EVALUATION OF THE DRAFT PROPOSAL ON NEW PAY, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AND BENEFITS SYSTEM FOR CIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2012
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: September 30, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

?_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030016-7
S0 SEP 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director
DI Representative on the Human Resource
Modernization and Compensation Task
Force (HRMCTF)
FROM: Richard J. Kerr
Deputy Director for Intelligence
SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Draft Proposal on New
Pay, Personnel Management, and Benefits
System for CIA
"I Y
1. The response from DI personnel to the subject proposal
indicates there is.keen interest in reevaluating the Agency
compensation system. The consensus view--which I share--is that
the proposal offers some advantages and contains some features
that should be adopted. The fundamental break with the current
system embodied in the proposed banding and incentive pay
features may be beneficial for any elements of the Agency with
relatively homogeneous work. forces. From the DI perspective,
however, these features are decidedly less attractive and could
well undermine rather than enhance our ability to attract and
retain the high-caliber career force the Agency requires.
2. In evaluating the HRMCTF proposal I solicited views from
all DI employees. The proposal was discussed in detail at the
branch and division level and all employees were encouraged to
avail themselves of the question and answer sessions scheduled in
the auditorium. After full discussion, a report was prepared in
each of the Directorate's offices summarizing the full spectrum
of employee views. A compilation of those views on each of the
proposal's features is included at Annex A. Annex B summarizes
the results of a poll taken independently by the DI Management
Advisory Group. I will be pleased to provide you copies of all
Office responses if you wish.
3. The details of each of the proposal's 16 features are
well known and need not be revisited in this memorandum.
Instead, I think it would be useful to examine some of the basic
issues involved and tender some recommendations as to how to
proceed.
when separated from attachments.
Entire memorandum Confidential
LOA I
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030016-7
 25, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
SECRETI
4. Personally, I believe that some change is essential if
the Agency is to remain an organization that attracts and keeps
talented people. Our ability to do this will depend on our
creativity and imagination as managers continuously to refine and
implement a system that values its employees rather than on
adoption of a particular compensation or classification system
that emphasizes merely the size of the paycheck. In that vein, I
support in principle those features of the proposal that enhance
career development and provide a more attractive range of
benefits (basically features 6-9 and 11-13). I also.support
those features which would enhance management flexibility,
especially features 15 and 16 which would institute a new budget
control system that would give senior managers more
responsibility for how their programs are structured than does
the current position classification system.
5. I cannot endorse, however, features 1 and 2 on
occupationally defined bands and on incentive pay. There are
several factors that have brought me to that conclusion.
o First, I believe the HRMCTF is correct in observing that
. . . employees driven primarily by money do not work
for CIA." Our employees receive non-monetary reward in
knowing that the work they do is vital, and they highly
value the periodic promotions from one GS level to the
next as they learn their craft and apply their talents.
That being the case--and recognizing that in all
likelihood government salaries will never be in a
position to compete with industry--I believe it ill
advised to adopt a system that is preoccupied with pay
and that minimizes the number of opportunities to
demonstrate the value of employee contributions via
promotions. The system proposed by the Task Force might
well limit us to only two or three promotions during a
typical DI employee's career, and it would give us no
tangible way annually to tell the large majority of the
the 50 percent of our employees who had productive years
but did not receive incentive increases that we valued
their efforts.
o Second, the use of market surveys in the multidisci-
plinary environment of the DI troubles me. As a
practical matter, it may be all but impossible to
implement. The HRMCTF report referenced only a single
occupation for most of the DI, that of Intelligence
Officer-Analyst. That classification correctly
recognizes that whatever academic training an employee
received, he or she is hired into the DI to be an
intelligence officer. To make the market survey feature
work in the DI, it would obviously be necessary to
devise further categories that differentiated between
analysts by academic discipline. Such an effort,
however, unduly emphasizes analysts' previous training
and overlooks a more critical measure of the worth,
25X1 SECRE'If
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
25X1 I SECRET
.notably their activities as intelligence officers. Even
more importantly, market pricing could easily propel the
DI on a course directly counter to the one we set for
ourselves six years ago when we reorganized regionally
and deliberately oriented our work toward multidisci-
plinary analysis. The cohesiveness of this program,
which is central to the Directorate, will be at risk in
an environment where there is a marked difference in
what people are paid based on their academic discipline
rather than on their contributions as intelligence
officers.
