TASK FORCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2011
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: October 10, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
TED PRICE
STAT
L/kk Glottine" f cf&A
'Ail Iva/"
o U
k4 hnt ~ hck. ~ksu~
~.d ~v~.G Si[ve f jrA
V
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
4710
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Development Task Force
FROM Executive Director
SUBJECT Task Force Report
1. I'm sorry to be so long in responding to your report. It, however,
has not been gathering dust. First, I would like to congratulate each of you
on a fine job. The approach you have taken strikes me as pragmatic, sensible,
achievable, and I believe we should move ahead.
2. Second, I know that some in the Office of Training and Education may
view the Task Force's work as critical of OTE's performance. I agree,
however, with the Task Force's basic tenent that the deficiencies uncovered
are more a lack of senior management focus and attention than a shortfall on
OTE's part. I am particularly aware of the very strong support to the Task
Force by OTE over the life of this project, and am much encouraged by work
already underway to improve the capability of our management school.
3. Finally, I was much taken in your report by the emphasis you have
placed on experience as an integral part of developing our future senior
people and am separately working this problem. In the meantime, I believe we
should proceed to:
-- carry out the proposed major overhaul of management training in the
Office of Training and Education;
-- establish a pilot personal assessment program to test the feasibility
of helping selected individual employees learn their managerial
strengths and weaknesses;
-- organize an annual one and one-half day retreat to bring together all
Agency component chiefs, division chiefs and office directors with the
DCI, DDCI, EXDIR and the four Deputy Directors for a structured
discussion of issues facing the Agency;
-- open the office of Training's program of elective presentations, now
available only to SISers, to include selected GS-15's; and finally, to
establish an office director standing group which would review all of
these programs periodically to keep them on target.
4. We need to hear more from you about proposal 4, the proposed program
of internal and external training for 12-15 officers per directorate, before
signing up. The concept sounds attractive, but seems a bit thin on what 7 DCI
precisely we would hope to achieve. EXEC
alR~r, 25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
Chairman, Executive Development Task Force
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Improved Executive Development
You convened the Executive Development Task Force in October,
1985, to review the process by which the Agency prepares its
officers for leadership positions. The purpose for so doing was to
identify any shortfalls that might exist and to outline some actions
which would improve the present system. This memorandum responds to
that charge.
Summary
Executive development is the sum, at any one time, of everything
that an employee has experienced while climbing the career ladder,
some of which has happened by design, and some by accident. The
Agency, for reasons outlined in the main text, traditionally has
trod lightly on the design end of such development: Viewing
ourselves as well-managed and well-led, we tend to be complacent
about things like executive development. As a result, we haven't
focused much on what we, as an organization, want out of the process.
Thus, it should be no surprise that the Task Force, in its
review of our developmental efforts, came to the conclusion that we
really don't have an executive development "program." In the
absence of any organizational objectives for such development, we
have instead adopted--or defaulted to--a haphazard approach to the
problem. What we do proffer in this regard is devoid of meaningful
management participation and, as a result, is of uneven quality.
Against this backdrop, the Task Force identified a course of
action which would both involve line management and bring some order
and purposefulness to the development process. It is designed to:
1) ensure that our junior officers have ample opportunity to equip
themselves not only with the appropriate management skills, but also
with some sense of what the Agency's management philosophy is and
what is expected of them as managers; 2) offer a means of personal
development through recognition of one's managerial strengths and
weaknesses; and 3) foster the development of broader perspectives--a
more "corporate" view of our profession, if you will--among managers
at the GS-15 and SIS level. As is the case with all such
developmental activities, success is totally dependent on the extent
1
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
to which Agency management, from the top down, personally embraces
the concept and actively engages itself individually in the process.
The six steps we propose involve:
1 -- A complete overhaul of management training, a process
already underway. This will involve establishment of a
core course of training consisting of two or three short,
dynamic courses designed to: a) teach basic management
skills applicable across the Agency, impart Agency
management philosophy, and provide a grasp of how the
Agency works and how to get a job done in our
environment; b) hone interpersonal skills; and c) address
specific directorate-related management training needs.
