WHY IS THE AGENCY LOSING GOOD EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92-00455R000100190005-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 19, 2006
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 20, 1982
• Content Type: REPORT

..
~,~.~-~.
SU~J?CT: (Optional)
Why Are We hosing Good F~nployees? _ _ -_ _- - -
--------~ -i-
--- -
EXTENSION
NO
FROM:
. _
~
Chief, Policy and Progralns Staff/OP
DATE -
_
1006 Alves
20 April 19$2
TU': (Officer designation, room number, and
buiSding)
PATE
OFFICER'S
COMMEf~lTS (Number ouch comment to show from whom
_--_
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across tolumn after each comment.)
'
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
DD/PACE
1006 Alves
As part o.f the Personnel
-------- -
2
-- - -- --
--------
--------
Planning- project did -
.
the attached paper adc7?essing the
~
colzcern, "ti'diy a-re we losing good
"
Admittedly, a iirn_ited
employees?
3.
]:~/D/OP
nt~nber of resignees was ~tnalyzec?
SE58 II~s
in this study. However, we cortcl~u1~.
that the problem, insofar. as one
4
does exist, is not of sufficiet7t
mag~titude to dictate a more exten-
~.-------- ----- ---_---
---- _--
-- -
-
sive study at this time. T'h_s is
particularly true -in vi-ew of the
DD/OP
relatively low attrition rY r~ccn'-.
6,
-----_--
--_----
---."~.
months resulting in the need. to
slow hiring over the next several
months.-
---,: ---------------------
D/OP
s.
- --
---
--
--- --
9. ------ - --
~
10.
i i -- ---------?----
y
12. -
-
13.
-
- ~ 4-----------
15. ----------------
FOf21vi ~~ ? USE PREVIOUS
I--79 EDITInNS
Approved For
Release 2006/12128 :CIA-RDP92-004558 }~00100190Q0~9
Approved Far Release 2006112/28 :CIA-RDP92-004558000100190005-9
 Approved
R~~~~~~Q,p,~l3~,t28~:vE~ ~~D5,5R~0-100190005-9
Jan~.a'xy 1.982
Why is the ~ency Losing Good Employees
A. moose
Agency management asks, "Why are we losing good employees?" The
purpose of this study is to look at this Question, to see if there
are answers, and to determine whether there are actions that the Agency
can take to minimize losing good people; because implied in the Question
"Why?" is the larger Question, "How can we keep from losing them?" This
paper presents an overview of FY 1981 resignation statistics and CY 1981
exit interview reports befoz?e moving into the major part of the study
which is a detailed analysis of a certain group of resignees.
B. FY 19$1 Resignations
The resignee (not total separations) rate for the Agency in FY 1981
was 3 percent. A statistical survey indicates that some occupational
families were significantly above this rate: legal (8.3 percent) and
economics (5.9); others approximated the overall rate: data processing
(2.8), engineers (3.7), medical (3. l), physical science (3.7), and security
(2.3). (Source: HRPS study).
Another study shows that for employees entering on duty with the
Agency since November 1978, 7.8 percent terminate employment prior to
completing the three-year trial period. Experience since January 1980
indicates a continued rate of 7.8 percent. (Source: C/IA Weekly
Activities Report, 24 November 81).
i~iei ~i'~i~~W~~~~ ~~Giwui L.a ~fe.. _., ,.a . Ks *c~m 'iuil:u~
Approved Far Release 2006112/28: CIA-R?P92-004558000100190005-9
 Approved For Rel~{~~~a8y: (~d,~?l$~~00_~ Ob190005-9
C. CY 1981 Resignees
Statistics on employees who have resigned in CY 1981 show a
proportionately high number of younger (under 35), junior (GS-07 through
GS-12) officers in the professional and technical occupations. Especially
prevalent among these are data processing employees in ODP and NPIC.
A review of exit interviews reports indicate that the younger, junior
employees are often leaving for personal reasons (e. g., to accompany
spouse to new employment location). There are quite a few employees
leaving with under three years service. It is evident that in some cases,
regardless of age and grade, employees' job and career expectations have
not been met. Some apparently do not know where they stand, not in a
statistical sense, but in that of career potential. (Source: SPD memoranda
and exit interview reports).