o Third, it is unclear to me, and apparently unclear to a
large portion of the DI employees as well, that
employees will be significantly better off financially
under the proposed incentive pay. Moreover, the
connotation that we do not now have a "pay for
performance" system is wrong. We do have such a system;
our employees recognize that it works and are proud of
it. The GS provides a framework to reward the high
achievers and penalize non-producers that could easily
be enhanced by more effectively using the tools we now
have.
o Finally, I fear that the proposed system will substan-
tially add to the administrative burdens already placed
on our managers who--in the DI--must also be substantive
leaders. The promised automation of performance plans
and performance evaluations, if achieved, would do
.little to reduce this burden in an environment where
there is a great diversity in the types of activities in
which our employees are engaged and in the complexity of
the projects assigned. Equally important, I fear the
burdens and dislocations of the new system on the office
of Personnel may be very large .and disproportionate to
the gains we would realize.
6. The GS pay system--as distinct from the cumbersome
position management and classification system associated with
it--can admittedly be improved. Nevertheless, it provides a
framework that offers many of the features the proposed banding
and incentive pay features lack. The Directorate of Intelligence
is proud of the work force we have now, and its makeup proves we
can attract and hold good employees. I think that the GS
,approach is a positive force in our attractiveness and stability
because it maximizes promotion opportunities and the psychic
returns associated with them, does not restrict lateral movement
between different assignments or Directorates within the Agency,
allows us to recruit quality performers more easily from other
Agencies, and finally, gives our personnel a common standard
against which to measure their occupational status and career
growth relative to counterparts elsewhere in government. These
advantages are substantial, and I see much that can potentially
be lost by abandoning the GS.
25X1 SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
25X1 SECRET
7. I believe that we are in a position to fashion an
improved compensation system without introducing the upheaval
that would be associated with the banding and incentive pay
features. I therefore recommend:
o That we proceed in identifying and ranking the most
desirable of the enhanced benefits discussed in the
HRMCTF proposals. We should proceed to implement any
priority items that we can without new legislation and
explore the feasibility of seeking legislation as
required for others. Ideally, such legislation would be
broad enough to allow us to introduce new benefit
features as they become relevant to the needs of our
future work force.
o That the HRMCTF refocus its efforts to examine ways to
make the GS more flexible. I believe the GS system
creatively managed can provide most of the features
available under a banding/incentive pay system without
the disruption involved with implementing the latter.
At a minimum we could liberalize policies toward QSI and
monetary awards, make periodic instep. increases less
automatic, reduce the bureaucratic hurdles to granting
out-of-cycle promotions, allow our highest achievers to
skip grades, and the like. Even a broader dual track
system can be accommodated under the GS, a concept
recently visited by a DI study group, whose report I
would be happy to share.
o That we develop a program to reduce the constraints of
the position classification system. A budget control
system such as that described in the HRMCTF proposal
would indeed enhance the options available to program
managers and enable the Agency to be more responsive to
changing priorities.
25X1
I believe that full implementation of these recommendations will
fashion a compensation system that retains the best features of
our current system, provides meaningful new benefits to
employees, demonstrates to employees the value we place on their
efforts, and provides a management/compensation environment that
will be attractive and flexible enough to meet the demands we
JKe
Attachments:
A. DI Offices' Views
B. DI MAG Survey
25X1 SECRE~
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Draft Proposal on New Pay,
Personnel Management, and Benefits System for CIA
DD/OGI
(29Sep87)
Distribution:
Orig - EXDIR (w/atts)
1 - DI Rep on HRMCTF (w/atts)
1 - DDI (w/atts)
1 - ER (w/atts)
1 - DI Reg. (w/atts)
1 - DD/OGI (w/atts)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07 : CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 5v1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
Summary of Component and Individual Employee
Reaction within the Directorate of Intelligence
to the HRMCTF Report
Approach
As a key element in identifying potential strengths and
weaknesses of the Human Resource Modernization and Compensation
Task Force proposals, the Directorate of Intelligence actively
solicited detailed comments from each of its operating components
as well as from all employees individually. Response to the
request was both heavy and enthusiastic, and most DI personnel
participated in lively discussions within their primary
management units over the merits and demerits of the plan. These
discussions were subsequently distilled into written reports and
forwarded through intermediate management levels to the
respective office and senior staff chiefs, who, in turn, prepared
summary reports for the Deputy Director for Intelligence. (Note:
copies of component responses are available on request.) Some
senior managers and line officers also took the opportunity to
comment in writing directly, either to their own supervisors or
to the DDI.