Active line managers would carry a large share of the
presentational load. As an adjunct to these courses, we
also recommend establishment of an elective program,
patterned after the SIS elective program, which would
provide 1-2 day sessions on key Agency functions, issues,
and relationships for managers below the GS-15 level.
2 -- Establishment of a pilot personal assessment program to
test the feasibility of better focusing our efforts to
give employees the opportunity to learn their managerial
strengths and weaknesses and to provide them a means to
follow up on assessment results if they so wish.
3 -- The opening up of OTE's Executive Elective Series of
presentations to selected GS-15s. This would extend to
that group most likely to rise to the senior executive
ranks--many of whom are already holding down SIS
positions--the opportunity to participate in an important
segment of executive-level perspective building.
4 -- Establishment of a program by which on an annual basis
the Deputy Directors would select a group of 12-15
officers to receive, as a group, specific external and
internal training over a 2-3 year period in amounts not
exceeding 3-5 weeks over the course of each year. While
such training would be open to all officers, this would
permit us to ensure some tailored exposure to outside
developments for selected officers without intruding
noticeably into the work routine, while at the same time
strengthening cross-directorate ties.
5 -- Undertaking annual 1 1/2 day retreats allowing the Deputy
Directors, as a group, to discuss with cross-directorate
gatherings of SIS-4s, issues, where we are going as an
Agency, etc. This would go far toward dispelling
parochialism at the office/division level and the
2
CONFIDENTTAT.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
perception of it from there looking up, and would
contribute to the establishment of organizational
identity and perspective.
6 -- Establishment of an Office Director-level Standing Group
which, on behalf of the Deputies, would constantly review
the executive development process, particularly steps 1-4
above, to ensure relevance.
Background and Purpose
Above and beyond our normal desire to try to improve things,
interest in this undertaking was spurred by the realization that we
are faced with a shrinking pool of experienced officers from which
to draw to fill our executive ranks. Just over one-half of the
Agency population has 10 years or less experience; one-third has
less than 5 years. This at a time when an inordinately high number
of our present executive corps is now eligible for retirement, as
well as a sizeable percentage of the feeder group for the executive
ranks--the GS-14 and 15 cadre. Also, we have experienced some
high-quality efforts which have convinced some normally skeptical
people that well focussed high-quality training really can help us
do our work better.
Higher attrition rates may not be a temporary phenomena. Given
the present potential for government service becoming a considerably
less attractive career choice for bright young individuals, the
somewhat gloomy long-term forecasts concerning our continued ability
to compete with private industry for the best and brightest from the
shrinking pool of eligible workers projected for the 1990s, and the
greatly increased competition in the Washington area for the kinds
of people we seek, we may be entering an era where higher attrition
is the norm. In this scenario, and barring any major change in our
retention capability, a smaller number of top-flight officers would
be staying the course long enough to endow themselves with the
background; experience, and personal qualities sought for executive
positions.*
Thus, now is a propitious time to explore ways to adjust our
developmental process in ways which are both compatible with our
management style and geared to equip the incoming generation of
Agency executives with the best skills and the widest perspectives
possible.
* Early on in our deliberations, we asked each of the Deputies and
the Executive Director what criteria they used in selecting office
directors. This was an attempt to get some handle on senior
management's views regarding executive qualities. Their responses
are at Tab A.
3
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
Executive Development in the Agency Today
Traditionally, executive development in CIA has been subject to
directorate "local option." Thus, the time and attention and the
philosophy of such development differs widely across the Agency.
Unlike our colleagues in private industry, we have never embraced
the concept of a structured, corporate approach to executive
development. Our few attempts to mandate such schemes--the Senior
Officer Development Program being the most recent--have failed
miserably. Such is not compatible with our culture; centralized
development runs counter to our decentralized system of management.
