REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FOR THE DEPUTY DIRECTORATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 35
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 3, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: April 10, 1973
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Releasr2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063600100190003-5
REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
FOR THE
DEPUTY DIRECTORATE FOR MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES
STATINTL
DD/M&S Representative
10 April 1973
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Releas2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063694400100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
CONTENTS
PURPOSE .......................................... 1
METHODOLOGY..................................... 2
RESPONDENT PROFILE ............................. 5
SPECIFIC TOPICS ADDRESSED IN THE SURVEY....... 6
CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 17
A. Questionnaire for Middle Managers
B. Age, Grade and Length of Service
C. Overall Training Needs
D. Ranked Training Needs
E. Course Ratings by Attendees
F. Course Ratings by Non-Attendees
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For ReleasV2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063699000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Management Task Force was to identify
the management training needs of middle level managers, primarily
as seen by the middle managers themselves, but also by considering
the view of other personnel conversant with the responsibilities of
middle managers and their training needs.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USF ONLY
Approved For Releasr2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369M00100190003-5
METHODOLOGY
The Task Force initially settled upon a working definition of a
'middle manager,' in order to identify its target group. The middle
manager was seen as an individual in the GS-13 to 15 grade range,
a Chief or Deputy Chief at the Division level in the Management
and Services Directorate, and basically a person whose responsibilities
included the supervision of other supervisors. In some cases, the
individuals included in the Task Force survey met all of these criteria.
In other cases, the criteria were not all met. For instance, it
became apparent that there are Division Chiefs in the DD/M&S who
are above grade GS-15. In other cases, individuals were included
who had no current supervisory responsibilities, but who have held
middle management positions or who might be expected to do so in
the future.
The Task Force conducted its survey by means of a question-
naire (Tab A) circulated to 320 persons, including 100 in the DD/M&S,
and supplemented the questionnaires with a number of additional
personal interviews.
Based upon criteria provided by the Office of Training, the
Office of Personnel produced an initial machine run of possible
candidates for the survey. In addition, the Position Control Register
was reviewed by Office within the DD/M&S, and a base listing
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Releagr2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063694000100190003-5
of 256 persons was compiled.. From this base listing, 100 candidates
for the survey were selected, broken down by Office and Grade as
follows:
OS
OMS
OC
OL
OF
OTR
OP
Support
Staff
Total
GS-17
1
1
GS-16
1
6
2
1
1
11
GS-15
6
1
6
9
4
5
7
1
39
GS-14
8
10
6
3
3
3
33
GS-13
1
1
4
3
3
1
2
15
GS-12
1
1
16
2
26
21
11
11
12
1
100
The sampling concentrated on the GS-14 and 15 level, but included
the extremes of a GS-12 and a GS-17. The largest component in the
Directorate, the Office of Communications, was not given its full
proportionate weight in the survey, simply in the interest of obtaining
large enough samples from the other Offices for comparison purposes
and yet not exceeding a manageable number of questionnaires.
Eighty questionnaires were completed and returned to the
Task Force in sufficient time to be included in the analysis that
followed. However, five of these questionnaires were only partially.
useable due to incomplete information. Generally, the question-
naires indicated that the respondents had given thought and attention
3
Approved For Reeease 66 4j/I - CITAN-FT6 I -6tWA& '10190003-5
 ADM-NISTRATIVE INTERNAL USF 'ONLY
Approved For Releas1000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369M00100190003-5
to answering the questions. Fifteen follow up interviews of persons
completing the questionnaire were conducted in the DD/M&S, and ten
Office Directors and Deputy Directors were also interviewed.
Additional background information on the participants in the survey
was obtained from Office of Personnel and Office of Training records.
4
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Releas"r2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369700100190003-5
RESPONDENT PROFILE
Analysis of the questionnaires indicated that the average age
of the respondent was 47. 8 years, with a range from 35 to 58 years
old. The average grade was GS-14. 4 and the average length of time
with the Agency was 20.4 years (Tab I3). As a group, the respondents
had 4. 1 supervisors reporting to them.