The following represents a summary of the results of this
process. In no sense, however, does it capture the profusion or
richness of the dialogue or the thoughtfulness of the hundreds of
typically detailed sets of comments from both line components and
individual employees. What it does provide is some sense for the
consensus view within the DI at the grass roots level with regard
to the report as a whole and the various changes it recommends.
This summary is best read in conjunction with the DI Management
Advisory Group survey results provided in Appendix B.
Response to individual Features
Feature 1: Occupationally Defined Bands
The proposal on banding--together with that on incentive
pay--drew the strongest and generally least favorable reactions
from DI managers and staff employees. Though many felt the
banding idea might have merit in principle, a sizable and very
articulate majority were nevertheless convinced that abandoning
the GS pay scales would be a mistake at this time for analytic
personnel. "Why reinvent the wheel," asked one analyst, "when
only a few spokes are broken?" Most seemed to agree that, while
it makes sense for the Agency to eliminate most of the unwieldy
administrative machinery of the GS system, especially grade
constraints and ceilings, the flexibility inherent in banding is
better achieved by retaining the same pay schedule in use
elsewhere in the government. Both analysts and managers feared
1bc11 All portions Secret)
25X1 SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 25"1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
I I
that dropping GS pay grades in favor of unique occupationally-
defined ones will limit individual mobility between assignments,
directorates, and agencies, resulting in a stale and less well
rounded cadre of intelligence analysts. Almost everyone, and
most notably managers, were concerned that, by reducing
appreciably the number of promotion opportunities, this feature
would undercut morale and the general philosophy of pay for
performance. Many also noted that "an important sense of self-
esteem associated with GS rank" would be lost and, with it, the
status needed for them to deal effectively with counterparts.
outside the Agency. The concept of market pricing also elicited
skepticism, not just because many felt it was unworkable in light
of the Executive and Legislative Branch indisposition to increase
Federal pay but, more importantly, because it could work against
unit cohesiveness and. cooperative multi-disciplinary analysis.
Our most technically oriented components recognized the need for
pay differentials to attract scientific personnel but argued that
the existing GS.E schedule is closer to being adequate than the
one proposed by the report.
Feature 2: Incentive Pay
By and large, the notion of pay for performance received
strong support from both managers and analysts within the DI, but
many questioned the implicit assumption of the report that this
is not provided by our current system. Most respondents seemed
to prefer a liberalization of the present .merit awards and bonus
programs rather than the approach outlined in the Task Force
Report. One office director, noting that "what . . the report
is missing is recognition of the fact that money is not the thing
that matters most to the majority of Agency employees," suggested
giving component heads more discretionary authority and funds to
make spot awards for special achievement. There was strong
concern--especially among analysts--that creativity and
willingness to take risks under the proposed plan would suffer
and that such annual performance bonuses would "encourage short-
term, high quantity production efforts at the expense of long
term, innovative . . . research." Another office head joined a
number of other DI managers in observing that sentiment against
this feature often seemed to run strongest among those younger,
high-performing analysts who would benefit most from its
implementation. Overall, most feared that this proposal would
generate the wrong kind of competition, could be corrosive to
morale by failing to provide any tangible rewards for the
50 percent of the personnel annually failing to receive a bonus
(but who, on the whole, had made worthwhile contributions), and,
in the long term, would not be financially supportable under
Federal budget realities. Indeed, on this last score, several
impromptu statistical analyses by our analysts suggest that a
majority of the DI would.end up no better off under the bonus
system and banding. Finally, many of our managers feared the
annual selection process could easily become a bureaucratic
burden.