The Agency has instead adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward
executive development. Management training--a necessary
underpinning of executive development--is voluntary and, in our
mission-oriented environment, job assignments are made principally
on the basis of getting the current job done, with developmental
goals running a distant second on the objectives list. With the
possible exception of the DS&T, which employs a form of succession
planning, the Agency leans more toward letting the managerial cream
rise to the top of its own volition. Thus, development--both
classroom and experiential--depends more on the passing of time than
on the initiative of Agency management. To the degree that it does
occur, it results more from chance than from design, more from an
individual's initiative than from a broad management plan.*
To our credit, this approach has worked quite well. We
certainly have to be ranked overall as among the best managed
organizations in the Federal Government. Our obvious success in
this regard stems in large part from our hiring process, which
screens out all but the highest caliber people and, at least until
recently, from the fact that we have enjoyed a relatively stable
work force. People have tended to make a career in the Agency,
affording us the luxury of a good-sized pool of experienced officers
from which to draw our executives. This has helped to make us
complacent regarding executive development. This complacency is
buttressed by the fact that we often define leadership in terms of
substantive mastering of subject, so to the extent our system
produces this, we find that we have succeeded.
* One-third of our 9IS cadre have not had any training inside or
outside the Agency in management or supervision, or anything that
even remotely could be called broadening or developmental. This
includes such things as the mid-career course, war colleges,
Congressional programs, etc. The SIS elective program may put a
dent in this statistic.
4
1'f1MWTnPUTT ? T
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
The Problem
Given our changing population and the experience levels of that
population, the Task Force believes that the current process of
executive development, while not "broken," may not serve us as
successfully in the future as it has in the past. In any event, it
is a rare system that can't be improved, and the Task Force
perceives that our current approach would benefit significantly from
a dose of order and purposefulness, actual or perceived problems
notwithstanding.
We focused our attention on four facets of executive development
where we believe there is considerable room for fine tuning:
management training; personal assessment; perspective development;
and executive-to-executive communications.
Although the Task Force believes strongly that interdirectorate
assignments are important to any serious executive development
program, we did not take on the question of experience/assignments
for practical as well as substantive reasons. Traditionally, formal
proposals promoting the concept of developmental assignments have
arrived stillborn in the Agency. However, the Agency informally is
moving slowly in the direction of increased cross-fertilization. It
is becoming more prominent between the DO and DI, and has existed
for a long time--but on a smaller scale--between DS&T and these two
directorates. At present, the DA is more a recipient of such
transfers than a supplier. Though driven principally by operational
exigencies rather than by developmental goals, such assignments
accomplish the desired end. We see any attempt to force the process
faster than management desires--or will tolerate--as being
counterproductive.
Management training in the Agency--where officers rising through
the ranks should become imbued with the basic values of the Agency,
hone their basic administrative/managerial skills, and learn how the
Agency as a corporate entity works--needs a major overhaul. The
program we have in place is ill-defined and poorly understood
throughout the Agency, there is overlap and redundancy within and
between the courses, and there is an overall lack of intellectual
challenge in the classroom. OTE has struggled to keep up with the
explosion of interest in management training in the Agency, but has
done so in an unfocused way, without guidance from the organization
on what is needed, and without itself having a clear understanding
of what relevant management training in CIA is. We have little or
no participation by practicing line managers in our courses to
better connect management theory to management practice in CIA and,
until recently, we have done little to relate this type of training
to the specific problems found in the Directorates. Finally, we
have given little attention to providing management training to our
overseas employees.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
Like our present approach to management training, there is
little order to the personal assessment process--learning one's own
strengths and weaknesses through tests, exercises, etc.--as it
relates to executive development. It occurs in dribs and drabs in a
variety of courses focused on other matters, and is a principal
focus of one or two others. This is not to say that there isn't
some high-quality work in this regard going on--there is. But
presently, depending on what courses you attend during your career,
you can arrive at the executive threshold either never having gone
through such an assessment or, at the other extreme, having gone
through it multiple times and in varying qualitative degrees. We
also offer no organized way (not formal, just organized) for our
employees to follow up on the results of personal assessment if they
so wish.
