SUMMARY OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SUPPORT) OFFICE HEADS' VIEWS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05551A000200050003-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 29, 2002
• Sequence Number: 3
• Content Type: REPORT

Approve For Release 2002/07/10 : CIA-RDP78-051A000200050003-7
RY OF DEPUTY- DIRECTOR (SUPPORT) OFFICE HEADS' VIEWS
? ?
e,M.ajority ot,:the orwp reports on the InSpAtor Qeneral's Survey
?sSri .s.wly the opinion that generalized staternets.liad.been made in the
soliOltisions reached _without adequate information or facts, submitted
to back up the arguments. There. was general agreementthat the Survey condemned
too strongly the Present system and its .shortcomings and failed to recognize some
aecor4lishments it had achieved. In several chapters of the Survey, the reports .
pointed out there are either statements or implications that the present career
system has 'failed, and meat commenters were unwilling to accept this statement
? as a valid premise. for further action. . There was objection to the idea that
"throughout the Agency career planning is viewed .9.s a burdensome exercise",
that "the Agency has little to offer young pec., le that will make a career in intelli-
gence work attractive", and that tu41..i.: our p:,..esent system there. is little chance
for Advencfment. These and other zesurnptions left individuals.; uncertain as to
what was mtendeci, catfused about4.,?????.;,n'te colin.i.C1:S; and strongly opposed to taking
some of the etaternentv cr. iaith.
,thw of the inos.--44ea:cly una;Limoe,sjc oi' the Support Office Heads was the
rejection of the rc.commendrtvion that care: Tices be set up along occupational
line. Aside from peei..n.g difficulties of delLTItzion:-:; in many instances, this system
would also entail management problems cutting iaterally through all -organizational
units, problems which would alrneet vithiy be greater than vertical problems .
in an organization likeCL. Furthermore: it was ielt that an individual's allegiance
and enthusiasm are contruteci better inz,?,. vertical clutin of command than in one
running?horiztnitally thrcmghout the organization.
Closely tied .to this view was tht . reaction te. the bispector-Ceneral's
recommendation that gal.,/ ona of the suggeste.t1 five career services be designated
a Service of intelligence of:leers,. Whether intended or not, the Survey gave the
impression that those in Suppc-* 0ices would be ineligible for the Intelligence
Officer CareerServ tee, and in px5.7..ti-;.Q.Ii!., all resf.onSeS there yeas strong opposition
to this exclusion fact 1,:A1 1;:h the growth of effectiveness .of
Support groups within the 194.!:yea nd the ,-....onse,;..nt increase of respect and
requests on the part a thci2e fremehis support. (There were six
Office Hew-j9 who agreed that some ';:t5enthersLip might prove bene-
ficial, but even these rcd tly,t L4er r.;t,..cly would be needed to determine how
Approved For Release 2002/07/10 : CIA-RDP78-05551A000200050003-7
Approved For Relew 2002/07/10 : CIA-RDP78-05551A000,40050003-7
It (night be done fairly and effectively, and in all six instances the assumption
was that Support would not be excluded.) In fact, the position was very strongly
taken by practically every respondent that automatic exclusion of Support employees
would be an unfortunate if not critically divisive action in the Agency,
A fourth common theme running through the DD/S responses involved reaction
the estabil.shment of the recommended Career Development Board. There was
a fairly wide variety of modifications suggested in the reports and there were
descriptions of ways in which the plan might be made to work. The concensus was,
however, that although some centre body was needed to be responsible for career
service matters in the Agency and although some mechanism was required for
facilitating lateral rotations and appointments between individual services? this
entire problem needed further study. Above all, it was felt a clarification was
needed of the advisory vs. command role such a body would have.
Paramount among the objections to the Career Development Board as described
In the Survey was the strong objection to the encroachment of such a Board on the
rightful authority of the Director of Personnel. As a result, many suggested that
any such board established should report to the Director of Personnel, either to
study the problems raised by the Survey and to make recommendations or to support
him in implementing policy decisions to do with career service. There was no
doubt as to the vigor of the reactions in favor of clarifying and reaffirming the
authority of the Director of Personnel in these matters.
Finally, and implicit if not stated in every report submitted, there was the
Idea that it would be better to use and modify existing inechanisms and procedures
rather than scrap what had been achieved and attempt to establish a completely
new system. The inevitable upset such a drastic change would cause and the worth
of some of the attainments of the present system were given as the main reasons for
this view. Though several stated that the Inspector General had correctly described
some of the failures and disadvantages of the Career Service now in existence.
there was unanimity on the idea that much of the system was working, much could
be corrected and modified, and that a major upheaval at this time might lose for
the Agency a great deal more ground than it would gain - might, indeed, even
he disastrous.
2
Approved For Release 2000001PftitetelkwerIVIIINIMOta0
0200050003-7