-9 -1
25X1 SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 25 N/ A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07 : CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
Reaction to this feature was mixed. Many line officers and
supervisors liked the idea of having a clearly articulated work
plan done each year but also noted that the current AWP provides
a mechanism for doing just this. To the extent DI personnel
raised concern, it reflected the rigidity of the proposal. Some
noted, for example, that yearly performance plans were both
unnecessary and a nuisance for many experienced officers who were
performing proficiently. One senior staff chief opined that
"some employees would be less willing to accept ad hoc
assignments or undertake 'risky' initiatives . . . not reflected
in the performance plan."
Not unlike the performance plan, the proposal for
performance evaluation drew mixed responses. By and large, most
of our personnel saw little difference between what was proposed
and the PAR system now in place. Reaction to the notion of fewer
rating categories was split about evenly. Managers, however,
tended to be concerned about the overhead involved in introducing
yet one more new evaluation tool, and many personnel voiced the
opinion that the only thing wrong with the current PAR is not the
form but the inability or unwillingness of managers to comment
frankly on.the work of those they supervise.
Feature 5: Occupational Career Handbooks
This feature seemed to be generally well liked, although a
number of DI officers and managers questioned whether it was
really necessary. To the extent concern was raised, it focused
on a general consensus among the bulk of our personnel that
career advancement be keyed to actual performance, not to rigid
or "cookie cutter" prerequisites for education, training, or
experience.
Individual Career Development Plan
Most DI personnel appeared to like this feature. Some
managers raised the fear that this could become just one more
piece of paper in their in-boxes, but the majority argued that
this was something they should be doing anyway. Non-supervisory
personnel tended to be uniformly enthusiastic.
Feature 7: Occupation-Specific Training
Feature 8: Improved Availability of Training
Responses to both of these proposed features--which are
logically linked--were very positive. As one office director
observed, "Why is this not being done already?" Both managers
and line officers expressed deep concern that, in spite of recent
improvements, OTE is still not able to provide a sufficient
quantity and mix of high quality training courses. Virtually all
25X1 SECRETI
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 25 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
seemed to feel that outside training was worthwhile and deserved
strong management support. The only negative reactions came in
the form of the caveat that training be geared to individual
needs and not to uniform profiles or pre-set quotas to fill
courses.
This was one of the best liked proposals. Most managers and
analysts believed that this would give the DI a boost in its
ongoing efforts to create a body of substantively qualified
experts rather than seeing these people lost to management
positions solely because they seek advancement. Many, however,
noted that the bare bones for such a dual track manager/expert
system already exists in the Directorate and is well on the way
to be' thened in light of the recommendations of the
recen Study." Nevertheless, there was manifestly strong
and broad support among our employees for the expansion and
strengthening of a non-managerial "expert track," however this
might be accomplished. The only cautions raised revolved around
the need to ensure that managers remain substantively expert and
maintain clear lines of control over their programs and analysis,
that "expert" positions not be used to harbor poor performers
with high grades, and that individuals willing to take on the
riskier and more onerous duties of the manager not be discouraged
by the absence of additional rewards in the form of pay and
prerequisites.
Reaction to this proposal was rather light, possibly because
many find it vague and rather imprecise. On the whole, most of
our personnel tended to like the current DI career panel system
and those who commented were thus inclined to view this feature
favorably. Some of our managers, however, noted that the
procedures and criteria suggested seem more appropriate than
those outlined in the DI occupational panel report.
Nevertheless, there was concern that performance--and not
training, assignments, time in grade, or position--must be the
determining factor in career advancement. In line with the
reaction to features 1 and 2, senior managers--and office heads
in particular--underscored the need for more, not less,
flexibility in making promotions.