Broadening of perspectives is a vital aspect of executive
development. Its development was the principal objective in
establishing the roster of external training opportunities we enjoy
today. Interestingly, it is only recently that we have begun to
focus inwardly as well to ensure that those on the way up the career
ladder are exposed to a more diverse set of Agency issues than they
would normally be privy to in their respective assignments. The
present program of brief electives OTE offers our SIS cadre is an
important step in the perspective building business. So also is the
experimental seminar program run by the Executive Director, wherein
a group of officers selected by each of the Deputies gathers once a
month over the course of a year for a couple of hours to discuss
with individual line managers the Agency's response to
recent/current management challenges. The weakest link in this
package is the external training program. It is not well-understood
by management and needs a better airing than is presently provided.
If we intend to do anything along the lines of providing individuals
the opportunity to follow up on the results of personal assessment,
or of providing incentive for mid-level management to get more
involved in guiding the selection of courses for individuals, we
must provide clearer insights as to the content and utility of
external offerings than are presently available.
Over and above developing smarter, more broadly-based officers,
a key objective of most executive development programs is the
establishment of an organizational identity and perspective. While
a certain amount of this can be acquired through assignments and the
classroom it should also be communicated from the top down.
Probably because we have never really accepted executive development
as an organizational talk, we have not focused much energy on
projecting the concept that a management team runs our Agency.
Directorate managers at the SIS-3 and 4 levels have little direct
contact with Deputies other than their own, and therefore have
rather circumscribed knowledge of what is currently preoccupying top
management or of its views of where the Agency needs to be moving.
This executive-to-executive communications gap, if not somehow
6
C'(111FT nFNTTAT.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
reduced, will tend to diminish any efforts we might make elsewhere
to broaden our officers' perspectives.
Resolving These Problems
As you can see from the above, executive development in the
Agency presently is haphazard, ad hoc, and of uneven quality. On
the other hand, the wherewithal for establishing a more meaningful
program is at hand. What we need to do is bring some order to the
process, fine tune it qualitatively, and add a dose of
purposefulness from the management side. Toward this end, we offer
the following six-part proposal. We believe it is in keeping with
the values and traditions of the Agency, that it brings senior
management into the action in a reasonable way, and that it contains
an element of individualized attention--all items contained in the
original charge to the Task Force.
Part 1. We should replace the present OTE management training
program with a core course of training for our managers and
supervisors.* This core program, which must be taken by all new
first-line managers in CIA, should consist of two or three short
(2-3 days) elements which have a logical progression, are dynamic
and intellectually challenging, can run as frequently as required,
and which can be taken overseas as often as necessary. We perceive
that these offerings should contain:
a) A segment on basic management skills and rules of the road
applicable across the Agency, the Agency's basic management
philosophy (mission and people-oriented), and some idea of
how the Agency works and how to get a job done in this
environment;
b) A segment on interpersonal skills;
c).Segments tailored to specific directorate-related management
training needs.
We believe that a reasonable way to make the first cut at these
presentations would be to reduce dramatically the menu of management
courses presently offered by OTE by taking the best parts of each
and condensing them into the above-in effect, a zero-based review
of what is now offered. Personal assessment should not be part of
this package, nor should Looking Glass or POCM-type courses, which
are normally considered as follow-ups to assessment. OTE should
present its core course concept to a gioup of senior Agency
managers, even to the extent of putting them through dry runs, to
ensure the quality of the content and presentation. As an adjunct
* In fact, this process has already started at OTE.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
to the core courses, we also recommend establishment of an elective
program, patterned after the SIS elective program, which would
provide 1-2 day sessions on key Agency functions, issues, and
relationships for managers below the GS-15 level.
It is absolutely critical that line management not only work
with OTE on the content of these courses, but that active line
managers bear a reasonable share of the presentational load. The
courses are brief to accommodate this aspect, which is a sine qua
non to the credibility of the program.
