CRITIQUE OF REORIENTATION AND SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES (RSR) PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-06365A001200020007-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 8, 2000
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: April 14, 1964
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002/05/08 :%10M-MP78-06365A001200020007-1
14 April 1964
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director
SUBJECT : Critique of Reorientation and Supervisory
Responsibilities (RSR) Program
1. Although I am mentioning only items with which I found
fault, my reaction to the Program was certainly not negative. On
the whole I considered the Program very worthwhile and well done.
Below are a few comments.
2. General Comments:
a. I sensed in the whole presentation a somewhat
defensive tone as re
d
gar
s coming out openly and saying that the
Agency is a group of way-above-average people doing largely unique
q work in a very unusual environment. We still seem to shrink away
from the concept that we should be better than other agencies if we
p are to carry out our mission. Because of the nature of our work
j'j
I 0 Agency management must insist on far higher standards than those
0 in any other government agency. We must have a code of ethics
ment employees. We must not be satisfied that our supervisorsrbe
d
A c a as goo
as other supervisors. They should be the best.
10 [a
A W b. I believe the keynote of the RSR Program should be
C w 2 that we are a unique organization of generally superior people doing
o M C1 =critical work, and therefore Agency management must expect Agency
r supervisors to adhere to ethical and professional standards more
I U ,; demanding than in any other agencies. Not one person said that
working in CIA is a privilege and not aright and that bein a rivle
"more will be
Z: Le` rstryto be the best and not apologize to
a a 2 anybody for it, and lens not even consider giving in to practices
m W Oaccepted by some government hacks in other agencies (overtime for
every second of extra work, sick leave whether you2re sick or not,
c?, rgetc.
; '%P) 0 C. In connection with the above paragraph I heard
prior to individual classification action.
tr ---- ? L_yyu may t,uere seemea to be a little too much
' This document. part of classified
Approved For Release 2002/05/ IA-RDP78-06365A001200020007-1 tle
ExWJA from mt;i nIiIc
and
 Approved For Release 2002/05/0
P78-06365A001p020007-1
of the Harvard Management Course in some of the talks of the
Program. Because of our uniqueness we should develop manage-
ment techniques that suit us and are not lifted from techniques that
the Harvard Business School prescribes for the Coca-Cola Company
and U. S. Steel. This is all part of our desire to shrink away from
the "elite" concept.
d. It seemed to me there was too little during the Pro-
gram on the obligations that a supervisor has to develop his
subordinates into the best possible assets from the Agency's point
of view.
e. More should be done to link the various talks together
so that there is a running continuity to the whole Program. This
could be done by the Program secretary making appropriate remarks
before and after each talk, by having the lecturers summarize what
has come before, or by a series of visual aids pulling the Program
together.
f. There could have been more in some of the lectures
to the effect that a supervisor must always be on the lookout for ways
to save money and make his shop more efficient.
3. Comments on Specific Talks:
a. Dr. Tietjen's talk: There was too little here on the
obligation that a supervisor must feel in regard to the health of all
his subordinates. If one of his employees is overworked, tired, or
worried it is ? to the_su
,p. 2ervisor to spot this and see that the man
gets time off or the medical help he needs. It should be stressed
that this is for the sake of efficiency and not a bleeding heart approach.
b. Mr. Fuchs' talk: Mr. Fuchs suggested that individuals
who are in debt and generally not reliable should not be allowed to
handle Agency money. To me the implication of this is (and I'm sure
it was not so intended) that it's 0. K. if these unreliable people should
be tempted by money some place else (the Soviet Embassy for
instance). If an Agency employee is so weak or disorganized that he
is tempted to steal money then he shouldn't be in the Agency at all.
As a matter of fact the least harmful thing he could do is to pick up
some of Bob Fuchs' loose money; this is certainly better than taking
money from the Soviets in return for favors. As soon as a supervisor
Approved For Release 2002/05/08_: CIA-RDP78-06365AO01200020007-1
 Approved For Release 2002/05/08
P78-06365A001 020007-1
even suspects that one of his employees might be tempted to misuse
funds, he is a candidate for selection out. Here's an example of
our being willing to accept standards that make us just another
government agency.
c. Mr. Echols' talk: Mr. Echols covered a lot of useful
ground. There was too much for people to remember, and there
should be some sort of a summary made of this talk as well as of
the other talks. His presentation on how to get rid of marginal
employees served a very useful purpose.
warning against telling all to former employees. v-v v
4. The Seminar: This was good and served one very useful
purpose: it gave a lot of people a chance to see some top Agency
men in an intimate give-and-take situation, discussing information
of vital interest to everybody. It went down well with everybody I
talked to.
Approved For Release 2002/05/04-RDP78-06365A001200020007-1