Feature 11: Flexible Benefits Program
Feature 12: Leave Conversion
Response to these two proposals was overwhelmingly strong
and favorable. Without question, virtually all of our employees
regarded them as long overdue. As one of our senior staff chiefs
put it, "Even if no other part of the proposed HRMCTF Report is
accepted, the Agency should press ahead with this feature."
Concerns were few and largely related to financial and political
feasibility and to the necessary lack of precision in the report
25X1 SFCRRT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 25 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
as to exactly what kinds of options might be available. One
issue, however, was raised frequently and appeared to reflect a
consensus of both our managers and line officers: that leave
conversion and buy-back not be so unrestricted as to permit or
encourage employees to take no vacation time in a given year.
Feature 13: Educational Assistance for Dependents
Reaction to this feature was mixed and characterized by
either strong support or strong opposition. Many personnel
welcomed such assistance, but others argued that it discriminated
strongly against employees without dependents. This said, there
was at least broad support for the spirit of the recommendation
and many suggested that the solution is to permit loans but not
link them solely to educational purposes.
Feature 14: Staffing Management Tools
Generally speaking, reaction to early and involuntary
retirement was favorable, especially--and not surprisingly--from
senior managers. As one office director noted, "My own feeling
is that any.system that gives office level managers more
flexibility in structuring their organizations to meet changing
conditions and requirements is a worthwhile one." Of interest,
relatively few non-supervisory personnel expressed particular
concern that management might abuse these options. A number of
managers and line officers, however, questioned why only
"experts" and SIS-level personnel would get the early-out
option. In contrast, the notion of retention bonuses found few
supporters, with many arguing that they are inconsistent with the
early retirement option, subject to abuse, and a possible source
of discontent (citing recent examples of the US military).
Feature 15: System Controls
Feature 16: Projection Tools
Most rank and file DI personnel and first line manages had
little comment on these two features, which are only treated
briefly and in very general terms in the report. More senior DI
managers were inclined to welcome better tools for keeping track
of their programs and making more efficient use of their
resources. Concern, however, was widespread that these not add
additional reporting burdens on already hard-pressed line
units. Other respondents cautioned that "substantial care is
necessary to ensure that appropriate administrative and data
processing support is in place before implementation of any
changes."
Overall Sense of the Directorate
Viewed as a whole, there were several common threads that
seem to run throughout the reactions of most DI personnel to the
H-RMCTF report and its proposals.
5
25X1 SECRE
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030016-7
 25 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030016-7
-- Although most employees recognized that the proposal for
banding and merit pay are the "centerpiece" of the plan
and were inclined to favor both notions in theory, they
were strongly skeptical of the need for or advisability
of eliminating the GS pay system.
-- In contrast, reaction to most other aspects of the
report, especially those proposals recommending enhanced
and more flexible benefits and training, was extremely
positive.
-- Cynicism ran highest with regard to the financial and
political feasibility of the proposals and to the ability
of the already overburdened management/support system to
implement them.
-- Perhaps the most common negative reaction came in
response to what many DI personnel perceived as the
"monetary emphasis" of the principal features.
There appeared, in particular, to be an emerging consensus
in the DI that change should focus on improving the current pay
and evaluation system rather than substituting a radically
different and untested one in its place. A frequent observation
of many was that most of the benefits that adoption of the Task
Force's proposal in its entirety might yield could be obtained at
much less expense--especially in terms of .morale--by simply
modifying current procedures and dropping those that no longer
make sense. These sentiments were expressed well in the words of
one DI office's comments on the proposals:
-- The current system is flexible enough to accommodate the
positive features of the proposed new regime. We can
have a two-track progression, a flexible benefits plan,
bonuses, and a change in the rule that leaves people
losing leave.
-- Morale in the Agency is high under the present system,
which works to protect the Agency from politics and to
preserve expertise.
-- The wider span of promotion possibilities in the GS
structure is better for morale.
-- The current system pays for performance.