Part 2. We ought to focus our personal assessment process more
sharply, offering it in one place only rather than in a variety of
courses. Toward that end, the Task Force recommends that the Agency
establish a pilot assessment program offering a 2-day agenda
incorporating whatever tests and exercises are necessary to provide
insights into participants' managerial strengths and weaknesses with
an eye toward filling gaps via training and experience. The program
would have four principal parts: testing of the individual;
assessment of the responses by manager/assessors; feedback to
participants and management; advice on how to fill gaps as
requested. Care must be taken to ensure that this program is in no
way construed as part of a selection process or as impacting on
promotability. Again, it is essential that we engage quality
personnel to conduct this program, be they staff or cleared
contractors.
The Agency experimented with assessment "centers" in the late
1970s. Two factors seemed to have combined to kill the
undertaking: the effort was conducted at the office level, which is
too low to allow efficient utilization of resources; and management
was unwilling to provide the personnel necessary to make the effort
tick. The Agency-level program we are proposing is responsive to
the first problem. Regarding the investment of people time, an
assessment program with non-management people serving as assessors
simply is not worth the effort. Time off-line can be minimized, but
it cannot be eliminated. It is a price that must be paid if we are
at all serious about development. It is for this reason that we
recommend a pilot program, which should give us a true measure of
the manpower costs.
The assessment program, if institutionalized, should be
voluntary, although we believe management should apply reasonable
pressure to reluctant officers who are of fairly high potential.
The Task Force is'also concerned that the assessment be done early
enough in one's career to foreclose wasting it on officers so set in
their ways that growth or change is impossible. Because the grade
levels at which one first assumes supervisory/managerial
responsibilities varies across the Agency, the Directorates should
make their own determination as to when the appropriate time is for
a given employee. In viewing this as part of an executive
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
development process, however, we suggest focusing on the GS-12 to
GS-14 levels, allowing occasional retakes as one progresses through
the ranks for review purposes. Because the assessment program is
expensive in terms of management time, some selection criteria must
be applied to ensure that those destined for higher-level management
positions have first crack at the program. Like the management core
course of training, the assessment process should be designed so it
can be taken overseas.
Tab B, which is based on data from Development Divisions
International--a Pittsburgh based organization well known in the
area of personnel assessment--gives a brief summary of what we have
in mind.
Part 3. Management training and personal assessment are basic
elements of executive development and by their nature are mostly
inward looking. Part 3 focuses on the larger environment in which
we work and is geared to ensure that a larger number of our more
senior officers--GS-15 thru SIS-4--are exposed to developments and
issues outside their specific areas of expertise.
The Task Force believes that the Executive Elective Series and
the external training program sponsored by OTE are important
elements of this perspective building process. We have two
recommendations regarding these programs:
A. Open up the Elective Series to GS-15s selected by the
Deputies. We have lots of officers at this grade holding
down SIS-level jobs who will likely be in that situation
long enough to glean some real profit from an early start
on the elective series.
B. That management use the Elective Series and external
training opportunities as the basis for devising some
personal development for GS-15 through SIS-3 officers.
Specifically, we recommend that each Deputy Director and
the E Career Service annually select three officers to
participate in a 2-3 year program which would involve
acquiring up to 3-5 weeks of training--broken up into
reasonable chunks--each year. The purpose of this is to
ensure exposure to outside developments without intruding
noticeably into the work routine, while at the same time
strengthening ties across directorate lines at the senior
level. Each group of 12-15 would transit the program as
a team. The selected courses the croup would attend
could range from 1-2 day electives to 1-2 week external
offerings. These courses would be open to all, except
for the 12-15 slots occasionally required to accommodate
the group. External programs would have to be brought to
the Agency to accommodate cover requirements of the group
9
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
if necessary. Three things are required to set this in
motion: 1) a thorough review and assessment by OTE of
what is available in external training and its
developmental value and overall quality; 2) selection
from this by the Deputies of a 3-year menu for the first
group; 3) selection of candidates. This process will
provide upper management the wherewithal to determine
what it needs for people and enroll them.