A similar analysis of age, grade:, length of time on duty and
supervisory responsibility was made according to Office, and
revealed no significant departure from the norms of the group as a
whole.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Releas2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369M00100190003-5
SPECIFIC TOPICS ADDRESSED IN THE SURVEY
I. From a listing of 24 managerial responsibilities grouped into
six categories, the respondents were asked to select those areas in
which they felt they needed additional training, and those areas in
which their successors would require training. They were also
requested to rate those training needs on a scale of Much, Some
or Little training required.
A highly positive response was received, both as to the
respondents' training needs and that of their successors. Considering
the 24 managerial responsibilities as a whole, 77.4% of the respondents
indicated that they needed training, and 87. 3% recommended training
for their successors. (Tab C)
The apparent difference between the respondents' own training
needs compared to that of their successors is further illuminated,
however, if the differences between the Much, Some and Little ratings
is examined. Assigning arbitrary weights of 3, 2 and 1 to the ratings,
the respondents recommended an additional 37% training for their
successors over their own perceived training needs.
None of the training areas was rrited so low as to be unimportant
to the respondents. Again using an arbitrary weight factor, the
lowest ranked area for the respondents' own training needs,
"Coordinating" was scored at 81, while the highest ranked area,
Approved For Re`IA4N?O ( 4TiY Clb '[ V-(6iblA 160190003-5
 ADTXTNISTRATIVE - INTERNAL US,- ONLY
Approved For Relea. 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636000100190003-5
"Computer Application, " was scored at 142. The lowest ranked
area for their successors, "Contract Management" was scored
at 115, while the highest ranked area, "Measuring Results," was
scored at 173.
Of the respondents' own training needs, the six highest ranked
were work or task oriented (Computer Application, Measuring
Results, Forecasting Techniques, Developing Performance Standards,
Budgeting and Programming) whereas the six highest ranked needs
of their successors were work and people oriented (Measuring
Results, Communicating, Developing :Performance Standards,
Computer Application, Evaluating Performance and Career
Management).
While the order in which the respondents ranked their own
training needs differed from the order in which they ranked their
successors' needs, their successors' nneeds exceed their own needs
in each of the 24 areas. The greatest difference was scored on
"Communicating." The closest scoring occurred in "Forecasting
Techniques" and "Operations Research." (Tab D)
The only difference that emerged when the results were
analyzed according to age group was that the younger respondents
in the 35 to 39 age bracket tended to rank both their own and their
successors' training needs higher than the other respondents.
A"PQ1,P0190003-5
Approved For R(AiQqAI'~7E CIFQ.RQ6?c'-
Erlo
 Approved For Relea w2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636 00100190003-5
The second item on the questionnaire asked for comments
on how the Agency might insure that potential middle managers get
the right experience, posing for examples rotational assignments
for on-the-job experience and managerial internships. Generally,
the respondents used this question to expand their comments beyond
the limited scope of the Task Force, namely to identify the training
needs of middle managers, and to delve into the broader areas of
career development, the role of a manager, and related matters.
A majority of the respondents reacted favorably to the idea of
rotational assignments, either for the experience to be gained or
exposure to other components. A few noted that although rotational
assignments might possibly be disruptive, the long range benefits
were still worthwhile. Some qualified their endorsement by noting
that rotational assignments should occur within the context of planned
career development and that the reason for the rotational assignment,
i. e. , as an integral part of overall development, should be explained
to and understood by the employee. There were several negative
comments against the idea of rotational assignments just for the
sake of rotation. The comments were varied as to whether rotational
assignments should be limited to assignments within an Office, or
within a Directorate, or expanded to include assignments across
Directorate lines, although. most respondents placed no restrictions
on rotational assignments. One respondent stated that an effective
8
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Releasw2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636900100190003-5
middle manager should be able to perform satisfactorily in any
similar role in any part of the Agency. Several noted that in order
to be truly beneficial, rotational assignments should entail an
opportunity to manage and to gain on-the-job experience as a manager
rather than just performing minor functions. These comments were
consistent with the expressed opinions that there should be greater
delegation of authority to insure that middle managers had the
opportunity to develop managerial skills.