25X1 SECRET
,_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Appendix B
The DI Management Advisory Group (MAG) independently
surveyed all DI employees regarding their views on the
Human Resource Modernization and Compensation Task
Force Proposal. This appendix contains the
questionnaire distributed by the DI MAG to all DI
employees and a statistical summary of the results.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
Aumimstrauve-internal use umy
Directorate of Intelligence
Survey To Evaluate the Preliminary Report
of the Human Resources Modernization and
Compensation Task Force
STAT
To All Directorate of Intelligence Employees
The DI MAG is administering this survey as part of the DDI's effort to respond to the pay and com-
pensation system proposed by the Agency's Human Resources Modernization and Compensation
Task Force. We want to gauge your opinion of the specific features and of how the system as a whole
would affect your career and the DI work environment.
We tried to keep the survey short and simple to take while trying to accurately assess your attitudes.
The questions tend to be oriented toward soliciting a nonmanagerial perspective since the other feed-
back mechanisms also under way are more management oriented. Still, we encourage all DI
employees to complete the survey.
Please take the 15 minutes needed to fill out this survey now, and return it to your MAG
representative listed below by 26 August. We need and appreciate your participation, and welcome
any comments and suggestions. Thank you.
Chairman, DI MAG
STAT
ALA: 3F23 CPAS: 7G30
OIR: I E4822 EURA: 5G32
LDA: 1 H46 ODDI: 2F30
OEA: 4F38 NESA: 6G17
OGI: 3G13 OSWR: 5G00
OIA: 3N 100-12 SOYA: 4E28
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
Aamimstrattve-Internal Use Only
Instructions: Please use the enclosed answer sheet to answer the questions. This answer sheet will be machine
scored; you therefore should use a No. 2 pencil to record your responses. Place a mark in the appropriate box
for each of the questions. If you make a mistake or wish to change your answer, please erase your old response
completely. Please mark only one box per line for each item.
To ensure anonymity, do not put your name on the answer sheet. Ignore the top section of the answer sheet la-
beled "ID Number."
Please indicate the degree to which you approve (agree) or disapprove (disagree) with each feature of the pro-
posed system and each statement about the system using the following scale:
A = Approve or agree
B = Tend to approve, agree
C = Undecided, neutral, don't have enough information
D = Tend to disapprove, disagree
E = Disapprove or disagree
Pay and Classification Structure (Features 1 and 2, pages 1-6)
1. Establish occupationally defined pay bands for all occupations.
2. CIA control of market-price adjustments to basic pay structure.
3. Instead of current ceiling and average grade constraints, Directorates are delegated funding and
classification control.
4. Establish an incentive pay system where up to 50 percent of employees receive a combination of base pay
and bonuses larger than current in-steps.
5. All employees at an acceptable level receive at least the equivalent of the current in-steps.
6. The distribution of incentive pay is done by the career service panels.
Performance Evaluation System (Features 3 and 4, page 6)
7. Annual performance plan is developed with each employee.
8. Performance evaluated against responsibilities listed in the performance plan.
9. PARs have a significant impact on incentive pay.
Career Development System (Features 5-10, pages 6-7)
10. Each occupation develops an occupation-specific handbook.
11. Each employee has the option of preparing an annual career development plan.
12. Increase the availability of occupation-specific training.
13. Establish-an expert track for each occupation as appropriate.
14. Managers are evaluated by their supervisors on how well they manage the performance evaluation process
and develop their employees.
15. Managers and experts would be eligible for higher performance bonus awards and increased annual leave
carryover.
16. Promotions are tied explicitly to skills, assignments, experience, and training.
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
Aammistrauve-internal use umy
A = Approve or agree
B = Tend to approve, agree
C = Undecided, neutral, don't have enough information
D = Tend to disapprove, disagree
E = Disapprove or disagree
Benefits (Features 11-14, pages 8-10)
17. Flexible benefits program.
18. Annual leave buy back.
19. Optional conversion of sick leave.
20. Sick leave bank.
21. Home leave use.
22. Educational assistance for dependents.
23. Early retirement for SIS managers.
24. Early retirement for experts.
25. Involuntary retirement during reduction in force.
26. Retention bonuses for key individuals.
Data Processing Support (Features 15 and 16, page 10)
27. Budget control system for senior managers.
28. Human resource projection tools.
29. I have been given enough information about the proposed pay, personnel management, and compensation
system to make an informed decision on its conceptualization.
