PMCD/PSB RESPONSES TO THE IG REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83-01004R000100060011-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 70
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 20, 2001
• Sequence Number: 11
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000460060011-6
PMCD/PSB RESPONSES TO THE IG REPORT
It is frightening to realize a major responsibility for the integrity of this
Agency rests with Officers who are capable of producing recommendations based on
ignorance such as presented in this report. Not only is there an obvious lack
of integrity in the data collection and analysis, but a failure on the part of the
survey officers to take seriously their roles as protectors of the image of CIA.
It is ironical for those of us in PMCD to constantly hear our managers harp
on the theme that standards which apply to nearly 2 million civil employees do not,
and cannot~be made to apply to -employees in this Agency. While there are
positions and functions in the Agency which are unique to the federal structure,
the uniqueness is not all-encompassing of all positions and functions. A majority
of position functions fit the normal definition as they would fit in other federal
structures, even Department of Agriculture and General Services Administration, much
less any of the more exotic agencies. The IG report reinforces the evidence of that
attitude in their references to PMCD reliance on CSC standards (another basic
falsehood and major gap in the inspection information) and comparison with positions
in other agencies from which we do not upgrade our positions (IG suggests that no
matter the findings in other agencies, our positions are always better and should be
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Relea~sre 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
allocated at h%gher grades.)
The primary impression of this report on personnel in this branch is that it
was written from an extremely sha]low base of information and makes far reaching
recommendations with little substatiation beyond the opinions of the writers.
In summary, each commenting analyst presents thoughts about the IG report
which appear to fit the following pattern.
A. The report was written from an obviously biased point of view.
1. The Inspectors developed their opinions and attitudes about PMCD
prior to commencement of the survey. The survey report reflects substantiation
of those preconceptions.
2. Show "why", not whether OP services (.especially PMCD) are less than
satisfactory.
B. The IG team did not bother to make itself cognizant of the field of
information which it criticized.
1. Ignorance of the classification process and its place in management
is reflected throughout the report.
2, Classification as a function of management i"s not addressed.
3. References to classification in other government agencies are incompletely
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 __
 Approved For Rel~a~se 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000460060011-6
and improperly related to Agency positron cla~~i;flcation, (e,g,, the reference
to the ERDA system is incomplete,. omitting the important control and CSC review
functions.
4. Mismatch. of personal grade and positron grade i:s endorsed as
necessary. In any other ~g~ncy of th_e U.S. Government, this would be illegal,
here it is not even considered unethical.
C. None of us is sure (is the IG?~ whether this report suggest decentralizing
classification authority to the Deputy Directors. It is implicit in the suggestion
to delegate authority to authenticate staffing complements, to include structure
and position grades so long as they remain within the general constraints of
ceiling, average grade and upper level authorizations.
D. The conclusions and recommendations are not supported by the purported
facts. The "facts" are severely lacking in credibility.
E. Each analyst notes that management achieves classification objectives by
lying about their positions ("snow") to PMCD, and by inference to their own channels
of command in order to get what they want. This certainly speaks well for the
integrity of our senior personnel, including the xG Staff .which tended to support
the manager in this report.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 3
 Approved For Rele~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000i~0060011-6
F. Tt appears that the ZG is dttempt1ng to set up a framework in the
action recommendations in which the components will 6e rather free wheeling
in their control of staffing complements and position grades, but the D/Pers
will retain the responsibility for the integrity of the system, Authority is
placed in the components, responsibility in OP. Tf for no other reason, the
D/Pers should fight for at least better definition of the authority/responsibility
relationships in the discussions relating to possible implementation of the
report recommendations.
G. The team either did not understand, did not try to learn, or chose
to ignore the analytical process necessary to the performance of PMCD functions.
Examples:
1. Management unwillingness to accept PMCD findings is a reflection
of the low grades and therefore, the abilities of the PMCD analysts.
2. PMCD places too much reliance on use of CSC standards. In fact
the standards can only be used to obtain information about occupational fields,
not to set grades in this Agency.
3. PMCD relates positions with unrelated functions for grade comparison,
grade setting purposes Levels, not specific functions are the critical data used in
such analysis..
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048006490060011-6
H. The IG team suggests that implementation of their recommendations
would serve to reduce friction between PMCD and the components and to remove
the greatest portion of the adversary relationship which now exists. PSB
analysts are unanimous in the reaction that implementation of the recommendations,
with PMCD playing an advisory review function, will serve to increase adversary
relationships. The recommendations do not serve to establish a common ground of
procedure or philosophy about position management/position classification between
PMCD and the managers. Such a common understanding of the meaning and objectives
of the PMCD functions is requisite to removal of a portion of the current adver-
sary relationships. Until Agency managers and PMCD have a common goal in relation
to position classification there does not appear to be a means to reduce the
adversary relationship.
Each PMO, to one extent or another addresses various sections of the IG
report leading up to the conclusions and recommendations. The pertinent trend
of the comments is included in the above summary.
A concensus of reactions to th_e conclusions and recommendations is as
follows:
TG CONCLUSION G-l; Authority should be delegated to Deputy Directors to modify
5
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
and authenticate staffing complements (T/0''s) within the limits of Directorate
allocations of staff manpower ceilings, senior slots (GSc14 and higher) and
average grade. This authority should be qualified by a requirement that
recommendations by PMCD representatives regarding changes in the grades of
existing positions o.r the assignment of grades to new or significantly altered
positions be considered by component managers and, if unresolved, by the Deputy
Director before such changes are affected,
a. To accomplish the second part of this it is essential that PMCD
be involved before significant reorganization is effected. Provisions should
also be included for PMCD, when deemed necessary by the D/Pers, to review and
reassess the grades of new or significantly altered positions after six months or
so of experience with the new organization. In some cases the D/Pers may decide
that a survey of all positions in the new organization is needed. PMCD recommend-
ations arising from such position reviews or reorganization surveys (or from
periodic and special surveys discussed in Conclusion G-5 below) should be considered
by the component manager and, if unresolved, by the DD within a specified, short
time interval after the recommendations are made.
b. Since supergrade positions are directly controlled by .the DCI, and
since a new system for handling supergrade problems is being considered by the
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
6
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004~0060011-6
Management Committee, they have not been specifically included in this
conclusion. Consideration should be given, if this proposal is adopted, to
similar modification of the way supergrade positions are handled, however.
PMCD
This conclusion uses the terminology "staff manpower ceiling". Does that
statement include contract and recognize single ceiling?
The conclusion goes on to suggest a role for PMCD review at the component
level, subject to DD appeal and resolution.
This part of the conclusion is one of those in which the responsibility
for position review is vested in PMCD and D/Pers with no authority to implement
determinations. It would appear that the recommendation for the Director of
Personnel to monitor classification decisions of the Deputy Directors and to
recommend DCI action on unresolved cases is a not too subtle mechanism for
divesting the DD's of any responsibility, and accountability for self-generated
job grading abuses that would be discovered should the Agency be subject to
external classification audit,
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R00~0060011-6
IG Conclusion G-2: The D/Pets acting for the DCI,.should be required to monitor
Directorate and DCI Area adherence to equal pay for equal wark (job/pay equity
principles and to allocated manning, average grade and senior slot limits, and
to recommend appropriate DCI action in cases where he cannot resolve differences
with the DD concerned.
PMCD This conclusion represents a contradic~(tion in that the report., in its
body suggests that PMCD should not be concerned with structure or the need for
positions if they are within the authorized limits. Without such analysis and
the authority to question the factors related to such analysis, PMCD and the
D/Pets will not be in a position to recommend appropriate actions related to
equal pay for equal work, allocated manning, average grade and senior slot limits.
On the one hand the IG is suggesting that PMCD as an action arm of the
D/Pets should merely suggest grade levels to component managers within the equal
pay for equal work principles, subject to appeal only to the DD concerned. On
the other, PMCD for the D/Pets should be authorized to conduct analyses similar
to those presently attempted in order fAr the D/'pers to report inequities to the
DCI for resolution. Rather than defining and tightening authority and responsibility
levels, the IG suggestions present an even murkier situation than exists. Lines
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Releae~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~D0060011-6
of authority and appeal will still need to he refined.
IG Conclusion G-3: In the area of position grade evaluations, PMCD should:
a. Develop and maintain standards for position evaluation use.
b. Participate in and advise on all position evaluations.
c. Insure that unresolved differences with component managers over position
evaluations are brought to the responsible DD for decision.
d. Inform the D/Pers in cases when, in the opinion of PMCD, decisions
made by Deputy Directors conflict significantly with equal pay for equal work
principles or established pay policies - e.g., pay scales for senior secretaries.
PMCD Development of standards under such conditions would serve no purpose since
each Directorate would presumably require its own standards within criteria
developed in that Directorate. It would be next to impossible to maintain
continuity of standards across Directorate lines to ensure grade/pay equity.
Participation in and giving advice on position evaluations would serve
little purpose except in those instances in which. the component and Directorate
managers cannot make their own decisions. Does not address the question of, with
whom the participation will take place, presumably an individual designated by
the component manager to conduct the reviews, with PMCD input.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004ROOU490060011-6
Again recourse to the affected DD as the appeal authority will serve no
d~eful purposes for significant conflicts of evaluation between PMCD and the
component managers. As mentioned above, although such conflicts could be taken
to the D/Pers, the futility of the effort in terms of the D/Pers actual responsi-
bilities and authorities appears evident.
Same as above. The IG suggests somehow that their suggested framework
and methods for accomplishing classification actions will reduce the adversary
situation which currently exists. This responsibility of PMCD to go to the DCI
through D/Pers for significant conflicts will increase the adversary level, and
probably not reduce the frequency.