Part 4. The Task Force recommends initiation of an occasional
1 1/2 day off-site retreat where the Deputies roll up their sleeves
and discuss issues, where we're going, etc., as a group with our
SIS-4s. This would go far toward dispelling parochialism at the
office/division level and the perception of it from there looking
up, and contribute to the establishment of organizational identity
and perspective. With nearly 70 SIS-4s, this would probably take
two sessions to involve everyone, and the process should be repeated
annually. The sessions should be informal and ought to involve a
combination of what each cross-directorate group wants to talk about
and what the Deputies want to convey. Little organization would be
required to accomplish this.
Part 5. Finally, we recommend the establishment of a standing
group which, on behalf of the Deputies, would keep the executive
development process--particularly parts 1-3--under constant review.
We currently have no built-in mechanism for revitalizing our efforts
in this regard. Executive development must be refreshed at least
yearly as the issues change, and the standing group would ensure
that those things most important to the Deputies are addressed. It
would also keep a weather eye trained on the management training and
personal assessment end of the process to ensure relevance to
Directorate needs. The group, which would be chaired by the
Director of Training, should consist of office-director level
members selected by the Deputies. The group should be required to
submit an annual appraisal of management training and executive
development'to the Executive Director.
The Next Step
The six steps outlined briefly above entail a lot of work. It
would likely be a year before the management training program could
be redesigned, something less for the assessment program. The
zero-based review and assessment of external training will also be a
considerable piece of work. The rest is pro forma.
3
10
C(1NFTIlF.NTTAi.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
The next step is approval of the concept. Then we, or some
sub-groups, can start working out some kind of an implementation
schedule.
11
(YNFTIWRNTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
Question: What do I look for in a potential new office director?
Answer It depends a lot on what's been going on in the component
up to now, and where we would like it to go in the future.
Example: The component that has been through a period of high stress
and relatively revolutionary change may need one kind of new manager to
consolidate, soothe and stabilize. Another component perceived by many
of us to have "lost its way" needs imaginative new leadership and
management and requires a quite different solution. An individual who is
appropriate for an assignment to a given component this month, may not
make much sense for that same assignment two years from now.
So the question is an extraordinarily complex one and is driven both
by the capabilities of the people we have available and the objective
situation we see.
Having said all this, I very often find myself asking these kinds of
questions about potential future office directors, in the very rough
order I would weigh them:
-- Does he have an agenda of some kind? Does he tend to set goals
and work towards them?
-- Is he interested in yesterday or tomorrow?
-- Has he had some success in dealing with like or at least analogous
problems?
-- Does he encourage or discourage the upward flow of ideas?
-- Is he likely to inspire others to make their best efforts?
-- Does he display support for honesty and integrity?
-- Does he seem to reward problem-solving?
-- Does he recognize that everyone in the component is important?
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
t
5:33 PM -- 12 December 1985
Note To:
From:
Harry E. Fitzwater
In Response To: Your NOTE, dated 06 December 1985,
Executive Qualities
I have not had a chance to give this much thought so please bear
with me. First, there are certain characteristics that I think
are important, whether you are a leader or a manager. There is a
great difference, as you well know. I think anyone can be taught
to be a manager but not everyone can be a leader. As I mentioned
this morning I had initially thought I would give you a
prioritized list but we will see as I chug along in this maze.
The following are very important characteristics:
+ Intelligence (knowledge)
+ Self assurance
+ Common sense
+ Intellectual honesty and integrity
+ Loyalty
+ Team player
+ Able to make a decision
+ Flexibility and adaptability
'A+ Example '8
+ Tact
+ Know how to handle conflict
+ Charisma (doesn't hurt)
+ Don't forget to LISTEN
+ Never forget good-old compasion
+ Guts and more guts
It is hard to prioltize these characteristics. I suppose
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
OTE REGISTRY
SUBJECT: Executive Development: Criteria for Selection
for an Office Director
Not in any priority order (indeed, they cannot be ordered
and the ideal mix would differ for each office):
-- Thorough understanding of the policy process, and how
intelligence is both used and regarded by policymakers.
-- Imagination, openmindedness, willingness to listen to
criticism and new approaches.
-- Representational skills, particularly before hostile or
skeptical audiences.
-- A corporate view (not bureaucratically turf conscious).
-- Ability to deal with people.
-- Ability to manage re sources, particularly balancing
competing requirements.
Activist approach to dealing with the rest of
Int.elligence Community.
Strong substantive expertise.
-- Ability to manage the analytic process, including
understanding ingredients that promote quality and
ability to combine and use those Ingredients.
-- Diverse experience, especially in policy community or
other elements of intelligence community (or even CIA).
STAT
Deputy Director for Intelltpenco
Robert(-?I. Gates
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
From DS&T
Characteristics Desirable/Necessary in an Office Director
I. Management (Personnel)
MDtivator of people.
? An innovator who can generate new ideas and permits new ideas to be
generated.
? A listener. A mistake that so many people make is that they don't
listen either to superiors or subordinates and that inevitably leads
to trouble.
Understanding of people.
0 Is candid.
? A leader.
0 Decisionmaker. (This may be the most important.)
Commands respect. (I believe this comes automatically if all of the
above are true.
II. Management (Programs)
0 Knowledge of the budgetary process.
A planner.
Knowledge of the Directorate and the Agency.
An ability to "think" Directorate. (This is what I expect of the
membership on my Board of Directors.)
? A thorough understanding of programmatics.
0 The ability to acquire and hire experts when necessary.
III. Substantive Knowledge
4W
The individual needs to have a thorough background in a particular
field and have practiced in that field for some time. I don't think
anyone can ever be a good manager without having been managed at some
time during his or her career. It is not necessary for the individual
to have a PhD in physics in order to manage a group of physicists or be
an engineer to manage an engineering office, but he should have had a
good substantive background of one sort or anothpr_
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2
CONFIDENTIAL
Personal Assessment Program
Objective: Provide insights into participants' managerial strengths and
weaknesses with an eye toward filling gaps via training and
experience. Results of assessment would be available both to the
individual being assessed and to that person's management. Under
no circumstances is this data to be used for selection or
promotion purposes.
Scope: Single program applicable across the Agency. Does not replace
POCM (Program On Creative Management) or Looking Glass, which
will be provided to officers GS-15 and above.
Target GS-12 to 14, generally, but final determination up to
Population: directorates. (We have roughly
GS-14s.)
Concept: Each class runs 2 days. There are 12 students in a class, plus 1
assessor for every 2 students. Program involves pencil tests,
simulations such as in-basket exercises, and feedback to the
student and management. Assessors are agency managers, and each
must make a one-time commitment to attend a 3-day assessor
training program. Thereafter, assessors can assume a 3-day
commitment each time they serve as an assessor (ideally, only
twice per year), depending on the exact role they play in
summarizing student responses and providing feedback.
Implementa- Option 1. Program designed and run by contractor. Design costs,
tion: including assessor training, will run $85K--$125K, depending on
how much tailoring of off-the-shelf programs is desired.
Contractor costs for actually running the program would be
$1300-1500 per candidate, plus $10K-12K per year for facility
rental. We would still be using Agency managers as assessors as
this is critical to program success. If we run 300 or more
through this program a year, we could get a 25-30% discount.
Cost aspects of this approach would tend to dampen any desire to
open this to all officers on a voluntary basis.
Option 2. Program designed by contractor and run by several
full-time CIA administratdrs. This approach would allow us to
determine the number of attendees per year based on the amount of
management time we are willing to commit to the assessment
process. It would require our finding about 3500 square feet of
space to accommodate the program. aw
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/11/30: CIA-RDP89T00142R000700780015-2