One respondent was of the opinion that many of the designated
Support or Administrative Career positions should be opened to
members of the other DD/M&S Career Services, to allow specialists
to develop broader managerial skills. Another comment concerned
the greater use of task forces as a means of acquiring broader
exposure and experience.
A few individuals noted that in certain specialized areas,
rotational assignments would be of little benefit unless they were
limited to individuals with the necessary specialized skills.
There was a significantly less enthusiastic response to the
idea of managerial internships, some persons noting that they felt
internships were inappropriate at the middle manager level. Those
who favored them felt they would be beneficial only if they provided
an opportunity to work closely with senior, more experienced managers,
and if the programs were small and closely monitored.
9
Approved For RalB ( k117.E: CL
A1Q 6NP&QQ,1t00190003-5
 Approved For Releas'2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369M00100190003-5
A recurrent theme emphasized that individuals with managerial
potential should be identified early in their careers, and that such
persons should be assigned to a series of increasingly responsible
positions where their progress and performance could be continually
evaluated. Three persons suggested that greater use should be made
of psychological assessment in identifying potential managers. There
was also a strong recommendation that some means of rewarding
individual performance be found, othe:c than promotion to managerial
positions, for which individuals might be unsuited or unqualified.
Again, there were several comments about the need to plan
assignments and to anticipate training needs, although it was
appreciated that plans could not always be cast in concrete. In this
regard, there was also a desire for better qualified component
training officers, conversant with both the needs of an Office and
available training programs, to assist individuals in judging training
needs. There appeared to be general acceptance of the fact that
formal training should play an important role in the development of
competent managers, along with the opportunity for actual on-the-job
managerial experience. Training should precede or come shortly
after an individual's selection for a managerial position, and should
include orientation to the role of a manager as well as instruction in
managerial skills.
Approved For Igq"A01N`JE : Cll~-~L0~9A00.00190003-5
 Approved For Releas 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A 0100190003-5
Only a minor few ascribed completely to the idea that
"experience is the best teacher," indicating that actual experience
also provided the best opportunity for evaluating managerial per-
formance.
Some other suggestions included the idea that management
training should be expanded to include part-time and even corre-
spondence courses, so that more employees might avail themselves
of training opportunities. It was also suggested that more recognition
be given to individual efforts at self-improvement.
III. The first part of the questionnaire was directed to obtaining
the respondents' attitudes toward 24 specific training areas. The
third question, however, gave the respondents an opportunity to
further comment about "training or managerial experience" which
they would like to have, looking ahead to increased managerial
responsibilities.
With respect to training, the answers to this question were
consistent with the results of Question I. Slightly more than 20%
of the respondents replied that they had no current need for training
or additional managerial experience. Half of these based their
answers upon "age and length of service" or retirement plans,
although one of these stated that he would have benefited in the
past from exposure to the Midcareer Course or a Senior Service
School. The others who cited no current needs indicated that their
11
Approved For R lP s %QN1vj : CJA RDP78 06 $69AU000100190003-5
 Approved For Releas"s'}2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636900100190003-5
previous training and varied assignments had adequately prepared
them for present or anticipated managerial responsibilities. One
of these also indicated that he kept abreast of developments in the
managerial field through available literature.
Two persons replied that they were unable to identify their
training needs" inasmuch as they did not know what their future
assignments would be. This thought was also expressed by several
other persons during the follow up interviews.