IG Conclusion G-4: With regard to staffing complements, PMCD, in collaboration
with other Office of Personnel components, should:
a. Establish staffing complement formats.
b. Compile, produce and disseminate staffing complements authenticated
by the DD`s and produce and disseminate related management information reports.
c. Report to the DD concerned and to the D/Pers any non-trivial contin-
uing instances when .the totals of a Drectorate.'s staffing complements exceed
that Directorate`s allocations of manning, senior slots or average grade.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~rae 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
PMCD The above. set of functions could, and properly s.hpuld be handled by a
small clerical staff at GS-05 to GS~06 with perhaps a GS-07 supervisor,
alternative could be inclusion of the functions with appropriate staff adjust-
ments in the Control Division, Statistical Reporting Branch.
IG Conclusion G-5: PMCD's responsibility for conducting periodic position
surveys should be modified. In this area:
a. PMCD should conduct periodic position surveys in components that have
received little attention in conjunction with reorganizations for a period of
about five years.
b. The D/Pers should initiate special PMCD position surveys in other
cases where he has reason to believe that position classifications need revision.
c. Neither periodic nor special position surveys should be allowed to
interfere with prompt and rapid service of reorganization or other more immediate
needs for PMCD assistance.
d. During all surveys, PMCD should restrict its recommendations regarding
the organization and management of component personnel to cases where organization
or management %s the dominant consideration in position grades,
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 11
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000`F~0060011-6
e. PMCD should be permitted on its own initiative to .audit positions in
any component in order to obtain data needed to establish, maintain or improve
position evaluation standards.
PMCD We generally agree with. conclusion G-5a. A reordering of priorities is in
order and PMCD should be in full agreement with the need to adjust priorities to
fit needs of the Agency. One exception to this might be that components which
have not been reviewed at all during the current review cycle should receive
priority treatment in order to form a documentation base. This agreement is
premised on an assumption that surveys would serve a valid purpose.
Without authority to implement valid recommendations arising out of surveys,
it is questionable that the D/Pers would need the authority to initiate- surveys.
In the total context of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report, the D/Pers would be required to wastefully maintain a staff of professional
classifiers with all the talents and abilities currently desirable (from an OP
and PMCD point of view} to serve rather empty ends. The general framework into
which the complete package of IG conclusions and recommendations fit should be
carried even further to include complete. decentralization, with classification
teams at the Directorate level, and a small (very sma1T?) staff of reviewer
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 i2
 Approved For Relea+~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~80060011-6
classifiers located in.the OP or elsewhere to.montor for "significant" deviances
in application of classification actions throughout the Agency, including an
authority for on site audit of programs and practices.
Agree that assignment of functions and survey scheduling in PMCD should be
balanced with the need to meet immediate needs of the components. The D/Pers
and DDA may again have to address the full impact of-work requirements in PMCD
in relation to the staff that must be made available to provide the support,
services and analysis required to maintain work on an acceptable, current basis.
G-5d is in conflict with G-2. G-2 at least implies that the D/Pers
through PMCD would have a reporting requirement to the DCI to recommend appropriate
corrective actions in those cases where job/pay equity, allocated manning,
average grade and senior slot limits are at variance with survey findings. G-5d
suggests that PMCD restrict its reviews and action recommendations to grades of
positions except in those cases where structure or managerial style can have an
impact on the grades of positions. Ta restrict PMCD evaluations and recommend-
ations as suggested in G-5 would preclude the ability to perform the functions
suggested in G~2, Additional clarification is required,
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 1 ~
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
Again the performance of PMCD lnltlated surveys or audits,-and tie
writing of standards would have no significant meaning and need not be per-
formed should the delineation of authorities! with. or without responsibilities,
be implemented in this report. The majority at least of the manpower currently
allocated to the PMCD effort could be used more constructively and efficiently
in other OP functions, However, assuming maintenance of approximately current
staffing levels and performance of the functions- suggested in G~5e, the
authority to initiate such studies will be required.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 13a
 IG Conc~~is?ond FGor6Re120~ou99d?ac'ceTerd~e8~h(~10~4~48~4~0~~6~~~1~,ia1 implementation
of improved position evaluation standards and methods similar to the
Factor/Benchmark system now being developed by CSC for government-wide
implementation by 1980. Full CSC development of its system should not be
a prerequisite to development and trial implementation of an Agency version.
PMCD We agree. Activation of the program has begun. Tnterested Agency
management should not expect the Agency system, in whatever form it takesf to be
fully implemented ~# ahead of the CSC 1980 target,
IG Conclusion G-7: The Director of Personnel should review and alter the
organization of and manpower authorized for PMCD as necessary to meet its revised
mission.
a. It is important to note that PMCD manning must permit prompt and
rapid service of component needs.
b. A program of rotating Office of Personnel people with experience as
component support officers through 3-5 year PMCD tours, and of rotating PMCD
professionals through component support officer tours? would provide a valuable
experience base,
c. Rotating .personnel from other Agency components through PMCD tours
would contribute more specific component knowledge-and would be useful if the
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Relear~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004~0060011-6
tours can be long enough for the rotating personnel tp develop and use job
classification expertise.
PMCD Generally these conclusions are accepted 6y the responding PMO's. There
are questions about the levels and kinds of personnel who should be involved in
the rotations in and out of PMCD, depending on the number of specific IG recom-
mendations implemented and the nature of the work remaining in PMCD. There is
question as to whether there is a benefit to be gained at all on the part of
long term or potentially long term PMCD careerists assigned to components.
Those who commented suggest that where this has been tried in the past, there
has been no specific gain or relationship for the individual or PMCD functions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
IG Recommendation No. 7: That the DCI delegate to the Deputy Directors
authority to authenticate staffing complements, requiring them to consider PMCD
recommendations on position grades before affecting changes and to exercise this
authority within their allocations of staff manpower ceilings, senior slots and
average grade.
PMCD Implementation of this recommendation constitutes abolishment of the
position classification/position management function in CIA, Implementation
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~U060011-6
of Recommendation No. 7 should be accompanied by abolishment of PMCD, transfer
of positions at clerical grade levels to CD/SRB for the maintenance of records
and transfer of professional PMCD staff to appropriate positions.
IG Recommendation No. 8: That the Director of Personnel monitor Directorate
and DCI Area adherence to their allocations and to job/pay equity and recommend
appropriate DCI action in cases where he cannot resolve differences with the
Deputy Director concerned.
PMCD_ This recommendation constitutes assignment to the GS-18 D/Pers, approximately
a GS-12 function, with total lack of authority. By the same token, should the
Agency be subjected to external review, and at all criticized for its classification/
position management programs, the D/Pers would have to bear the brunt of the
criticism although he would have been placed in a position of impotence in
relation to his abilities to overcome the inadequacies of the system(s).
IG Recommendation No. 9. That the Director of Personnel revise PMCD procedures,
position surveys, scheduling, and manpower as indicated in conclusions G-3 through
G- 7 .
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Relewee 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~li0060011-6
PMCD As discussed above, implementation of the.recom~mendations in this
report and the implicit recommendations contained in conclusions G-1 through
G-7 constitutes proper grounds for abolishment of PMCD, Therefore this
recommendation has no relevance.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~etse 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000460060011-6
ADDENDUM TO PSB COMMENTS RE:
Originator:
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R009~+00060011-6
ADDENDUM
Recommendations for Strengthening the Role of PMCD in Fulfilling Its Mission
Problems
The failure of management to vest PMCD with authority to implement
its classification findings without the concurrence of component managers
has resulted in the perpetuation of misallocation which in addition to
violating statutory requirements contributes to poor management by distorting
the grade structure of an operating component which in turn can lead to
severe morale problems, improper lies of promotion and poor employee
utilization. The presence of administrative controls such as staff ceilings
and maintenance of position average grade do not, in themselves, ob ~cate
such problems as grade inequities, excessive layering, unbalance of professionals
to clerical positions, and supervisory to worker positions, etc.
Solutions
1. Agency management should recognize that a centralized position classifi-
cation program not only exists but also is feasible in terms of supporting
sound management goals. It should b.e further recognized that PMCD is the
primary instrument for administering a centralized position classification
program, and therefore should 6e vested with the authority to discharge its
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004ROOf~0060011-6
responsibilities. The exercise of this authority would not prohibit
comp?nent managers from job engineering compatible with employee'squalifications
and growth potential, nor from revising organizational structures and
functional groupings consistent with program objectives, and sound management
principles .
2. Implementation of PMCD findings relative to individual classification
requests and surveys should be accomplished after a reasonable period has
elapsed to permit discussion with component managers in an attempt to reconcile
differences of opinion, and to resolve areas of disagreement to the maximum
extent possible without violating the spirit, intent and integrity of the
Agency's position management program. Implementation would be made with ar
without the concurrence of component managers subject only to compliance with
administrative controls, and the authority reserved by the DCI over supergrade
and SPS allocations.
3. Following implementation, senior officials at Directorate or Office
Head level would have the right of submitting a formal appeal in writing to
the Director of Personnel of contested allocations for positions through GS-15.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6 2
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R00(#~,A0060011-6
The appeal would set forth factual reasons why the PMCD classification
decision is opposed. At this juncture, the Director of Personnel would
seek the advice of PMCD regarding the validity of the operating component's
rationale. The Director of Personnel would then judiciously weigh the
evidence presented by PMCD and the operating component, and render a decision
binding on all parties concerned. His decision would not be subject to
further appeal through the hierarchy of Agency management, as such decisions
would be made in his capacity as Executive Agent of the DCI on position
classification matters only. However, the Director of Personnel would
notify the DCI of the appeal decision rendered. In turn, the DCI could
exercise his statutory authority to suspend the implementation of an adverse
classification decision, and direct further review of the facts bearing on
the appeal case.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rel~e 2001/09/04b7.~I~P83-01004R00~440060011-6
3. The Office is organized in standard pyramidal fashion,
sa far as the main personnel functions are concerned. A chart of
its organization and key personnel appears an the next page. Thy:
Director, Frederick Janney, has a broad intelligence and manage-
ment background, having served at various times in his career
in three of CIA's four Directorates.