30. I have been given enough information about the proposed pay, personnel management, and compensation
system to make an informed decision on its implementation.
31. There is a need for us to consider changes in the current GS system.
32. I would prefer to deal with adjustments needed in the current system by retaining most of the GS system.
33. The proposed incentive pay system would enhance the motivation of employees in the DI.
34. Managers would do a better job of recognizing, rewarding, and developing their employees under the pro-
posed system than they do now.
35. The proposed system would increase competition while decreasing teamwork and collegiality in the DI.
36. The firstline supervisor would have too much control over incentive pay under the proposed system.
37. The proposed system would result in improved salary potential for most employees.
38. I expect that I would be better off financially under the proposed system.
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
ttunnuisIrauve-imernai use umy
A = Approve or agree
B = Tend to approve, agree
C = Undecided, neutral, don't have enough information
D = Tend to disapprove, disagree
E = Disapprove or disagree
39. The proposed performance evaluation system would result in a more effective appraisal of employee
performance and improved employee-supervisor communication.
40. The use of the proposed occupation-specific handbooks would make the promotion process more consistent
across offices.
41. After reviewing the proposed system, I believe the Agency should adopt it as it stands.
42. How much time have you spent learning about the proposed system?
A = less than 1 hour B = 1 to 3 hours C = more than 3 hours
Demographic Data
43. Age:
A = less than 24 years B = 24 to 29 years C = 30 to 39 years
D = 40 to 49 years E = 50 years or older
44. Current GS grade or equivalent:
A = GS-3 to GS-7 or IS-1 to IS-3 B = GS-8 to GS-11 or IS-4
C = GS-12 or GS-13 D = GS-14 or GS-15 E = SIS
45. Years of Agency service:
A = less than 3 years B = more than 3 but less than 6
C = more than 6 but less than 10 D = 10 or more years
46-47. Occupation (use line 46 for the first letter of the code and line 47 for the second):
AA = Manager AB = Secretary AC = Intelligence Assistant
AD = Analyst, requirements officer, watch officer
BA = ADP personnel-programer, systems analyst, technician, operator
BB = Information resources assistant, information resources officer, librarian, document analyst
BC = Methodologist, econometrician, statistician
CA = Editorial assistant, editor, publications officer
CB = Specialists-geographic, computer equipment, visual information
DA = Administrative support-personnel, training, finance, etc.
EE = Other
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
Administrative-internal use Only
We would like to have your concerns about and suggestions for improvements of
any of the proposed features in the task force preliminary report. Please use the
space below to comment on the features of the proposed system. (Attach additional
pages as needed.)
Feature Number
Feature Number
Feature Number
Feature Number
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
Directorate of Intelligence
Results of the Survey To Evaluate the
Preliminary Report of the Human Resources
Modernization and Compensation Task Force
To All Directorate of Intelligence Employees
During August 1987, copies of the survey were distributed to all employees in the DI, and 1,027 us-
able forms were returned. The distribution of respondents by occupation, grade, age, and tenure sug-
gests they are representative of the Directorate at large. Unknown bias could have affected the re-
sults, however, and the generalization of the findings to the entire DI should be done cautiously.
Who Answered the Survey
Manager
Secretary
Intelligence Assistant
Analyst
ADP personnel
Information resource,
librarian, document analyst
Methodologist, econometrician
Editorial, publications
Specialists
Administrative support
Others
The number of persons in each occupational group answering the survey is as follows:
Knowledge Base
Half of the respondents spent more than three hours learning about the proposed system; the other
half spent less than three hours. Two-thirds felt they had been given enough information about the
proposals to make an informed decision on its conceptualization, while only one-fourth felt they had
been given enough information to make an informed decision on its implementation.
Summary Judgment
When asked the "bottom line" question of whether to adopt the proposals or not, 59 percent rejected
the system as presented in the report; only 15 percent approved.