Over 75% of the persons queried answered the question
affirmatively, that is, either in general terms indicating a desire
for additional internal or external management training, or specifying
courses or programs in which they were interested. A relatively
small number indicated a need for any Agency re-orientation as such,
but several stated that management training should be related to
Agency problems rather than just management theory. Apparently
.reinforcing this view, others desired to participate in small manage-
ment seminars of ten to twelve persons in which common management
problems could be discussed and ideas exchanged between participants
from different components.
There was an expressed desire for training in personnel
management and counseling, and one respondent felt that a course in
practical psychology would be useful in this regard.
Approved For Rea m29DB/,04n7 EIrA t ai06352a0iQQ,Lfl0190003-5
 Approved For Releaeb 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06361 000100190003-5
Again consistent with previous answers, about half of the
affirmative respondents mentioned planning and programming,
budgeting, computer applications, analysis techniques, management
by objective and productivity measurement as areas in which they
desired additional training.
Some indicated that they should have had additional formal
management training prior to this time.
Most persons indicated a desire for additional training without
specifying a particular course or program. The most frequently
mentioned external program was the Program for Management
Development at Harvard, although the Senior Service Schools, Civil
Service Commission Executive Seminar Program and the Federal
Executive Institute were also mentioned by several persons. Among
the internal courses specifically mentioned in this section were the
Midcareer Course, Fundamentals of Supervision and Management,
the Managerial Grid, the Senior Seminar and the Advanced Management
(Planning) course. Most persons were unaware of the fact that the
AM(P) Course is no longer offered.
Included in the managerial "experience" desired were assign-
ment to the DD/M&S Staff, overseas assignments, and assignment
outside the parent Office, including an assignment to the DDO.
One element lacking in the responses to this question was that
in most cases, no reasons were given as to why the respondents
13
Approved For ReI M QAOA41T.kC_IAi t Aq?A@ QQO190003-5
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Releas ''1000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636 00100190003-5
desired a particular course or program. It may be that in the case
of the Harvard program and the Senior Service Schools, there is a
certain status factor that attaches to being selected for the program.
However, in a few cases, the opportunity to "expand horizons" and
to keep abreast of changes on the Governmental and national scene
were offered as reasons for additional. training. But there were also
some opinions about the individual's own responsibility to acquire
the requisite "training" and knowledge to do his job, rather than
relying solely upon formal training presented or sponsored by the
Agency. There was also a comment about the lack of feedback from
those employees who had attended external training programs.
IV. The final part of the questionnaire permitted the respondents
to rate certain courses and. programs which have been offered by
the Office of Training, basing their ratings upon either having
attended the courses or having an opinion about them. Specialized
skill courses and language courses were not included.
Twelve of the respondents had not attended any of the listed
courses. The following table illustrates the number of courses taken
by the remaining sixty-eight persons, including the listed courses and
other management-related courses added by the respondents:
Approved For Re I6 I2000A04/J'Y.FCI,4R $~AVO 0Q(kt)p190003-5
 ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Relea2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063600100190003-5
Internal
TABLE 2
External
Attendees
1 Course
13
6
19
2 Courses
29
5
17
3 Courses
37
11
16
4 Courses
37
11
12
5 Courses
15
5
4
On the average, the respondents attended just over two courses
each. In an analysis by Offices within the Directorate, this average
is fairly consistent, with the possible exception of the Office of
Training, where the average is just over three courses per respondent.
There appears to be no appreciable difference in the average number
of courses when the group is broken down according to age or length
of service, except for those with over twenty-five years of service,
where the average declines to 1. 5 courses.