-has served in a number of key positions in the Office of Personr,et
for many years, and through his work has been associated with
most impo~rtarit personnel activities of the Agency. Because of
the I~articular sensitivity of adverse personnel actions on the
well-being of-the Agency there is a senior officer assigned direct
to the Director. of Personnel (Special Activities Staff} who
ser?ves.as an advisor and manager of difficult personnel problems.
~9is work cuts across all Branches within OP and, in fact, serves
to support the personnel work of most offices throughout the
Agency.
Surve~Ob~ectiv~ ~s and Methodology
4. This survey was accomplished by a team headed by
The survey was an issue-oriented
inspection rather than a general study of management aspects of
the Office. The objective was to develop, far the Director of
persannel and higher authority, information on the e~~~fectiver~ess
of the major services provided by his Office and on the extent,
if any, to which Office of Personnel activities could rai$e
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CI~-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
~~1~~~
 . Approved For Rel~de 2001/09/04~1~~83-01004R0004~0060011-6
questions regarding CIA involvement in illegal or inappropriate
domestic actions; to identify the sources of problems thus
raised and to make recommendations far solutions wherever feasi-
ble. It was intended that the inspection develop answers to
the following questions:
a. How well. does the Office of Personne] meet its
customers' principal needs for personnel services?
b. Why are major customer-perceived needs for Office
Hof Personnel serv-ices less than fully satisfied?
c. What should be darle to reduce or eliminate customer`s
problems. with services of the Office of Personnel?
d. Could any Office of Personnel domestic activities
be regarded as illegal ar inconsistent with CIA's charter
and, if so, what should be done to reduce ar eliminate the
possibility that they might be so regarded?
5. The .inspection was guided. throughout by these key
questions: As a first step, the Inspection Team received briefings
on the functions of the Office of Personnel by its senior
executives. This provided a brief introductory look inside the
Office as well as a chance to become conversant with the programs
now underway, the players involved and the terminology used. 4Je
then reviewed the grievance files in the Office of the Inspector
General and, concurrent with this, carried out extensive inter-
views with nearly all the key Agency executives in the Washington
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~+~~~P83-010048000100060011-6
~~
 Approved For Rele'~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000`}~A'0060011-6
area. In all, the heads ar deputies of 40 Offices, ar the
equivalent, were interviewed. The objective of this phase--
which we feel was realized--was to become oriented with the
Office of Personnel as perceived by others.
6. Having catalogued the problems--and the kudos--which
arose in the initial investigation,.a set of hypotheses were
developed which were to be tested through an in-depth survey of
the Uff~ice of Personnel itself. At this point eight areas of
special concern had been identified--either" because trrey figured
frequently in customer complaints, or because recarrnnendatians
set forth in i:he Rockefeller report identified these as areas of
special public concern. .Some of the work duties represented by
these areas of concern are handled entirely within a single
component. of Office of Personnel--for example, outplacement service.
Other areas, however, not only cut across components within the
Office of Personnel but also required further study outside that
Office--for example, the human resources computer program. Once
underway, the Inspection Team interviewed over 150 staff members
of the Office of Personnel, studied the files in most major
components of these Offices and,. in many cases, studied collateral
academic and professional research on such issues as the trends
in personnel research in private industry, the scope and duties
of the modern personnel office, and so on.
7. It must be emphasized that the inspection did not -nake
a major effort to examine, report or recommend on the internal
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~+1~~.DP83-010048000100060011-6
 A roved For Release 2001/09/0~'~~DP83-01004ROi~00060011-6
pp
organization and management of the Office of Personnel itself.
Nor did it delve deeply into services provided by the Office
which are generally perceived by Agency managers to be thoroughly
satisfactory. Mos#; of the activities of benefits and Services.
Division, the Credit Union, the Special Activities Staff .(adverse
personnel actions), and the Contract Personnel Division came
in that category. In general, the survey did not attempt to
interview all personnel in any unit, nor sub-components below
the branch level. The fact ~f the survey was widely known
throughout. the Office of Personnel, however, and Inspectors were
available for consultation with anyone.
8. Several areas were initially thaught by the Team to
require. extensive study but were later dropped as not having the
problems originally thought, In that category was the CIA
Retirement System (CIARDS} which is generally regal?ded as well
managed and serving Agency needs in an appropriate fashion.
Conversely,.initially we considered that the Position Manaye-
.
went and Compensation Division (PMCD), having just undergone a
review conducted under contract by a very senior former employee,
should not be scrutinized intensively. However, a rather
universal chorus of complaints by Agency managers about PMCD
compelled us to.revise this decision. While we by no means
found evidence that all such complaints were valid, some of
the more significant recommendations of the survey concern that
component.
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~'.~~,, 83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rel~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
Clerical Career Management
35. The dffice of Personnel's responsibility in clerical
career management is focused on establishing clerical General
Schedule (GS) pay standards. The topic, discussed in more detail
in Tab F, is treated. separately from the Position Management and
Compensation Division (PMCD) discussion in the following Tab
because managers express considerable concern aver Agency clerical,
particularly senior secretary, grade policies.
36. -The senior secretary grade subject was the topic of
.several Management Committee discussions in 1974/75, At Manage
meat Committee direction, PMCD .surveyed 62 senior secretary
positions for passible upgrading. PMCD concluded that GIA secretaries
receive .salaries. comparable to or better than secretaries in
private industry and other government agencies who perform
similar duties. The PMCD survey also highlighted other problems,
unrelated to salary, which cause secretarial dissatisfaction,
e.~.q underutilization, management attitudes, etc.
37. Theme IG Survey Team concurs in the PMCD findings and
suggests that the management course recommended in Tab H include
a section on clerical career management to better inform managers
about the rationale behind clerical pay scales and about work-
related problems which cause clerical dissatisfactions unrelated
to salaries.
19
Approved For Release 2001/09/~~P83-010048000100060011-6
r
 ~~ti~~
Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
Position Management and Compensation
39.' There should be no question of the need for some
system to establish and monitor job/pay equity--the equal pay
for equal work principle. The Position Management and Compensation
Division (PMCD), which represents to OMB and CSC an active,
demanstrabie effort to enforce CIA's policy of general conformance
with the Classification Act, is now the heart of that system.
In a broad sense, the system is fairly effective in achieving
its ,objective; however, PMCD's contributions vary by grade and type
of position. It is very effective in its influence on secretarial
and clerical positions, but. relatively ineffective on positions
at grade GS-14 and above. This does not mean. that job!pay equity
is necessarily out of balance at higher grades, but only that
PMCD, despite determined and sometimes irritating efforts,-has
little real voice in such determinations.
40. The Agency is also required by OMB to prevent escalation
in its average grade and in its numbers of senior and supergrade
positions. ~MCD'S responsibilities and authority in enforcing
adherence to limits on average grade, senior. slots (i.e. positions
at grades of GS-14 and above) and supergrade positions are unclear.
The Director of Personnel monitors the Directorates' adherence to
these limits and tries to prevent excesses through use of PMCD
and his formal authority to refuse authentication of Directorate-
developed staffing complements--sometimes called Tables of
20
Approved For Release 2001/09/~~~DP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~rs~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
Organization (T/0's). His real authority is somewhat ambiguous,
howPVer.. He is empowered to monitor Directorate adherence to
average grade limits, for example, but only to advise on where
compensating changes may be made. Deputy Directors bear the
primary responsibility for adherence to this and other limits and
have most of the decision authority involved. PMCD's influence
on their decisions is limited and its share of blame or credit
for Agency performance is uncertain. It is important to note,
however, that upward grade creep in CIA has not been significantly
different from that experienced in most other Federal. agencies.
41. The fact that PPdCD is,-among Agency managers, the least
popular organization in .the Office of Personnel should be no
surprise; PMCD's functions and its influence on official staffing
complements tend to restrict a manager"s flexibility in organizing
his component and providing incentives and rewards far his
people. The nature and consistency of comments about PMCD by
component managers point up, however, the existence of more
fundamental ~'Foblems than those created by this adversary relation-
ship. These problems are discussed and analyzed in more detail
~in Tab G. They include managers reservations, which we share,
about the comparisons used by PMCD to classify positions, PMGD's
ability to understand the unique character of some component
pasitlOnS, the time spent in negotiating differences in how a
few positions should be classified and the fact that unresolved
Approved For Release 2001/0 DP83-010048000100060011-6
r ~~
 ~. ~~.
- Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RD~83-01004R000~,p+0060011-6
differences are apt to stay unresolved. Moreover, PMCD's
manpower is limited--at least in relation to its assigned
responsibilities--and its scheduling is relatively inflexible.
This leads to long delays--sometimes a year ar more--in obtaining
PMCD reviews of component reorganizations. These delays, and the
unresolved differences mentioned above, lead to the existence
of numerous conflicting de facto and official T/0's.
~2. PMCD conducts self-initiated periodic surveys of Agency
components to review position classifications and to advise
managers on how their organizational structures could be improved.
Component managers are usually unimpressed with such advice r
from reviewers lacking both managerial experience and substantive
.knowledge of the component. Dur investigations of several recent
periodic surveys indicated that few changes-were really effected
in individual position grades and few .important PMCD-originated
improvements in organization structures occurred. 4Je concluded
that the time and effort required by the surveys, at least on the
three-year cycle now being attempted, is not justified by their
results. We also believe that Ph1CD should restrict if.s
recommendations regarding the organization and management of
component personnel to cases where organization or management
is the dominant consideration in evaluating position grades.