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
Aamimstranve-mternai use umy
Need for Change
Two-thirds of the respondents agreed there is a need to consider changes in the current GS system,
yet a majority also felt they would prefer to make the needed adjustments within the GS system.
Pay and Classification Structure
Half of the respondents favored establishing occupationally defined pay bands for all occupations
while 29 percent were opposed. Overall, 55 percent approved of an incentive pay system, 30 percent
disapproved, and 15 percent were undecided. Two-thirds favored CIA-controlled market-price
adjustments to basic pay structure.
Performance Evaluation System
Three-quarters of those answering the survey favored having a performance plan developed annually
with each employee, and 70 percent agreed to have performance evaluated against the performance
plan. Two-thirds approved of PARs having a significant impact on incentive pay, while 18 percent
were against.
There was substantial approval of many of the remaining features. The career development features
were favored by about 70 percent of the respondents, while 85 percent favored most of the proposed
benefits. About one-half of the people favored early retirement for SIS managers, early retirement
for experts, and bonuses for key individuals.
Attitudes Toward Proposals
Opinion was evenly split as to whether the proposed incentive pay system would enhance motivation
of employees-37 percent agreeing and 36 percent disagreeing. However, a majority believed the
proposed system would increase competition while decreasing teamwork and collegiality in the DI,
and nearly half saw the proposed system as giving the firstline supervisor too much control over in-
centive pay. Only 36 percent expected the proposed system to. improve the salary potential for most
employees. A similar percent expected to be better off financially; - .
As for potential benefits of the proposed system, only 31 percent believed the system would result in
more effective appraisal of employee performance and only 35 percent believed the promotion process
would become more consistent across offices.
2
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
STAT
STAT
Contrasting Employee Groups
In general, employees with fewer than six years of Agency service and those in the lower GS grades
saw a greater need to change the GS system, were more favorable toward banding and pay for per-
formance, and saw fewer flaws in the proposed system. Those groups, though, did not see any greater
salary potential for most employees nor did they differ from other employees in their expectations of
being any better off financially.
Analysts and managers were slightly more negative toward the proposed system than the rest of the
employees combined. The SIS-level employees were distinctly less approving of banding and pay for
performance while greatly more approving of delegating funding and classification control to the
Directorates.
Reading the Following Table
The responses to selected items are given on the following page. In each case "Favorable" is the com-
bined total of the responses "Approve, agree" and "Tend to approve, agree"; while "Unfavorable" is
the combined total of the responses "Tend to disapprove, disagree" and "Disapprove, disagree."
"Neutral" represents the remainder of the responses.
In Closing
More than 100 written responses were received by the DI MAG through the survey process. They
have been read and summarized for the DDI. That report will be available shortly.
We felt it to be very important to report the results of the DI survey to you as quickly as possible. In
doing so we ma have erred on the side of brevity. If you would like to look at the raw data, please
contac
Thank you all for your prompt responses and thoughtful comments.
Chairman, DI MAG
STAT
OIR: SOYA
OIA: OSW1
OEA ODDI:
OGI. NESA
LDA . EURA
ALA CPAS:
3
Administrative .Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030016-7
AYLL...LJli RlC~liiiCi Lai VAC VIL3
Distribution of Responses to Selected Survey Items
Percent
Favorable
Percent
Unfavorable
Percent
Neutral
1. Establish occupationally defined pay bands
49
29
22
2. Establish an incentive pay system
55
30
15
3. Annual performance plan
74
15
11
5. PARs have significant impact on incentive pay
64
18
18
6. Promotions explicitly tied to skills, training, experience
69
15
16
7. Flexible benefits program
85
4
12
8. There's a need to consider changes in the GS system
68
18
14
9. Make adjustments by retaining most of the GS system
56
19
25
10. Proposed incentive pay system would enhance motivation
37
36
27
11. Managers would do a better job under proposed system
27
42 -
31
12. Proposed system would increase competition at expense of
teamwork and collegiality
54
19
27
13. Proposed system would result in improved salary potential
36
32
32
14. I would be better off financially under the proposed system
36
25
39
15. Adopt it as it stands
15
59
26
4
Administrative-Internal Use Only
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030016-7