WHY IS THE AGENCY LOSING GOOD EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 5, 2008
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: April 20, 1982
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
January 1982
Why is the Aency Losing Good Fhnployees
A. Purpose
Agency management asks, "W1hy 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 before moving into the major part of the study
which is a detailed analysis of a certain group of resignees.
B. FY 1981 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 (3.1), 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/ID Weekly
Activities Report, 24 November 81).
~.1' Qg ~ rp !. s_~v riYY~L~Y~~ LYid ~ d r i..a Y~ c. ...n._u , lr Gr La ~ ~ a
uOuW '4YIm.n
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
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 qualities 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:
Employees 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.
?erg ~ f! gqr~ 2n,r,r,_r.~ ,~!1 R?gyn m ?,"y qa
p
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 1' ne'aCd'sGtdd6nbu ~' adice; a`i Fed ~ it N
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
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 employees, who have left and who have stayed, of all ages and grades,
and combinations thereof. Thus there is no implication that there are no
good employees outside the criteria indicated.
Applying these criteria produced 53 names -- 5 Supergrades/SISs,
12 GS-15s, 16 GS-14s, and 20 GS-13s.
2. Findings
a. Who are leaving?
The 5 Supergrade/SIS employees had a range of Agency service of
10 to 24 years with an average of 14.4 years; the 12 GS:S-l5s had a range of 2
to 23 years with an average of 9.3 years; the 16 GS-14s had a range of 2 to
21 years with an average of 8.0 years; and the GS-13s had a range of 1 to
11 years with an average of 6.8 years.
27 of the 53 employees were in the I Career Service, 11 in the
R Career Service, 7 in the M Career Service, 5 in the I'. Career Service, and
3 in the D Career Service. (See Table 1).
The leading professional fields were engineering (10), economics (9),
political (9), and science (8). (See Table II).
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
P or 4.
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
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. One
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?
Of the 53 employees, 26 went to private industry or practice,
22 to other Government activities, 1 to the staff of a university, and 1
to graduate study; the locations of 3 are unknown. 3 of the 22 who went
elsewhere in Government have returned to the Agency. (See Table III).
4
s eA air tl~iH 69 (~' 6~bb 11 ~ Lu1 tl ~...~ 4V Ja Li:a t~i.+~L 6iiti~a ^
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
d. Why did they choose their new employment?
One engineer stated he for some time-wanted to start his own
business. A lawyer and psychiatrist each stated that opportunity to
enter private practice had suddently occurred; the psychiatrist mentioned
that his income would be doubled. One GS-13 wished to remain in California,
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. -
!vAPnipgA 'f!''~!1crP^r:Ta ~c5?r.s-n-.,.c.1tiq ~n "j'" pe.wn~wq
Jm Wyk) 6 k1 1 L r..; d,,U is k~e`
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
continuing basis in order to identify problems, including thoughts
of leaving, early on.
in those categories.
o Managers and supervisors should be made aware of the importance
of developing and maintaining rapport with their employees on a
o 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 recommendations 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
n,l
aP3Yti'ica`~ c.i $a~ 5 d u E ,i
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 'Y1~6bbSdW?C~~~ M ~6?r?~ A 8'ii 1~ N: .?1 'z :s'7 Ci~~a ~;,t .'~ -
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
VI/
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 comments 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
IG officer.
7
r e~ -sA~~, . cnq r ((fns r r~ P?.:
~I:~i~~r'L~~U~~6~~~e~`~~ ~ON~~auad`a~ ~fn/~ca lC`tld~~~
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Iq
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Why Are We Losing Good Employees?
Chief, Policy and Programs Staff/OP
1006 Ames
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DD/PACE
1006 Ames
EA/D/0P
5E58 Hqs
DD/OP
20JUL1982
101.
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
7/4, / ~-2_
D/OP
F' ORM L171U5E PREVIOUS
1-79 EOITIONS
'o N
STAT~
20 April 1982 STAT
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
As part of Personnel
Planning proj ec STAT
the attached paper addressing the
concern, "('thy are we losing good
employees?" Admittedly, a limited
number of resignees was analyzed
in this study. However, we conclud
that the problem, insofar as one
does exist, is not of sufficient
magnitude to dictate a more exten-
sive study at this time. This is
particularly true in view of the
relatively low attrition in recent
months resulting in the need to
slow hiring over the next several
months.
STAT
STAT
./l
STAT
STAT
ILLEGIU
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
_ 6flC16Fi
ROUTING AND NSMI` TAL SLIP
TOa (Name. omen /Pos, oom number,
building,
Prepare (R
For v?u3 Information See Me Investiga8e Signatur3
*.Coordination ted For C?r sale.
Justify
Qbta_ CCIUe%h skeu" ~l, wcwd."
REMARKS
7
ld be interest: ng to compare our results with
1 wou
results obtained from sir'ilar studies conducted by
other government agencies. I loo believe c study
should be done on clericals in the hope that some
findings other that common sense conclur-ions would
result
00 NO u~ this orm as a RECORD of epproovv0I . Co c "Ice is
* U.S. GPO:197N-0-261-647 ? 3354
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
PrescriSA
FPMR (MV 101-11.206
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
iriROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post) I Room No.-- Bldg.
Note and Return
Per Conversation
eply
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
Iq
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Denied
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
FROM:
EXTENSION
NO.
C/PPB
DATE
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1.
C/SPD
COMMENTS OF PPB OFFICERS TEND
FOCUS ON OUR JUDGMENT THAT THE
2.
53 "GOOD" EMPLOYEES ARE PROBARTV
_
"EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD" EMPIAYEELSTA T
TRULY REPRESENTATIVE
MAJORITY
OF
3.
S
OF RES IGNEE.S. IN MOST
CASES SUCH
EMPLOYEES LEAVE THE AGENCY PRIN-
8IPALLY FOR MORE CHALLENGE OR
4.
INCREASED SALARY/BENEFITS ELSEWH
A LOOK AT CLERICAL AND TECHNICAL
RESIGNEES MORE OFTEN THAN NOT GIVE
5.
A DISTURBING PICTURE OF CAREER
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND POLICIES
IN THE AGENCY? THIS IS MORE TRUE
6.
IN SOME COMPONENTS THAN OTHERS,
0/COMMO FOR INSTANCE, BUT STILL
THE THREAD RUNS THROUGH ALL AREAS.
7.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN HEAD SOME OF THES
43
PROBLEMS OFF AT THE PASS THROUGH
THE FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW RN 1~1s1QX
8.
SURVEY OF NEW EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
AT ONE YEAR POINT IN THEIR EMPLOY-
MENT .
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 61 O USE PREVIOUS
1-79 EDITIONS
Approved For Release 2008/05/05: CIA-RDP92-00455R000300050001-7