D. Certain Good Employees Who Resigned
1. Methodology
How does one define good employee? Management seems to be saying
that the good employees are the ones perceived as having dualities and
skills that the Agency does not want to lose.
For this study the Official Personnel Folders of employees meeting
the following criteria were reviewed:
~nployees resigning during Fiscal Years 1978, 1979, and 1980, who,
when they resigned, were
Supergrades/SISs, age 50 and under;
GS-15s, age 45 and under;
GS-14s, age 40 and under; and
GS-13s, age 30 and under.
Approved For F~3~~'l~':'~#11`~~f~'9~`~40
~ ~ ~ 90005-9
 Approved For Red
~Q~~~P~190005-9
It was assumed that such combinations would include employees who
had attained their respective grades at relatively young ages for those
grades, thus fitting the perception of good employees. At the same time
the number of employees would be of workable size for analysis. There are
good empl~ees, who have left and who have stayed, of all ages and grades,
and combinations thereof. Thus there is no implication that there are no
food employees outside the criteria indicated.
Applying these criteria produced 53 names -- S Supergrades/SISs,
12 GS-15s, 16 GS-14s, and 20 GS-13s .
2. Findings
a. Who are leaving?
STAT
88.7 per cent of the employees received S (former rating system) or 5
(current rating system) or higher for their overall ratings on the last
performance appraisal they received. None had overall ratings below
Por4.
Aaoroved For F~~ 1 J`Y~
P xr, t "~, 0 8
I;~'P~~Cft~4~}0 x'190005-9
 Approved FR
~~:----
b. Why do they leave?
Little information is available on why these employees decided
to-leave the Agency as distinct from why they chose their new employment.
Very few offered comments in their resignation statements or exit
interviews suggesting that negative feelings about the Agency or Govern-
ment employment were major factors in their decisions to leave. (?ne
employee noted "bureaucratic default in the management of my career."
Another complained of the hardships on himself and his family because of
his field assignment. A senior official believed that Congressional
appropriations were insufficient to effectively carry out the mission of
his office.
Several made comments critical of the Agency; however these were not
presented as reasons for leaving. These comments included:
o Agency too bureaucratic
o Questionable personnel management practices in this office
and directorate.
o Disappointment at finding that Agency spied on Americans;
totally opposed to various aspects of covert action.
o Morale is Agency's No. 1 problem; Agency is overreliant
on consultants.
c. Where do they go?
STAT
4
Approved Foi~~~4_
 Approved
d. Why did they choose their new employment?
STAT
knew that he could not do this and progress in his Agency career, and
accepted a GS-12 with NASA. A GS-15 whose prior experience was entirely
in academia could not refuse the opportunity to become an associate dean at
a university. In many cases there are no stated explanations; it is assumed
that these employees perceived opportunities for increased responsibilities,
professional advancement, and accompanying salary increases.
It can be inferred that in many cases professional and Agency job-
related associations led to these employees either seeking or being sought
for other employment. For example, two employees on detail to the
Department of State were hired by State, and two employees in the Office
of the Legislative Counsel joined the staffs of Congressional committees.
E. Conclusions
This review provided no startling conclusions; nor any hard evidence
to support the perception that we have a problem. The conclusions noted
below are essentially common-sense ones that probably could be drawn
without a study:
o Capable employees, many with lengthy service, are leaving
the Agency.
o The overall resignation rate is not severe.
o Certain "hard to hire" fields -- data processing, engineering,
science, and economics -- are also prominent among fields being
lost through resignation.
Approved Far
~~~~1~212~d:~~l~~~2 ~5R~~~100190005-9
 '~ ~ 'PS'~,"i 711 ~ ~ ~ n r ~ !I ~. R r+e ^~ ~ A A ? _ ~ k !; ~y.,a .