43. In practice, mana4gers are not now unduly restricted
by PMCD's recommendations or by its influence on their staffing
Approved For Release 2001/09/0'83-010048000100060011-6
 ~~~~~~~~
Approved For ReCe~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R00~*FU0060011-6
complements. undesired recammendations~are frequently negotia-
ted aavay or ignored. No effective system of enforcement or
appeal has been formalized to deal with outstanding differences,
and various mechanisms, necessary for other reasons, provide
.means of avoiding many of the restrictions in an unsatisfactory
Table of Organization. If a controversy attracts the attention
and support of a Deputy Director, his decision usually governs
the actual. outcome, although not necessarily the official staffing
complement.
44. It has .been argued that PMCD, as a component of the
Offica of Persor~nel, is buried in the Agency management hierarchy
-and does not have enough clout to operate effectively and to
enforce its decisions (assuming it has came to rational decisions
which should be enforced). It has been suggested that the
function be attached to the Office of the Comptroller. We do not
thinfc the placement of the function is a significant factor in
improving its accomplishment. If the function were performed
competently with a greater degree of management understanding,
if PMCD's authority were understood and spelled out in Agency
regulations, and if its decisions could be appealed and reviewed
by higher authority,-then we believe it could function effectively
where it is.
45. The main problem with the present Director of Personne7~
DDA appeal route lies in the number and complexities of the dis-
.~-.__
Approved For Release 2001/09/04 ~~~~83-01004R000100060011-6
r
 Approved For Rele?2001/09/04 : CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
putes. Effective and equitable resolution of them all would
require amounts of job knowledge, position classification knowledge
and study time that are simply not available to those with the
high level of authority and respect needed to impale an undesired
.solution on a Deputy Director. Creation of an appeal authority
outside the four Directorates--e.c~., the Comptroller or the
.Inspector General--would face the same. set of problems.
a.
46. Efforts are being made, as they have been for years,
to reduce the .number of differences by improving the quality of
PMCD`s judgments, improving managers confidence in those ;judgments
and, through negotiations at various levels, to reduce unresolved
.differences to those few critical cases perhaps worthy of
Management Committee action. !~'e applaud the efforts to improve
the quality, and thereby the acceptability of PMCD judgments.
We find little new in these efforts, however, and little in-the
outcome of~similar efforts in the past to justify an expectation
that achievable improvement, however desirable, will solve the
problems by itself.
47. toe conclude that there are only two solutions available.
The present system, lacking real enforcement authority,. can be
continued and probably be improved by better, semi-rotationa'!
PMCD staffing and development and implementation of better, more
understandable classification standards. We believe these steps
4
would help, but that most of the fundamental problems would remain.
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~~P83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Relearse 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~+10060011-6
.The other choice is--in addition to these steps--to make the
Deputy Directors the appeal and decision authority, while
preserving the Director of Personnel's capability and responsi-
bi7ity for monitoring their actions.
48. Whether transfer of staffing complement authenticating
authority to the Deputy Directors tivould degrade, improve or
leave unchanged the Agency's performance in job/pay equity and
adherence to .average grade and other manning .restrictions is bound
to be a controversial question.. Some would regard it as setting
.the fox to guard the chickens. Others would contend that t{ris,
in many cases, describes the present system, and, if coupled With
active and adequate monitoring by the ,Director of Personnel,
degradation in performance is by no means an inevitable result.
The more optimistic would even contend that providing control of
staffing complements to those now responsible for holding average
grade, senior slots and supergrades within their allocations
would remove any ambiguities that may now exist as to where that
_:
r?esponsibility lies; would provide them unambiguous decision
authority over a tool important in carrying out these responsi--
~bilities, and would improve the relationship between staffing
complements and reality by insuring that disputes are decided.
PMCD influence on component managers during negotiated settle-
ments might even be increased and managers might become a little
less defensive and a little less inclined to employ "snow"
tactics.
Approved For Release 2001/09/~.~P83-010048000100060011-6
* ~,,~ ~ .,
 ~~~~~~~
Approved For Rele~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
49. No proof can be offered that the outcome of the shift
in authority described above will be good, bad ar indifferent.
6Je are pursuaded, however, that the risks of serious degradation
are not .great--and return to the present system would be passible
if we are proven wrong.. The shift could be an improvement,. per-
haps an important one, over the present system. We believe
other possible changes in the system, such as-total decentralize-~
tian ar creation of a supra Directorate appeal authority to be
undesirable, impracticable, or both. We therefore conclude
-that the transfer of authority should be made. The details of our
proposals are provided in-the Conclusions and Recommendations
(Nos. 7, $ and 9) starting on page G-26 of Tab G.
Customer Perceptions of Agency Personnel Policy Development
50.There is a widespread perception among Agency managers
-that the Office of Personnel,.althaugh a very responsive and
generally effective service organization, lacks initiative and
innovation in developing solutions .to long-standing Agency
personnel problems. The more important of these .perceived
problems were selected as issues for examination in this survey
and have been discussed .in preceding sections of ..this report.
It is evident, however, that the fact of the perception, itself,
is a serious problem. "
5i. The perception is neither without validity nor wholly
4
accurate. That. the Office is not the initial, apparent spark-
26
~ ~Y
Approved For Release 2001/09/0 .~~i~~P83-010048000100060011-6
 ~~~.~~~~',~:~~~.~`~~~~'~ TAB G
Approved For Rel~,se 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004ROUf~00060011-6
POSI'i'ION MANAGEMENT AND
COMPENSATION
INTRODUCTION
1. The Position Management and Compensation Division
(PMCD) is the Diractor of Personnel's principal agent in meeting
his responsibility for authenticating staffing complements--
often called Tables of Organization (T/0's)--and revisions
thereto. These staffing complements establish the official
numbers, grades, titles and interrelationships of job positions
in Agency components. To perform this function, PMCD conducts
desk audits of Agency positions, either in response to a
component request that a particular position be reviewed (usually
in the hope of upgrading 'it) or as part ofi a survey of the
o-?ganization itself. Such surveys may occur upon request, when
managers need authentication of a significant reorganization ofi
an dxisting component or need a staffing complement for a new
arganizati~n. PMCD is also chartered to conduct periodic
position surveys of all Agency components.
2. PMCD`s objective during its position evaluations is tc
insure, within reasonable limits, that the compensation for
positions of similar levels of difficult;y and responsibility a.re
consistent within the Agency and with the rest of government.
.Achievement of this job/pay equity ideal is circumscribed by
Approved For Release 2001/0~1~ ~0~1004R000100060011-6
 Approved For Relee~de 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004~0060011-6
requirements that, within a Directorate, reclassification of
pas~itions rrust not (without DC~i approval) increase the total
numE~er of senior slots (e.r~. positions at grades of GS-14 and
above) or the average grade of all positions, If PMCD`s
evaluations of job/pay equity lead to upgrading of some
positions, others, at least within the Directorate, must be
downgraded--perhaps despite job/pay equity--to maintain the
status quo:. Similarly, the Director of Personnel is charged
with evaluation of Directorate proposals to change the number,
grade or allocation of supergrade positions. PMCD becomes in-
volved in such evaluation and is influenced during its position
eva.iuations by the fact. that the totals of present staffing
complements include more supergrade positions than OMD has
authorized to the Agency.
3. The objectives of PMCD's periodic position surveys are
to update position information--in order to improve evaluation
standards---and to make necessary adjustments in the grade of
individual positions and the position structure as a whore.
..
This list requirement on PMCD puts it in the position, in effect,
of advising a manager on how he should organize his component in
order to accomplish his mission.
4. We formed judgments on the effectiveness of PPgCD's
contributions toward achieving job/pay equity on the basis of
discussions within PMCD and our analyses of component managers`
Approved For Release 2001/09/O~Cr~~~01~04R000100060011-6
 Approved For Reuse 2001/t~~~~01004R0~A"I00060011-6
comments and of recent.PMCD surveys and survey reports. We
conclude that PMGD's contributions vary by grade and type of
position.
a.~ PMCD's enforcement of jab/pay equity far
secretarial and clerical positions is very effective
despite frequent and strong management opposition.
b. PMCD is generally effective, and. usually provides.
a useful and welcome service to managers, in establishing
and enforcing job equity for multiple-copy technicians.
_PMCD is usually effective, despite management
pressure for more headroom, in maintaining job/pay equity
for junior and middle grade analysts, Case officer?s and
support officers--but complaints abound in individual
cases.
d. PMCD's carrtributians toward establishing and
monitoring job{pay equity are relatively ineffective at
grades of GS-14 and above. PMCD's competence to evaluate
such positions is frequently questioned, and ii. is rarely
a61e to prevail in resolving disp~ites. When it does
prevail, its downgrading recommendations sometimes restrict
future headroom but have little immediate effect in the
sense of causing transfers or demotions of incumbents.
As one senior manager put it, the outcome depends on haw
well the Office "snows" PMCD.
Approved For Release 2001/09/ 4 : CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 Approved F5or Re~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~B'0060011-6
s responsibilities in the enforcement of average
grade,~senior slot ana supergrade limits are unclear. It is
therefore difficult to assess the Division's contributions to
this effort. Responsibility for allocation of Directorate staff
manpower ceilings (i.e. total positions) among components is
assigned to Deputy Directors. Each year they, or their component
heads, develop proposed staffing complements which, in their
totals, must stay within the numbers of positions at each grade
allocated to their career services.- Proposed staffing complements
~vhich contain revision, ar are later revised by a PMGD periodic
survey, must be authenticated by the Director of Personnel.