A comparison was made of the course ratings by persons
who had attended the courses, and the ratings by persons who had
not attended but who had an opinion about the courses listed. Of
those who had attended, 59% rated the courses as having been of
Direct Managerial Benefit, as opposed to 41% who rated the courses
as having been of Indirect Managerial Benefit. This paralleled the
ratings by those who had not attended the courses but who did express
an opinion. Fifty-eight percent indicated Direct Managerial Benefit
and 42% indicated Indirect Managerial Benefit. (Tabs E, F)
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : OA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release'2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369 00100190003-5
In addition to the listed courses, the respondents also indicated
that they had attended other management related courses and programs,
including the Department of Agriculture Management Course, Columbia
University Executive Program in Business Administration, University
of Wisconsin Executive Development Institute, Cornell University
Executive Development Program, the Federal Executive Institute,
Brookings Institute, and a tour with the Management Advisory Group.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Releas 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369 00100190003-5
CONCLUSIONS
There is an affirmative attitude toward management training,
even though this attitude is tempered with the realization that
training alone will not produce a good manager. Moreover, training
is seen as beneficial, but only in the light of overall planned career
development. The early identification, selection and development of
those with managerial potential is seen as a critical factor in
improving Agency management. There is an equal emphasis placed
upon the value of on-the-job training, including the experience to be
gained, the opportunity to work with and observe superior managers,
and the opportunity to develop management potential by actually
managing. Many middle managers see themselves as managers in
name only, and are critical of the fact that there is not enough
delegation of authority by superiors. Put another way, many
middle managers are not sufficiently involved in the management
process and see themselves as little more than first line supervisors.
There is an awareness that there is too much parochialism in the
Agency and many look upon training not merely as a means of
acquiring some substantive managerial skills but also as a means
of expanding communication between Agency components. Rotational
assignments, beginning at the GS-13 level or even earlier, are seen
as one of the most effective means of obtaining the experience
needed by middle managers to prepare for executive responsibilities.
Approved For Ro,I.a2Q/tQ4j77 C 1 ~Jk-06 ?9PMP1W0190003-5
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 TAB A
Approved For Relea V2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369 00100190003-5
QUES'TIOINIiIAI E FOR. MIDDLE MANAGERS
The Executive Director-Comptroller has asked the office of Training
to conduct a management training program for middle managers r: the Agency.
As a first step in developing such a program the Office of Training with
the cooperation of the Deputy Directors has formed a Task Force composed
of one representative from. each of the four Directorates and under the
chairmanship of an OTR officer. The mission of the Task Force is to
idenify the training needs of middle managers and to make recommendations
to the Director of Training.
The Task Force is now soliciting your opinion on the subject of
management training for you and your successors.
Return questionnaire by 26 February 1973; Management Task Force
202 Chamber of Commerce Bid
T'Tame
Ag
e
EOD
How
many
employees inyour
unit?
[low many
supervisors
report
to
you?
If not delivered, please return to sender.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063694000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 4,0
I. ff. he "t nan- nc 1s l e L ~'Ct those areas in
era `'~ i!21'~ b 3 i` YZ4e 11 Q3t?aining.
Indicate the extent of the training required by checks-in the two columns on
the right. If the list is not complete as far as your job is concerned,
please add as required.
RESPONSIBILITIES YOUR TRAINING NEEDS SUCCESSOR'S - TRAINING NEEDS.
Planning Much Soma Little Much Some Little
Setting objective
Programming
Budgeting
Records management
Organizing
Encouraging innovation
Coordinating
Staffing
Selecting personnel
Career management
Evaluating performance
Other
Directing
Delegating of authority
Motivating _-~
Communicating
Leadership Conference management
Scheduling of work
Other -. --_._,...._.
Controlling
Developing performance standards
Measuring results (productivity)
Counseling
Disciplining
Contract management
Other
Analysis
Computer application
Operations research-
Forecasting technique
Other
Approved For Re~l~ ~ /~ 11~~ CI&~p 78 06369AO00100190003-5
NA USE ONLY
 Approved For Relea2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063600100190003-5
II. To the extent that "experience is the best teacher," how can the Agency
insure that potential middle managers get the right experience? For
example, do you favor rotational assignments for on-the-job managerial
experience? Managerial 'internships'?
III. What specific training or managerial experience would you like to have
as you look ahead to increased managerial responsibilities?