~ ~ ~ 'tab k
Approved F ~ R'~ ~ ~F}06f~~/~8 ~~k~.~~- 5R'~~00190005-9
a Retention of employees cannot be approached in isolation from
other factors.
o A sizable number of employees who leave go to other Government
activities.
o Contacts resulting from Agency assignments can lead to other
employment.
o There is no significant disaffection with the Agency by resignees.
o Some employees who leave apply and return to the Agency later.
o In many cases there is no indication that salary is the overriding
factor resulting in the decision to resign.
o The vast majority of employees are good employees, but not all
of these are exceptional.
o The problem of losing good employees may be alleviated, but not
eliminated.
F. Recommendations
Based on the foregoing, there are few solid reco~nendations to be
made except for those that, again, are common sense:
o Office of Personnel, working with managers throughout the Agency,
should look at certain critical job categories and propose any
changes that might better attract, motivate, and retain employees
in those categories.
o Managers and supervisors should be made aware of the importance
of developing and maintaining rapport with their employees on a
continuing basis in order to identify problems, including thoughts
of leaving, early on.
Approved F~~
o ~ . ~ ;,,
:~ ~I;~~R aP-C~5 10190005-9
 Approved For Re`~'~~~~~~, CAA ~R;'I~P~2'~~0~ 5 0(~t190005-9
~.a~ai~~. c`a ~ C~~ ~ '~ ~. did i ~.s~~~ts~~.. ~~ ~~~ 1
o Office of Personnel should develop means to maintain contact with
employees who have left the Agency if there is a strong desire for,
and perceived likelihood of, their return to the Agency.
o Managers should consider the use of the PATB in hiring decisions,
not necessarily from the standpoint of Qualifications for the job,
but in evaluating an applicant's ability to adjust to the Agency
environment and potential for managerial responsibilities.
Since this review was limited to statistical reports and exit inter-
views, it might be worthwhile to do the other half: a review of exiting
employees' complaints or coirnnents to the IG, and discussions with the mid-
and first-level supervisors who most likely are the source of the concern
about losing good employees. It is to be expected that some resignees
might not be totally open with a Personnel Officer because of a perception
that it would do no good anyhow; they might feel differently about an
TG officer.
7
Approved For Release 200611.2128: CIA-R?P92-004558000100190005-9
 CAREER
SERVICE
Approved Flb~`I~~~~~1~~'t~' ~1~,TR~kPR92~06~5fl~Ql100190005-9
Yi w.se+w4wM~i~VJla lu gYYro~fd~ Yww Ei 6:s s+J ~C~ma B.:'r to nua ~~u~^
CI
EUR
OEEO
OGC
OLC
OJD/NFAC
OER
OPA
OSR
OSWR
DETAIL-NSC
DETAIL-STATE
OC
ODP
OL
OS
NPIC
ODE
OSO
OTS
CTS (ROT)
Approved For
SAMPLE OF RESIGNEES
CAREER SERVICE AND OFFICE
GS-15
SG/SIS
JA F~?F?,92~O~~QQO:~,~190005-9
ST~T
 n, 9
Approved FoR~~~~i~~ : ~~~~~'0 5R, ~ 0190005-9
SAMPLE OF RF.SIGNEES
PROFESSIONAL FIELDS
PROFESSIONAL FIELD GS-Z3 GS-14 GS-15 SG/SIS TOTAL
STAT
Contract Negotiation (LOG)
Data Processing
Economics
Engineering
EQua1 Employment
Opportunity
Law
Operations (DO)
Political
Psychiatry
Science
Security u
Approved Far R~~~~~i~~~:I~~~t'~~~4~01~t~~T90005-9
 ,r GSA ~~.QP92-OD4~55~Q~OO~,t~tJ~1~,0005-9
GRADE
SG/SIS
EMPLOYMENT AFTER RESIGNATION
OTHER GOVT PRIVATE INDUSTRY
ACADEMIC
STUDENT
(a} 1 reapplied to Agency, was put into process, but was security disqualified.
(b) 3 reapplied and were rehired by Agency.
(c) 1 subsequently was hired by another government agency.
(d) 3 reapplied but were not rehired by Agency.
(e) 1 reapplied but was not rehired by Agency; was hired by another government agency.
Approved For " ~~ ~~;$ ~C~~R~P~2 ~~~S~~OQ&k'l4~190005-9
SAMPLE OF RESIGNEES
EMPLOYMENT AFTF~12 RESIGNATION
STAT