If tFiat authentication supports a number of positions, anraverage
grade or a number of senior slots that exceeds the Directorate's
allocation, the Deputy Director must take action through the
Director of Personnel and Comptroller to obtain approval for the
increase. The Director of Personnel may advise on where
compensating changes may be made to avoid exceeding average
grade limits. But responsibility, and most decision authority,
~.
belongs to the Deputy Director concerned. PMCD's responsibility
appears to be in support of the Director of Personnel's
monitoring, advisory and staffing complement authentication
roles. Wherever the blame or credit lies, it?is important to
note that upward grade creep in CIA is not significantly
different from that experienced in most ether Federal agencies.
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~~;~04R000100060011-6
. F
 Approved For ReFvnr~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83- 1004800060011-6
6. Agency managers express more dissatisfaction with the
way~the PMCD function is performed than with any other activity
of the Office of Personnel. They allege that PMCD personnel do
oat understand Agency functions and positions, much less their
importance and uniqueness, and insist on using Civil Service
standards of position classification which many think are not
applicable to the Agency. Managers are further disturbed by
PMCD delays in reviewing component requested changes and by .the
~tim~-consuming PMCD periodic strrveys which rarely have a
significant impact. In judging the validity of .such criticism,
which reflects the view of a large majority but is not universals
one must take into account the PMCD functions described above.
These are control functions which impact on how managers manage.
Since PMCD, in its wisdom, frequently disagrees with the wisdom
of managers concerning position,classificatian, an adversary
relationship develops. Therefore, PMCD does not engender much
affection from managers. -
7. G~IA follows the Civil Service wage and grade structures
but the dynamic nature of the Agency's unique role has resulted
in management innovations which are not typical of the Civil
Service tradition. Position management in the Civi~t Service
--
usually involves lookiny at the -function of an~organization
and constructing a hierarchic structure of cor~panents and
positions to perform that function. Position management in
Approved For Release 2001/09/0
,~04R000100060011-6
 ~~~~~
Approved For Relea~"2001/09/04: CIA-R 4R0001~060011-6
that tradition envisions a fairly stable situation--minor
changes in positions and structures can be accommodated based
an experience, Such organization structures are effectively
utilized by many Agency components including the Office of
Personnel. However, many-other Agency components are characterized
by constant change in mission and priorities. Their organiza-
tional structures and assignment of personnel are in constant
?fTux, Such components find the slow and agonizing PMCD way of
doing business~untenabTe.
8. In the position classification i'ieldy CIA also
frequently departs from Civil Service concepts. In the Civil
Service tradition a position has certain qualities of responsi-
bility, supervision, educational requirements, etc. Based on
tyre number and .level of such requirements a GS grade is assigned
to the position. .People then compete for the position on-thee
?-basis of merit-and the assigned individual must be promoted
within 120 days or removed from the position. Superficially,
CIA appear~5 to function in a similar manner. Actually, the
Agency career service system operates more on the "rank in
the man" than on the Civil Service "rank in the position"
concept. Agency managers think in terms of the career pro-
gression of people. Individuals are frequently placed in a
position not because their talents match all of the requirements
S
of the position description but in order to provide them
G-6
Approved For Release 2001/
~~-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000`4bD060011-6
with the opportunity for advancement based on potential and
past performance. -Then the functions of the position are
unofficially modified. to best exploit the talents of the
.incumbent. Thus, there is an inherent incompatibility between
PMCD's preoccupation tivith fixed, unchanging positions and
managers' preoccupations with adjusting positions to fit
changing people.
9. In reviewing a number~of PMCD surveys, we find some
validity to the frequently voiced assertion that PMCD bases its
judgment too closely on Civil-Service precepts. It is concerned
with matching grade structures to hierarchic organization,
,,structures, sometimes with little understanding of why same
organizations are otherwise arranged. It goes to some lengths
to correlate CIA positions (which are frequently unique to CIAO
...with positions elsewhere in the government, e.~., an NSA-
.- ,.journeyman. computer programmer is-a GS-l2; therefore, a CIA
prograrruner, who may in actuality work with a murh more complex
system an~.set of problems,~should be comparably graded. We
find many examples where PMCD used comparisons which we judge
to be invalid, e.g., we. do not think a DCD Contact Officer
should be compared with a DDO Case Officer to establish grade
equity. We also find examples aahere PMCD has recommended that
a position be abolished in order to improve the professional
to clerical ratio with no argumentation provided as to whether
G-7
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CI~-~~'1004R000100060011-6
 ~~~'~C
Approved For Relate 2001./09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004ROU7~0060011-6
or not the workload justifies the position. We find many
examples where PMCD has recommended that a position be down-
graded because the incumbent wasn't performing at the positior1
grade level. It seems to us that the requirement for the
position should be PMCD's primary cancers rather than the current
incumbent's performance.
10. We fees 'there is some confusion in PMCD as to its
appropriate role, i. e., whether~ta ensure jab/pay equity or to
.central the rise in average grade and the like. As mentioned
above, these are somewhat conflicting goals. Regulations re-
quire that average grade and senior slats be held constant
within Directorates as a whole. PMCD appareni:ly attempts tU
enforce such restraints within each component, sometimes to
the detrement of job/pay equity. Recommendations contained
in its survey reports frequently result in an. overall reduction
in average grade, senior slats and supergrade positions. 4!e
believe that, at least at the component level, PMCD should
only be concerned with jab/pay equity, i.e., in reviewing
positions, it should call it as it sees it; controlling average
grade is a higher management concern.
ll. The intent of the-above discussion is not to lay
the groundwork fora recornrnendatian that we abolish our systen-
of position management and compensation or that we do things in
a radically different manner. Since we are a government agency,
Approved For Release 2001/09I~~IP~004R000100060011-6
 ~4I~i~~~~ ff ~~,, i
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CI8'~ 10048000100060011-6
our options are limited. -The intent is to-indicate the
culture in which such a system must operate and same of the
problems it faces.
12. CTA was exempted from the Classification Act of 1949,
but in .that year Director Hillenkoetter informed-the Civil
Service Gommission that in our internal personnel policies we
would fallow the basic philosophy and principles of the Act
In October 1962 the Acting Director reaffirmed the Hillenkoetter
policy in a memorandum. This policy is set Earth in various
Agency regulations and PMCD is our primary internal control for
ensuring that we adhere to the ciassificat~ion principles of
the Glassification Act. Under .its legal exemption, CIA could
seek Executive approval to establish its own system of grade
structure and wage scales but any system we developed would
probably not be approved if it departed dramatically from
government-wide pay and classification legislation and policy.
There is no prospect at present that a change in system wil'i
be sough, and in any case any system utilized by GIA would
require management and control to ensure job/pay equity, to
respond to concerns over. the size of the Federal payroll, and
to implement executive policies stemming .from those concerns.
Therefore, the PMCD function must continue.
l3. In the balance of this Tab, the discussion is sub--
divided into the major issues we believe impact on PMCD and
rApproved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
 PANFl~E?1fIPt
Approved For R~jease 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R~100060011-6
its functions. Conclusions and Recommendations designed to
improve the performance of PMCD, make it more responsive to
component requests for position changes and, hopefully, to
create abetter working relationship between PMCD and Agency
campanents are provided on pages C-?_6 through G-31. '-
14. It is important to note, before embarking on the
individual topics, that, prior to the initiation of this OIG
survey a retired employee, was given a
contract to conduct a study of PMCD and to make recarrmendations
designed to improve position management and classification in
CIR. The Inspection Team found s study of
considerable value in its awn deliberations.
PMCD Staffing
15. The position classification profession requires
talented individuals. They must have representational qualities,
the ability to brief well and deal with people at all levels,
:good analytical skills and .several years training to learn tfi2
basics o~'the profession,. We have been told that PMCD was
formerly staffed with individuals not having these skills.
PMCD management believes the Division is currently staffed with
high-quality individuals. Customer comments suggest this may
not be universally true, but we were impressed with the enthusiasr,~
and competence of the PMCD personnel we contacted.
16. Despite the general criticism o~f PMCD, several
Agency managers praised the competence of a few PMCD analysts.
G-10
Approved For Release 2001/09/04 Ati' , - ~R000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~ee 2001/0~Q1004R000~060011-6
we suspected that these analysts might simply have been
unusually lenient, but that was not the case. The well-
regarded analysts are experienced in position classification
and have dealt frequently over a number of years with the organi-
zations that praised them. As a result they understand those
organizations and are responsive to their needs. tie have
concluded that effective rapport between PMCD and Agency
components can be established when a competent PMCD analyst is
assigned to an account over an extended period (up to five
years), The PMCD analyst learns the structure and problems
of the component and the component gains confidence in and
.respect ..for the PMCD analyst.
17. At one time, PMCD was viewed as a cradle-ta-?grave
assignment. Its current policy is to maintain a two-thirds
permanent cadre staff of experienced professionals and to ?Fiil
the remainder of its _ positions with .three-year rotationa.i
assignments. The PMCD staff is small in relation to its
responsibilities. There are only -.full-time classifiers
and abou~rofessionals engaged in developing better job
standards. Since it takes several years to train a new
analyst, we believe .the proportion who are permanent staff
should be kept at a high level to maintain the professionalism
of PMCD. We suggest that the permanent staff be given
periodic personnel officer rotational assignments to other
Agency components (perhaps two ar three during a career) to
Approved For Release 2001/09/(~9~ ~'~004R000100060011-6
 ~.~ ~~ ~~~
Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA- D 3- 1004ROOOTQ0060011-6
obtain a different perspective and to gain more experience
with the problems of other components.- This could be coupled
with the rotation of other personnel into PMCD either from
the Office of Personnel or elsewhere. We understand that the
Office of Personnel has made a proposal to obtain personnel
from other components-and Directorates for rotational assign-
ment to PMCD. The rotation of PMCD personnel to the Directorates
and Directorate personnel to PMCD would furtt~~er mutual under-
standing and facilitate PMCD working relatiariships with
components, if the assignees' tours are long enough to deveio~~
and employ adequate position classification skills.
Centralization Versus Decentralization
1B. Some managers argue for decentralized position
management and classification. They suggest that professional
job classifiers be assigned to Directorates, or even to large
components, and that job classification be-done wholly within
such units. They feel that .existing constraints an numbers off'
positiona-, senior slots and average grade are: adequate to
prevEnt empire building and that, within these constraints,
they are best able to decide how to organize their components
and assign grade values to positions.
19. Such a decentralized system is in effect at the
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and it
reportedly works effectively. However, ERDA uses a standardized
.Approved For Release 2001/09/0 -~~~~4R000100060011-6
r
 ~~~~~~~ia~:
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~060011-6
system for evaluating its relatively homogeneous positions and
managers have been trained in and are involved in the appli-
cati.on of this system, thus ensuring a cert;ai rti amount of
job/pay equity within ERDA. From this and other examples,
it appears that a decentralized system can work satisfactorily
in some organizations if systematic position standards have
been developed and managers understand those standards and
_are willing to devote time to their application. Those
conditions do not exist in CIA. Position classification is
not well understood by CIA managers and over the years we
have used a number of different criteria, understood only by
PMCB, far evaluating positions.
2Q. The Civil Service Commission is developing a
position classification methodology called the factor Ranking/
Benchmark System and has decreed that all. agencies under its
.cognizance will adopt it by 1880. The system is based on
data compiled from the. experiences and systems of industry,
labor, foreign countries, etc.. Those who are familiar with
the system are enthusiastic over its potential and cite as
its advantages. that it is easy to understand, it is a more
accurate way to grade positions than systems used heretofore
and it requires Operating Component participation, thus
leading to agreement and understanding on how positions are
classified. PMCQ has established a separate branch to deve]op
this system for Agency use.
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~~~~~~~04R000100060011-6
r
 Approved For Release 2001/ 010048000100060011-6
+u
?_1. The Tnspectiort learn was impressed with the potential
of this system and urges the early development and use of an
Rgency version to improve both pasition classification and
~con~imunication on that subject between PP~1CD and components.
When the system has been fully implemented and understoody
at least one barrier to decentralized position classification
in CTA might be removed. Fven under those circumstances,
hawevcr, we doubt that decentralizatian, in the sense of
assigning pasition classifiers to Directarates, would be
desirable in this Agency.
22. Although mast atrtharity in CIA is delegated tc~~the
Deputy Directors who supervise the four semi-autar~omaus
Directorates, the Agency must operate as a single organization
in its relations with the rest of government, including
its conformance with mannirrg and staffing rules and restric-
tions. These require that jab/pay equity be maintained and
manita-ed throughout the Agency, not .just within Dir?eetorates.
That man"Ptoring is performed by the Director of Personnel.
We believe his central control of Agency position classification
experts is essential.ta the prevision of uniform classifica-
tion standards and to monitoring the application of those
standards within the several Directorates. We question,.
however, whether the Director of Personnel needs to retain
4
authentication control of official staffing complements.
That subject is discussed in the next section.
G-14
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~~94R000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004?0060011-6
Authority and Appeals -
23. In practice, managers are not now unduly restricted
by PMCD's recommendations or by its influence on their staffing
complements. Undesired recommendations arising from PMCD
periodic position surveys are frequently negotiated away or
ignored. No effective system of enforcement or. appeal has
been formalized to deal with outstanding differences, and
various mechanisms, necessary for other reasons9 provide means
.of evading many of the restrictions in an unsatisfactory
Table of Organization. .For example, the Office of Finance
uses Personal Rank /lssignments as a means of providing G~_.-1.2
Certifying Officers tq overseas .posts because-PMCC wil] only
2
authenticate a lower grades= PMCD recommendations have some-
J __~,~_____._.__ ~ .._ ~.
.what more force when a component initiates a reorganization
or tries to upgrade positions. Even in these cases, hov~Fever,
PMCD has on occasion been overruled by the Director of Personnel
or the DDA. In practice, if a controver^sy attracts the
..
attention and support of a Deputy Director, his decision
usually governs the actual outcome, although not necessarily
the official staffing complement. For example, PMCD
recommended that the Personnel Management Group/DDO staffing
complement be limited to eleven supergrade positions.
Eighteen are now and will be assigned there--the .number
authorized by the DDO. The extra positions are simply flagged
on the staffing completment as awaiting approval.
G-15
Approved For Release 2001/09/O~y $~'~1~04R000100060011-6
 GU~yt,1~f~TI~L
Approved For Rel~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004ROO~b060011-6
24. It has been argued that PMCD, as a component of
the Office of Personnel, is buried in the Agency management
hierarchy and does not have enough clout to operate effec-
tively and to enforce its decisions (assuming it has-come to
rational decisions ~Nhich should be enforced7. It has been
suggested that the functions be attached to the Office of the
Comptroller. lrJe do not think the placement of the function is
a significant factor in improving its accomplishment. If the
function were performed competently and with a greater degree
of management understanding, if PMCD's authority were under-
stood and spelled out in Agency regulations, and if its
decisions could be appealed and reviewed by higher authority,
then we believe it could function effectively wriere it is.
The more basic question is, what .role and authority should
PMCD have?
. 25. We have reviewed and discussed several recent PMCD
surveys with the surveyed components. These components
generally felt that PMCD was on target regarding its recommen-
dations orr clerical positions. They expressed strong
disagreement with PMCD judgments on a number of other positions,
particularly upper level positions. The PMCD analysts who
conducted the surveys were judged to be dedicated, competent
individuals but it was felt that they did not obtain the
understanding necessary to make valid judgements regarding
G-16
Approved For Release 2001/09/04 : ~~ ~R000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
the significance and the uniqueness of the professional
positions being analyzed, nor? did they use realistic com-
parison data. We do not think this is simply management
dissatisfaction because it did not get its way. Rs discussed
earlier,. we also yuestian the infallibility of PMCD`s judgment.
This is not intended as criticism of PMCD or its personnel.
They are not and .cannot be specialists in all the organiza-
tions or position fields. they are analyzing; therefore, they
will make errors in judgment and their decisions should be
subject to review and, ~if necessary, .reversal.
26. A1any believe that no effective and impartial appeal
route exists. The Director of Personnel is uniquely empowered.
to authenticate and issue staffing complements and is therefore
-the official appeal route. PMCD reports and recon~nendations
are furnished to components over his signature, however, and
the route back lacks at least the appearance of impartiality.
Questions could and would be raised about his qualifications
to resol~re a dispute in detail- about a specialized position
deep within another Directorate, and such disputes are frequent
--31 of-the 38 component managers interviewed on this subject
had complaints. h1oreover, his real means of enforcing other
than very important PMCD recommendations is open to question.
His authority to authenticate staffing complements is clear.
6
Deputy Directors, however, must determine the allocation of
G-17
Approved For Release 2001/09/d~'~~~~~~004R000100060011-6
r
 Approved For Rele`r~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
.staff manpower ceilings amony their components and may,. within
some limits, make shifts in manpower within their Directorate
without seeking outside approval. In arguments with other
Deputy Directors, the DDA can,: and sometimes does, lend in-
valuable support to the Director of Personnel. Unresolved
questions can be and sometimes are taken to the f~Ianagement
Committee and the DCI far resolution. The number ofi disputes
far exceeds the capacity of this Channel, however, and mast,
therefore, are either settled through negotiations---usually in
management's favor---or left unresolved.
27. -.The main problem with the Director of Personnel/DDA-
appeal route lies in the number and complexities of the. disputes.
Effective and equitable resolution of them all would require
amounts of job knowledgE, position classification knowledge and
study lima that are simply not available to those with the high
.level of authority and respect needed to impose an undesired
.solution an a Deputy Director. Creation of an appeal authority
outside the Maur Directorates--e.~., the Comptroller or, Gad
forbid, the Inspector General--would face the same set of probl~ms.~
28. Efforts are being made, as they have been for years,
to reduce the number of differences by improving the quality
of PMCD's judgments, improving managers confidence in those
judgments and, through negotiations at various levels, to reduce
unresolved differences to those few Critical cases perhaps
Approved For Release 2001/091~~;1 ~ 10048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rel~'e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
worthy of Management Committee action. The last, and most
effective process, doesn't enhance management confidence in
PMCD advice or in the value of the whole exercise, however. Qne
very senior manager said that the subjectivity of the PMCD process
is driven home when you reach the negotiating point; "I'11 give
you two GS-07's for one GS-12." Many other managers have illus-
. Crated their doubts about .the worth and effectiveness of the
whole process by indicating that after months of effort they are
able to obtain through negotiation almost everything they wanted.
We applaud the efforts to improve the quality, and thereby the
acceptability of PMCD judgments. We find little new in these
efforts, however, and little in the outcome of similar efforts in
the past to justify an expectation that achievable improvements,
however desirable, will solve the problems by itself.
?_9. We conclude that there are only two ,solutions available.
The present system, lacking real enforcement. authority, can be
continued and probably be improved by better, semi-rotational
PMCD staffing and development and implementation of better, more
understandable classification standards--i.e., the [=actor/Benchmark
system. We believe these steps would help, but that most of the
fundamental problems would remain. The other choice is--in
addition to these steps--to make the Deputy Directors the appeal
and decision authority, while preserving the Director of Personnel's
capability and r~esponsibili`ty for monitoring their actions.
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
P
 Approved For Rele~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000'~060011-6
30. Whether transfer of staffing complement authenticating
authority to the Deputy Directors would degrade, improve or
-leave unchanged the Agency's performance in job/pay equity and
--adherence to average grade and other manning restrictions is
.bound to be a controversial question. Some would regard it as
setting the fax to guard the chickens. Others would contend thai:
this, in many cases, describes the present. system, and, if
coupled with active and adequate monitoring by the Directo~? of
Personnel, degradation in performance is by no means ari inevitable
result: 1'he more optimistic would even contend that providincl
:control of staffing complements to those now responsible for
4
holding average grade, senior slots and supergrades within their
allocations would remove any ambiguities that may now exist as
to where that responsibility liesy would provide them unaraEiguous
decision authority over a tool imp~irtant in carrying out these
responsibilities, and would improve the relationship between
staffing complements and reality by insuring that disputes are
decided. PMC~ influence on component managers during negotiated
settlements might even be increased by the knowledge that un0
resolved disagreements will be decided at a higher level. Moreover,
the fact that the decision will be made by his own superior might
make the manager a little less defensive and a little less
inclined to employ "snow" tactics.
31. No proof can be offered that the outcome of the shift
in authority described above will be good, bad or indifferent.
G-20
Approved For Release 2001;~~~~ ~>~3-010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/0~~~~ 1004R000~60060011-6
We are persuaded, however, that the risks of serious degradation
are nat great--and return to the present system would be possible
if, we are proven wrong. The shift could be art improvement,
perhaps a~~ important one, over the present system. We believe
other possible changes in the system, such as total decentraliza-
tion or creation of a supra Directorate appeal authority to be
undesirable, imprar.ticahle, or both.. We therefore conclude that
the transfer of authority should be made. TF~e details of our
proposals are provided in the Conclusions, starting on page G-26
of this Tab.
Periodic Position Surve,~s
32. Headquarters Regulation ^ provides for pet*iodic
position surveys to update position infot^mation, and to make
necessary adjustments in the grade of individual positions and
the position structure as a whale. Headquarters Notice
7 January 1972, established the Position Survey Program with the
aim of scheduling and conducting position a.nd manpower utilization
surveys in all components with the objective of achieving complete
coverage of the Agency each three years. ~PMCD is charged with
conducting the Position Survey Program. In conducting surveys,
PMCD is concerned with position management (organizational
structure, alignment of -functions, number of positions at
different skill levels, occupational levels required to carry out
missions, ratio of professionals to clericals, number of supervisors
to work force, etc.) as well as position classification.
Approved For Release 2001/0 4 : CIA-RDP83-010048000100060011-6
P ~ #~~~~~
 ~Q~~~nE~lAt
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~4060011-6
33. PMCD attaches high importance---and priority--to its
periodic survey program. The program provides needed opportunities
to study Agency positions in ardor to improve position classifica--
Lion standards. It generates reviews of positions .that may have
changed in character, ff not in title or grade, since they were
last classified. And it provides opportunities to reviev~ and make
recommendations about the .organizational structure of Agency
components, some of which-PMCD believes badly need such review.
34. Most component managers are extremely critical of the
PMCD periodic survey program, however. Many comments deal with
subjects discussed earlier--managers reservation about the com-
parisons used by PMCD to classify positions and about PMCD's
ability to under^stand the unique character of some component
positions--the time spent in negotiating differences in how a few
positions should be classified--and the fact that unresolved
differences are apt to stay unresolved. These comments apply
broadly to most PMCD surveys, whether conducted at the cornipanents
request to a~rthenticate a reorganization or one of the PMCD-
initiated periodic surveys. A number of comments apply more
~sp~cifica7ly to?'~he latter, however.
35. One often-mentioned problem is that PMCD's manning and
priority system does not permit an early response to a request
fora reorganization-generated survey, ar rapid accomplishment of
4
the survey after it starts. PMCD's efforts to meet a three-year
cycle of periodic surveys lead to tight scheduling of its limited
Approved For Release 2001/0' ~01004R000100060011-6
 :~~~~~a~~~~~i~~,
Approved For Rele 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~Yl0060011-6
manpower. There is little slack in this schedule arzd long delays
--many months and sometimes a year or two--occur between a
component's expression of need for a survey and its commencement.
Sometimes this forces components to operate for. protracted periods
with an outmoded official Table of Organization. In one case we
found that a component had deferred a needed reorganization for a
year while awaiting a scheduled PMCD periodic survey. Another.
has long deferred many conversions.af contract employees to staff
employee status because PMCD is too tightly scheduled to help.
Yet'the periodic surveys ga an. Onrr organization that recently
finished such an unsolicited survey pointed out that it occurred in
the middle of changing missions .and -nethods of operation, the
impacts of which could not. be assessed at that time.
3fi. The PMCD advice received during periodic surveys on
organizational structure is of often-questioned value. We attempted4
unsuccessfully, to chock this by evaluating changes recommended in
recent PP1CD survey reports. We found that PMCD survey reports
include, usually without clearp distinction,. both their own
recommendations and others originated earlier by the component.
Thus, the acceptance by managers of recommendations for organiza-
tion changes made in survey reports is not a good measure of the
contribution made by PMCD. Most managers interviewed felt that
few of the PMCD-originated organization recommendations were
useful. Since they are nals obliged to follow these recommendations,
Approved For Release 2001/O~~d~ - F~01004R000100060011-6
a
 ~~~~r~~~~l~~
Approved For Releaw~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000~0060011-6
they found them mare annoying and time-?consuming than harmful,
however.
37. Many managers quesf.ioned the qualifications of PMCD
jab classifiers to provide detailed recommendations on how a
Component should organize to carry out its mission. Such PMCD
personnel are relatively junior in grade (typically GS-12 or 13),
lack Operating Component and senior management experience, .and
have relatively little exposure to the component`s particular
problems, Moreover, managers point out that their organization
is-subject to command review in their Directorate, to program
audits by the Audit Staff, and to OIG surveys.
38. We concur with many of the managers Views expressed
above. We have Hated the followir~g consequences of the present
periodic survey program.'
a. Unresolved. differences with PMCD periodic survey
~.
findings are sometimes never formally settled after the
procedural steps of receiving and commenting upon the survey
t~epart. hlost of the controversial findings do not result in
binding T/0 changes or in immediate organizational changes,
.,___although PMCD personne) believe many..of their rejected
recommendations appear later in management-suggested reorganiza -
Lions. The manager, if supported by the Deputy Director
concerned, really determines his organization structure.
Therefore we believe the expenditure of 3-6 months of component
Approved For Release 2001/0~~'
w
 ~~~
Approved For Rele~ 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83- ~4R000~060011-6
and PMCD efforts at three year intervals far. periodic position
surveys to be excessive vahen compared with the specific end
results achieved.
_____.--
b.~ Competing periodic survey schedules delay the
accomplishment of surveys needed to authenticate reorganize-
tuns. These delays--and sometimes unresolved differences
arising from-the periodic surveys themselves--ted.d components
to operate for protracted periods an unofficial T!0's that
differ from their offycia7 staffing camplemeni:. This leads tc~
unnecdssary use of misslattting, Personal Rank RssigrEmenl;s and
other devices potentially subject to CSC and CMB criticism,
misunderstanding, and, perhaps, imposed cuts.. ~loreaver,
centrally generated position central inforrnatian in these
cases is inconsistent with the real world Tlzis carp mislead
senior management and obscure ..the development of manning
.problems. It else requires component maintenance of multiple
bookkeeping systems far middle management use. In addition,
incansisf~ncies between de facto and official T/0's niake
middle-level managers uncertain about their slot grades and
headroom and generate problems in assignment planning, personnel
advancements and morale.
39. We recognize PMCD's need to review a variety of positions
in order to maintain and .improve its classification standards. We
believe such data can be acquired without a fu11 organizational
Approved For Release 2001/
r
 Approved For Rele'!~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000'}~0060011-6
review, however. We recognize that aver a period of time the
duties of a position can change and that it is useful to manayernei~t
to have PMCD periodically review positions to validate their
classification. We believe that static organizations should be
subject to such reviews--but at -intervals considerably longer
than three years, These reviews should not, however, be accorded
priority over the more immediate classification needs of rapidly
changing organizations. Lastly, we~believe PMCD should restrict
its organizational recommendations to those cases where the
organization structure has a dominating impact upon the classifi-
cation of the positions involved.
4
GOnC1US1onS
Conclusion G-l. Authority should be delegated to Deputy
Directors to modify and authenticate staffing complements (T/0's)
within the limits of .Directorate allocations of staff manpower
ceilings, senior slots (GS-14 and higher) and average grade.
This authority should be qualified by a requirement that recommen-
dations by PMCD representatives'regarding changes in the grades
of existing positions ar the assignment of grades to new or
significantly altered positions be considered by component managers
and, if unresolved, by the Deputy Director before such changes
are effected. -
a. Td accomplish the second part of this it is essential
that PMCD be involved before a significant reorganization is
Approved For Release 2001/09/0~~~~'~004R000100060011-6
 ~~1~J~~~~~ ~ ~~~~
Approved For Relea~ae 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004di0060011-6
effected. Provisions should also be included for PMCB,
when deemed necessary by the Director of Personnel, to review
and reassess the grades of new ar significantly altered
positions after six months or so of experience with the new
organization. In some cases the Director of Personnel may
decide that a survey.of all positions in the new organization
is needed. PMCD recommendations arising from such position
reviews or reorganization surveys (ar from periodic and speeial
surveys discussed in Conclusion G-5 below) should be considered
by the component manager and, if unresolved, by the Deputy
Director within a specified, short time interval after th,e
recommendations are made.
b. Since supergrade positions are directly controlled by
.the DCI, and since a new system for handling supergrade~
problems is~being considered by the Management Committee,
they have not been specifically included ire this conclusion.
Consideration should be given, if this proposal is adopted, to
similar n4odification of the way supergrade positions are
handled, however. '
Conclusion G-2. The Director of Personnel, acting for the.
DCI, should be required to monitor Directorate and DCI Area
adherence to equal pay for equal work (jab/pay equity) principles
and to allocated manning, average grade and. senior slat limits,
and to recommend appropriate DCI action in cases where he cannot
resolve differences with the Deputy Director concerned.
Approved For Release 2001/09/0 q~Gt~ y ;~ 1~04R000100060011-6
 ~~~~~~
Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CIA- 1004R0004~060011-6
Conclusion G-3. In the area of position grade evaluations,
PMCD should:
a. Develop and maintain standards for position evalua-
tion use.
b. Participate in and advise on all position evaluations.
c. Insure that unresolved differences with component
managers over position evaluations are brought to the responsi-
ble Deputy Director for decision.-
. ~ d. Inform the Director of Personnel. in cases when, in
the opinion of PMCD, decisions made by Deputy Directors can-~
flict significantly with equal pay for equal work principles or
- established pay policies--e.c~. pay scales for senior secretaries.
Conclusion G-4. With regard to staffing complements, PMCD,
in collaboration with other Office of Personnel components,
should:
a. .Establish staffing complement formats.
b. Compile, produce and disseminate staffing complements
authenticated by the Deputy Directors and produce and dissemw
irate related management information reports.
c. Report to the .Deputy Director concerned and to the
Director of Personnel any non-trivial continuing instances
when the totals of a Directorate's staffing complements
exceed that Directarates's allocations of manning, senior
..slats ar average grade.
Approved For Release 2001/09 10048000100060011-6
,r
 1~~ ~ ~ C
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-R~II1004R000~0060011-6
Conclusion G-5. PMCD's responsibility for conducting periodic
position surveys should be modified. In this area:
a. PMCD should conduct periodic position surveys in
components that have received little attention in conjunc-
tion with reorganizations far a period of~abaut five years.
b. The Direc~t.ar of Personnel should initiate speciai
PMCD position surveys. in other cases where he (-as reason to
believe that position classifications need revision.
. c. hteither periodic nor special position surveys
should be allowed to .interfere with prompt and rapid service
of reorganization or other more immediate needs for Pt1CD~
assistance.
d. During all surveys, PMCD shauid restrict its
recommendations regarding the organization and management of
component personnel to cases t~lhere organization or manage-
ment is the dominant consideration in evaluating position
grades.
e.`` PMCD should be permitted on its own initiative to
audit positions in any component in order to obtain data
needed to establish, maintain or improve position evaluation
standards.
Conclusion G-6. PMCD should accelerate the development and
trial implementation of improved position evaluation standards
and methods similar ta.the Factor/Qenchmark system now being
Approved For Release 2001/QTY '~01004R000100060011-6
F
 Approved For Rele'~e 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R000`Ibb060011-6
developed by CSC for government-wide implementation by 1980. Full
CSC development of its system should not be a prerequisite to
deve1oprnent and trial irplementation of an Agency. version.
Conclusion G-7. The Director of Personnel should review and
alter the organization of and manpower authorized for PMCD as
necessary to meet its revised mission.
a. It is important to note that PMCD manning must
permit prompt and rapid service of component needs.
b. A program of rotating Office of Personnel people
with experience as component support officers through 3-5
year PMCD tours, and of rotating PMCD professionals through
component support officer tours, would provide a~valuable
experience base.
c. Rotating personnel from other Agency components
through PMCD tours would contribute more specific component
knowledge and would be useful if the tours can be long enough
far the rotating personnel to develop and use job c]assifi-
cation expertise.
Recommendations
Recommendation No. 7. That the UCI delegate to the Deputes
Directors authority to authenticate staffing complements,
requiring them to consider PMCD recomrnendations on op sition grades
before effecting changes and to exercise this authorit,~within
their allocations of staff manpower ceilings, senior slots and
avera a rode.
G-30
Approved For Release 2001/091~~ ~ 1004R000100060011-6
 ~u~r~~ ~~~~~~
Approved For Rely 2001%09/04: CIA-RDP83-01004R0004fi0060011-6
Recommendation No. $. That the Director of Personnel monitor
Directorate and DCI Area adherence to their allocations and to
,~obJ~ay equity and recommend appropriate DCI action in cases
where he cannot resolve differences with the Deputy Director
concerned.
Recommendation No. 9. That the Director of Personnel revise
PMCD procedures, position surveys~ sclieduli'nc~, and manpower a.s
indicated in Conclusions G-~ through G-7 above.
G~31
Approved For Release 2001/,
 ~~~~~"~~i~ '~ ~~
Approved For Relearde 2001/09/04 : ~-
3-01004R000~b060011-6
-TAB F
CLERICAL CAREER MANAGEMENT
1. The clerical management problem is primarily one of
limited promotion opportunities. Strongly adverse views of many
component managers about Office of Personnel (particularly PMG[7}
activities in this area indicated .the desirability of treating
the subject separately in this report. In many respects, however,
this discussion is an extension of that found irr Tab G, Position
Management and Compensation.
2. Opportunities for clerical advancement are limited by
the low (as compared to professional) General Schedule (GS}
grade structures established for clerical positions and by limited
opportunities for clericals to move into semi-professional or
professional positions which require skills which many clerical
employees do not generally possess. Moreover, same qualified
clericals, particularly secretaries, like their jots and desire
to remain in their chosen field.
3. Non-secretarial clerical positions such as registry
or mail room clerks are yenerally limited to the GS-05/07 grade
level with a supervisor one step higher. In the secretarial
field the Agency follows a pattern system based on the organi-
zational level and grade of~the supervisors position. Few
senior secretaries can hope to obtain positions at grades higher
F-1
Approved For Release 2001/09/ ~'1004R000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/09/04: CI ~~~-01004R000r4+A0060011-6
than GS-O7, or, perhaps GS-09. Since clerical grade level
structures are limited to begin with, a competent individual
who enters on duty as a GS-04/05 may be promoted to GS-47 or
even GS-09 relatively early in his/her career. Thereafter the
prospects for further promotion are dim; rnorale sometimes
suffers.
4. Agency managers empathize with clericals on prori~otian
headroom problems. They are particularly cancerr~ed over the
established secretarial pattern as it affects senior secretari~~l
positions. Many view. their secretaries as highly competent,
indispensable members of their management team. An analyst
or case officer may be easily replaced or others can take aver
the workload, but the managc-^'s secretary, who, in same cases,
is-fulfilling the .role of an office manager, is irreplaceable.
Therefore, it is understandable that managers want to reward
their secretaries with promotions. They desire to accord them
grade leuels`Which, in their opinion, equate to their value in
comparison to the professional members of the team.
5. During 7974/75, the senior secretary problem was the
subject of several Management Committee discussions. In sum,
the Management Committee concluded that the {tgency secretarial
pattern system should be continued as a guide in determining
pay levels far secretaries, that the Directorates should submit
Approved For Release 2001/09 ~1004R000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~e 2001~~~~~~~3-01004R000~D060011-6
recommendations for secretarial upgrading to OP, PMCD for
review in those cases where components judged upgradings to be
justified and that perhaps the term senior secretary is a mis-
nomer in describing some secretarial positions, particularly
overseas., and that a new job or position category be considered
that more accurately describes the many duties such secretaries
or office managers are called upon to perform.
6. As a result of the above Management Committee directive,
PMCD conducted a review of Gz secretarial positions recommended
for upgrading by the career services. In conducting its review,
PMCD utilized comparison data obtained from the Civil Service
Commission, other government agencies and private industry.
PMCD concluded that following "equal pay for equal wor[c" principles,
upgradings were justified in only a few instances and that CI/~
secretaries, in general, are paid comparably or better than their
counterparts in industry or other government agencies. PMCD
also found that, aside from promotion .limitations, factors such
as under-utilization, promotion policies and professional treat-
- ment of clericals were contributing factors to dissatisfaction.
As a result of the present inspection, we endorse these PMCD
findings. As stated in Tab G, we conclude that PMCD's enforcement
of job/pay equity for secretarial and clerical positions is very
effective despite frequent and strong management opposition.
F-3
Approved For Release 2001/O~l~($~j,1004R000100060011-6
 A roved For Reuse 2001/0~04~~1-R~~~01004R00060011-6
pp
The clerical field is one in which "equal pay for equal work"
standards can be readily established due to the similari~y of
clerical duties at different levels. Moreover, in most, if not
all cases, valid comparisons can be made with similar positions
elsevahere in government and industry.
7. We have na specific recommendations far Office of
Personnel actions to improve Agency clerical career management.
We applaud the successful efforts of-the Office .of .Personnel to
generate separate and special consideration of clerical per-sannc~l
within the career services. 4nfe have considered, as nave many
others, the establishment of an Agency-wide clerical career
service. The intent of such a career service would be to
broaden opportunities for competitive cross-Directarafie movement
of clericals to better positions. .However, we believe that. the
advantages of broader access to the very few positions at grades
above the GS-07`s and GS-09's available in the individual career
services are ~,imited, and real achievement of such Broad access
by this mechanism is dubious. Some mechanisms, particularly
vacancy notices, now provide broad access in some cases. Thus,
we conclude that the likely advantages of a single career service
for clerical personnel, or just for senior secretaries, would
not offset the complexities and difficulties generated by its
creation.
Approved For Release 2001/~~ 010048000100060011-6
 Approved For Rele~ 2001/0~~~ F~01004R000i~0060011-6
8. We believe that rnore attention shou]d be focused on
alleviating problems encountered by PMCD during 'its senior
secretary survey which are perhaps more serious than advancement
opportunities, e.~., secretarial utilization, management atti-
tudes, recognition, etc. Further, we believe that managers
-need to obtain a better understanding of the limits on what
a government employer can do to improve the pay status of its
secretarial personnel. We suggest that these topics be included
in:thc management course recomrnended in Tab H.
Approved For Release 2001
Ij~~3-0100480009 00060011-6