Additional comments regarding training may be placed on reverse side.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL . JSE ONLY
 I IvAPP-CPS yIogf Fgf ftg4l kPQk ' [~i r PJ, -0ex6 69~ 0Pra100'1zni9000 0
l e
e n n programs and
how they relate to your current managerial responsibilities? From among
the following courses, rate those which you have attended or with which
you are familiar. To what extent are thay (1) of Direct Managerial Benefit,
or (2) of Indirect Managerial Benefit only, e.g., general orientation,
familiarization, personal development?
Check (X) (1) DIRECT i.1A74AGERIAL
(2) Ii:DIRECT i1Li!iGERLLL
courses
BEFIT
BENEFIT
attended Much
Some
Little
Much
Some
Little
Internal Courses
Managerial Grid (S!,!S (Grid))
Fundamentals of
Supervision/Management
(Management course)
Advanced Management
Planning (AMP) (Si-IS (F))
Management Science
for Intelligence
M
N
I II
1."3
:I
ii
S
S
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
L
L
iii
M
PI
iI
S
S
S
S
L
L
L
L
L
External Programs
I'1
S
L
Senior Service Schools
(Indicate which school)
ii
S
L
P1
S
L
Program for Management
Development (Harvard)
Al
S
L
ti
S
L
Career Education Awards
Program (Formerly NIPA)
S
L
M
S
L
Executive Seminar Center
Programs (CSC)
II
S
L
)ti -
S
L
Foreign Affairs
Executive Seminar
N
S
L
Ed
S
L
S
L
N
S
L
Additional colLmeni.s regarding existing courses may be placed on reverse side.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Releas'2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369100100190003-5
Age Group
Number"
Average Grade
Length of Service
35 to 39
6
13.7
12 Yrs.
40 to 44
16
13.8
19.1 Yrs.
45 to 49
22
14.6
21.9 Yrs.
50 to 54
24
14.7
22. 7 Yrs.
Over 55
7
14.7
24.4 Yrs.
*Only 75 of the 80 questionnaires were used to derive this data, since
five of the questionnaires lacked the necessary information.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Relea2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-0636900100190003-5
RESPONSIBILITIES
YOUR TRAINING NEEDS
SUCCESSORS' TRAINING NEED:
Planning
Setting Objectives
10
27
19
22
36
7
Programming
13
32
16
27
32
7
Budgeting
12
31
22
27
31
11
Records Management
3
28
29
11
31
23
Organizing
Encouraging Innovation
7
23
26
21
35
8
Coordinating
3
19
34
21
30
13
Allocating Resources
9
21
30
27
27
14
Staffing
Selecting Personnel
8
16
29
22
26
15
Career Management
11
29
18
31
26
10
Evaluating Performance
12
21
27
29
32
7
Directing
Delegating of Authority
5
20
29
16
36
11
Motivating
7
31
21
28
30
9
Communicating
12
23
24
35
27
8
Leadership
4
32
20
26
31
8
Conference Management
6
3.3
19
18
35
10
Scheduling of Work
6
23
28
21
28
16
Controlling
Developing Performance
14
34
12
33
31
6
Standards
Measuring Results
18
31
15
35
31
6
(Productivity)
Counseling
8
28
21
23
33
11
Disciplining
6
22
24
15
28
19
Contract Management
9
19
24
18
19
23
Analysis
Computer Application
26
27
10
32
28
7
Operations Research
20
21
16
24
18
17
Forecasting Technique
21
2'
14
23
25
15
250
616
527
585
706
281
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 v
Approved For Relea 2000/04/17 AixA DP78-06369 900100190003-5
Respondents' Training Needs Successors' Training Needs Score Difference
Rank Area Score
1 Computer Application 142
Measuring Results 131
(Productivity)
3 Forecasting Techniques 127
4 Developing Performance
Standards 122
5 Budgeting
6 Programming 119
Operations Research 118
Career Management 109
9 Communicating 106
10 Evaluating Performance 105
11 Motivating
12 Setting Objectives 103
13 Conference Management 103
14 Counseling 101
