PHASE II - EXPERIMENTAL PAY SYSTEM BANDING QUESTIONNAIRE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 117
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 28, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 1, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
EPS BANDING SURVEY
PHASE II REPORT
FIGURE A ? QUESTION A
HOW WELL DO YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND...?
% OF RESPONDENTS
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
0
UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND DO NOT
MOST SOME UNDERSTAND
Psychological Services Division
Office of Medical Services
July 1986
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
PHASE II
Experimental Pay System
Banding Questionnaire
Research Branch
Psychological Services Division
Office of Medical Services
July 1986
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
25X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
RESULTS - Banding Questions
General Questions
Performance Questions
Bonus Questions
Certification Criteria Questions
PAF Questions
Summation Questions
Discussion
RESULTS - Comment Questions
RESULTS - Attitude Questions
Direct Performance Feedback
Pay and Promotion
Money and Motivation
Work Enjoyment
System Flaws
Discussion
Page
1
2
3
4
4
4
6
9
11
14
16
18
20
20
21
23
24
25
26
RESULTS - Recent PARS
RESULTS - Comparison of Phase I and Phase II Questionnaires
Understanding the Banding Concept
Attitudes towards Aspects of Banding
Discussion
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A - Tables for Technical Support
List of Tables
List of Figures
APPENDIX B - QUESTIONNAIRES
Phase I and Phase II
27
28
28
31
35
35
37
38
39
93
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 - Question 101
How well do you understand the banding pay system
Figure 2 - Question 102
Are you paid more fairly for your work under
banding or GS?
Figure 3 - Question 104
How well do you understand how performance
affects pay?
7
Figure 4 - Question 105
Will banding have a positive or negative effect on Pay? 7
Figure 5 - Question 122
How well do you understand the bonus system?
Figure 6 - Question 127
How well do you understand the certification criteria? 8
Figure 7 - Question 128
Are the new certification criteria better or worse than old? 10
Figure 8 - Question 129
Will new certification criteria change your control of
career advancement?
Figure 9 - Question 108
How well do you understand ther criteria for the PAP 11
Figure 10 - Question 109
Has your supervisor evaluated you properly with PAF?
Figure 11 - Question 111
Who initiated the discussions of your PAF?
5
5
8
10
Figure 12 - Question 120
Over long run will PAF help you plan your career?
Figure 13 - Question 131
Has pay and promotion cycle system operated fairly
or unfairly?
Figure 14 - Question 134
Personally I feel that banding will .
12
12
14
15
15
- iii -
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
INTRODUCTION
In September 1984, Psychological Services Division (PSD) of the Office of
Medical Services was contacted by Position Management & Compensation Division
(PMCD) of the Office of Personnel to assist in tracking a new pay system. The
program, called the Experimental Pay System (EPS), was to be initiated by the
Office of Communications (OC) for Panel D Telecommunications Operators. Under
this system existing GS pay levels are combined to form four "bands" (TCO I, TCO
II, TCM III, TCM IV).
A series of questionnaires of Panel D employees on issues relating to the
EPS banding experiment were planned. The first of these took place in February
1985. A report covering that initial survey was completed and distributed in
November 1985. This report summarizes the results of the Phase II questionnaire
sent to Panel D employees in November 1985. It includes the results presented in
the Executive Report on Phase II EPS banding released in January 1986.
- 1 -
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Questionnaires returned on or before 6 January 1986 provided 506 usable
data records. Assuming a population of 925 Panel D employees, this represents a
response rate of approximately 55%. Although the response rate is down from the
Phase I Banding questionnaire (64%), this can still be considered a good rate of
return.
Because the content of the Phase ll questionnaire was judged to be more
sensitive than that of Phase I. demographic variables were changed from a request
for specific information to a request for information in pre-coded categories. For
instance instead of requesting year of birth, Phase ll requested the respondent to
chose from a selection of age categories like "25 to 30 years old." (See Appendix
B for the exact wording on the demographic questions.) Even with this precaution,
however, a large number of respondents refused to give any identifying
information. Of the 506 respondents, 20 failed to complete the item requesting
band level, and 16 did not complete the item requesting age or years of service
with OC. For each biographical question the rate of failure to respond was greater
than double that rate on Phase I (i.e., those failing to report band level represented
4.2% of the sample on Phase I and 9.7% of the sample on Phase II).
Of the 506 returned questionnaires, 440 (87%) were from male respondents.
This percentage is slightly less than that on Phase I where the percentage of male
respondents was 91.5%. There were 46 female respondents (or 9.1% of the survey
sample). This percentage is slightly larger than that on Phase I where the
percentage of female respondents was 7.3%. (The remaining 3.9% of the
responding sample failed to complete the demographic question requesting sex of
respondent.)
Responses were received from representatives of all band levels. There
were 138 responses from TCO Is (27.3% of the sample compared to 26.9% on
Phase I), 188 responses from TCO us (37.2% of the sample compared to 39% on
Phase l), 112 responses from TCM Ills (22.1% of the sample compared to 26.7% on
Phase l), and 19 responses from TCM IVs (3.8% of the sample compared to 3.3%
on Phase I).
- 2 -
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/11/28: CIA-RDP89G00643R000700050001-3
CONFIDENTIAL
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Data from the Phase II survey were analyzed using a variety of techniques.
The initial review of the data considered the percentage of individuals choosing a
given response. This simple technique allows for an overall understanding of how
the sample feels about the issues. A second approach to the data analyses
involved looking at differences across subgroups within the sample. The question
addressed here involves possible differences in response due primarily to band
level or area of assignment.
The analysis technique used to access differences across subgroups is
referred to as a chi square analysis, which compares obtained frequencies with
those that would be expected if there were no real difference among the
responses. When a difference is observed between how a subgroup responded
and how we would expected a subgroup to respond, the analysis asks if the size
of the difference is larger than one expected by chance alone.
Tables and graphs depicting the analyses appear in Appendix A. Any
differences reported in the text between subgroups defined by band level or area
of assignment are statistically significant. The significance level or "p" reported in
the tables and figures is the probability that the obtained difference was due to
chance alone. That is, for p