIR/IN Career
Service Occupational Handbook. Not all offices or
'occupations need them, however.
Individual Career Development Plan (Feature 6).
This is a good practice which for the most part is
being implemented in the DI.
Dual Track (Feature 9). I recognize the need for a
dual track, but such a program should be part of
any pay and compensation system we have. It could
easily be implemented by line managers if funding
control and classification authority were delegated
to the Directorate.
Staff Management Tools (Feature 14) are probably
options which the DCI should have available to be
used selectively. One exception, in my view, is
retention bonuses._ I find this feature totally
flawed, and it probably would be a disaster if
implemented. Retention bonuses for critical skills
would not have any real impact on maintaining a
cadre of experts in certain fields. The amount of
such bonuses probably would make little difference;
granting of bonuses for some occupations and not
others would create morale problems. Are we
prepared to acknowledge sometime in the future that
perhaps clericals and secretaries would warrant
retention bonuses?
System Control and Projection Tools (Features 15
and 16). I am strongly in favor of automated
support for personnel related data. But let's
start it now. Why wait for a new pay system? Line
managers can be encouraged and given the needed
authority to implement these features as
appropriate. The Task Force should not expend much
time and energy on them.
3
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
narlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5
My last observations involve some attitudes which I
detect in the HRMCTF Report. First, there appears to be an
assumption in the report which says that a "system" can make
a good manager. Career development plans, career handbooks,
performance plans, and an elaborate ADP support structure
will not produce good managers. A good manager will be good
under almost any system; a bad manager will be bad under any
and all systems. The keys are how managers are prepared for
their assignments, how they perceive their roles, and how
they are evaluated as managers.
Second, the HRMCTF Report reflects too heavy a dose of
OP in a new pay and compensation system; there is a
substantial support infrastructure assumed for it. We
cannot cope with more paperwork, administrative procedures,
and bureaucracy. We need less, and we should be working
towards that end. Substituting an as yet undefined
automated system for paperwork is not acceptable. I suggest
that as the Task Force prepares a revised report it make a
strong effort to weed out as much administrative overhead as
possible with the intent of streamlining our personnel
management system.
4
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
npriassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220005-5