15 Allocating Resources
16 Leadership 96
17 Records Management 94
18 Encouraging Innovation 93
19 Scheduling of Work 92
20 Contract Management 89
Area Score*
Measuring Results 173
(Productivity)
Communicating 167
Developing Performance
Standards 167
Computer Application 159
Evaluating Performance 158
Career Management 155
Budgeting 154
Motivating
Programming 152
Allocating Resources 149
Leadership 148
Counseling 146
Setting Objectives 145
Encouraging Innovation 141
Coordinating 136
Scheduling of Work 135
Conference Manage- 134
ment
Forecasting Techniques 134
Selecting Personnel 133
Delegating Authority 131 + 47
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Relea2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-063600100190003-5
TAB D
(CONTINUED)
Respondents' Training Needs Successors' Training Needs
Score Difference
Rank
Area
Score'
Area
Score'
21
Disciplining
86
Operations Research
125
+ 7
22
Selecting Personnel
85
Disciplining
120
+ 34
23
Delegating Authority
84
Records Management
118
+ 24
24
Coordinating
81
Contract Management
115
+ 26
*The scores were arrived at by weighing the responses (Much = 3, Some = 2,
Little = 1 and No Response = 0) and adding to produce a cumulative score of
all respondents for each area.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Relea i2@@p/iQ4/i7g_QL4-RDPel8~063fr DMl9 'h9Q 3a5 Benefit
Much
Some
Little
Internal Courses
Managerial Grid
17
19
5
(45 Attendees)
Fundamentals of Super-
15
12
2.
vision/Management
(32 Attendees)
Advanced Management
16
8
l
(Planning)
(26 Attendees)
Midcareer Course
14
5
4
(26 Attendees)
Management Science
1
for Intelligence
(1 Attendee)
63
44
12
External Programs
Senior Service School
4
2
3
(12 Attendees)
Program for Manage-
1
3
1
ment Development
(Harvard)
(5 Attendees)
Career Education Awards
1*
Program
(1 Attendee)
Executive Seminar
2
1
Center Programs - CSC
(4 Attendees)
Foreign Affairs
Executive Seminar
(5 Attendees)
7 6 6
Much
Some
Little
15
13
1
6
7
2
7
5
2
13
3
1
1
_
41
29
6
4
4
2
2
2
1
4
_
6
10
68 of the respondents had attended one or more of the above courses, plus 12 other
courses or programs which the respondents listed as related to management training.
'The respondent indicated that he had engaged in specialized area studies, rather
than broader management study.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
TAB
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
 Approved For Relea-st 2000/04/17AECI4-RDP78-0636 000100190003-5
Direct Managerial Benefit
Indirect Managerial Benefit
Much
Some
Little
Much
Some
Littl
e
Internal Courses
Managerial Grid
3
7
1
2
7
1
(15 Opinions)
Fundamentals of
4
1
2
Supervision/ Manage ment
(15 Opinions)
Advanced Management
3
7
1
1
3
1
(Planning)
(11 Opinions)
Midcareer Course
9
8
2
10
5
(22 Opinions)
Management Science
2
2
1
for Intelli
en
g
ce
(6 Opinions)
69 Opinions
24
32
5
18
19
External Programs
Senior Service Schools
2
3
2
4
3
(10 Opinions)
Program for Management
5
4
3
2
Development (Harvard)
(13 Opinions)
Career Education Awards
Program
(5 Opinions)
Executive Seminar Center
Programs - CSC
1
5
2
5
1.
1
3
1
5
2
(15 Opinions)
Foreign Affairs
Executive Seminar
(9 Opinions)
52 Opinions
121 Opinions
15 16 6
39 48 11
12 2
The above figures are based upon comments by 35 persons who had not attended
the above listed courses or programs, but who had opinions about the direct
or indirect managerial benefit to be derived from them.
Approved For Release 2000/04/17 : CIA-RDP78-06369A000100190003-5
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY