MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NPIC FROM AL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B05703A000400080057-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 17, 2003
• Sequence Number: 57
• Publication Date: January 27, 1970
• Content Type: FORM

Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000400080057-2
MEMORANDUM FOR: Execu$iv 'D , NPIC P1.1
John: 0 If%14o to--- "
I found per interesting but not
terribly enlight g as to any specific action to
undertake. The points about the competitive eval-
uation and fitness reports will be addressed (as
I understand it) in your proposal to revamp the
CSB procedures.
The most persistent problem that we have not
really addressed ourselves to in the way of any-
thing new is the communication gap spoken of
between the top two layers of management and the
two layers just below. The Communications Seminar
Report also spoke to this point and made some
suggestions which have not been followed up on as
yet. One thing we can do fairly easily is to in-
clude Division Chiefs at the Staff Mtg (say once
(DATE)
(over)
FORM
AUGN 54 I01 WHICH REPLACES
MAYF BEM US10-101
ED.
Declass Review by NIMA/DOD
Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000400080057-2
 Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000400080057-2
a month) at which Art, and you could make com-
ments concerning policy an generally pass the word.
The main method of bridging the gap to the Division
Branch Chiefs is now the twice-weekly Morning Briefing
and here you are only primarily speaking to the IEG
second echelon.
Pau-or
The seconccommmmication..gap.narrower is some
sort of an in-house newsletter. If we take this
route, however, we must be prepared to pay the cost
which I would guess to be something close to one-half
wAi0m a^)8ar if we are to do the job adequately.
last paragraph concerning the need of a
roduCtivity is a good one. PPBS has been
grappling more or less unsuccessfully with this for
sometime and I think we need to periodically re-
affirm with he need to press on.
27 Jan 70
Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78BO5703A000400080057-2
 SECRET
Approved For W ease ase 2004/02/12: CIA-RDP78BO5703M00400080057-2
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON PERSONNEL MATTERS
UC'*Nt'Uu;f1g 4;;d
1. A cardinal point to remember in making any change in the
handling of NPIC personnel matters is the necessity of keeping control.
In an overly simplistic view, this is what the "NPIC Problem" and the
reorganization were all about. NPIC had been an action oriented out-
fit. A high premium was placed on aggresive improvisation. The ex-
panding nature of the operation and the protection (or insulation)
afforded by tight security compartmentation were very forgiving of
the cost of such free wheeling - whether in dollars or in the efficiency
of the operation. If recidivism sets in there will be another crisis.
2. How to exert control in an effective manner, without an undue
expenditure of effort, and at the same time encouraging the develop-
ment of responsible decentralization is the $64 question. I think the
approach should be to identify the pressure points and provide a mecha-
to do a responsible and effective job. In spite of the existing super-
structure, I believe more effective control and guidelines are needed.
This does not necessarily mean a more elaborate superstructure. There
has been too much management by committee in the Center in my opinion.
A welcome and more efficient alternative would be the assignment of
clear-cut lines of individual authority and responsibility without
surrendering control in the larger sense.
3. This presupposes, of course, that supervisors and managers
know what is wanted. People must know much better than they have in
done find it essential to their survival as supervisors and managers
nism for ensuring that those given certain au
Approved For Release 2004/02/12: CIA-RDP78B05703A000400080057-2
T
 t
U E
Approved For lease 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP7813057030000400080057-2
the past just what is desired. This is particularly true at the branch
and division level. The Center has chronically suffered from a tendency
for the two top layers-of the organization to talk with each other and
the layers below them to talk with each other, and with too little com-
munication and identity of objectives between them. Thus, the division
and/or branch chiefs tend to feel that they are confronted with con-
flicting and capriciously changing guidance, that higher authority really
doesn't know what it wants, that what it seems to want frequently isn't
best for it or can't be done anyway, and that if higher authority would
stop interfering, the branches and divisions would get the job done,
including the handling of personnel matters. Though this is overdrawn,
it makes a point. To get the kind of responsive, imaginative coopera-
tion that is needed to reduce the paper work and get an acceptable job
done, it is necessary that everyone not only be told what is wanted, but
also be convinced that he knows what is wanted and why it is essential.
4. How to get the iu dance down the chain of command and how to do
so without having it garbled is a problem. Telling it to group chiefs
won't do. A better way would be to have the group chiefs invite you in
to discuss with them and their supervisors our aims and objectives in
career development and in the writing of fitness reports and whatever
competitive evaluation is decided upon. Branch and division chiefs need
to see the relationships between the evaluation of performance and career
development and how both serve the overall objectives and philosophy of
personnel handling to which you are committed. If the important points
Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : Cl .8805703A000400080057-2
J fi'a t a31 U:11~Y,_~
(2) got i
 SEGL3
Approved For R (ease 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78B05703'00400080057-2
were put in writing, it would provide some insurance that they will not
be garbled or forgotten.
5. Competitive Evaluation. I suspect competitive evaluation came
,into being partly in an attempt to overcome defects in the existing
system. For one thing it gave supervisors an opportunity to present
evidence they might choose to overlook if they had to face the employee.
It also gave other supervisors a voice in the process. This usually got
to the bottom of things. Basically, this is the way it used to work at
NPIC, before
though it was never attempted on a Centerwide basis
below GS-12. The paper work was fairly simple. A single sheet of paper,
containing a short biographic sketch, a suggested CER, and a justifica-
tion for same, was prepared for each person by his supervisor and vetted
and signed by the division chief. The latter met in one or more (usually
2 or 3) special CSB meetings to do battle and produce the final ratings.
These were frequently quite different from the initial proposals.
With the more recent system and its elaborate mechanism of point
scoring sheets, summary sheets, panels, sub-panels, etc., we may have
created the counterpart of the fitness reporting system with all its ba-
nalities. I think the present Frankenstein was born of the Performance
Evaluation Guide sheet. I confess a weakness for point-scoring systems.
I think they are most useful, however, at the level where they are created
because they can be used judiciously there. The farther they travel from
the source the more deceptively authoritative they become, particularly
when they move into the hands of those progressively less well informed
about what they purport to quantify.
Approved For Release 2004/02/1 3)CIp =05703A000400080057-2
 In 9 r, T
SEUU -41"
Approved For fflease 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78B05703600400080057-2
As we discussed yesterday, perhaps NPIC ratings should be confined
to those in fairly high grades, those with whose performance board mem-
bers are familiar. I am inclined to think now that GS-14 might be the
bottom.
If this were done, there would be great rejoicing at the division
and branch levels -- but for the wrong reason. This should not happen.
This is a critical matter of the control of which I have spoken. I
assume the evaluations would continue according to Agency regulation,
but that - would be done in the groups. This decentralization needs
to be accompanied by an assumption of responsibility and with a measure
of good faith and judgment not yet generated at the division, branch,
and section levels at any time in the history of the Center. The keys
to success are 1) having the "right" supervisors, 2) providing ample
guidance and understanding, and 3) a mechanism for monitoring the quality
of their response. The seriousness of the problem will vary inversely
as the grade. To keep the Center a dynamic organization in the face of
an essentially stable T/0, it is imperative to identify the comers at an
early date and pointedly to move them up through the ranks as rapidly as!
they merit it. At the same time it will be equally necessary to ensure
that less competent people do not receive automatic promotions to the
limit of head room. I can't think of any good way of doing this short of',
the intelligent commitment and steadfast determination of every branch
and division chief. Such a situation does t now exist.
6. Fitness Reports. In spite of their differences, fitness reports
and competitive evaluations are not unrelated. There should be a reasonable
Excluded GA tram om a Approved For Release 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78B05703A000400080057-2
~rtornatic
dove;, r: one and (4)
 SECRET
Approved For F lease 2004/02/12 : CIA-RDP78BO5703M00400080057-2
amount of compatibility between them. This has not always been the case.
For obvious reasons, fitness reports have tended to be less candid. Among
less obvious reasons, I think, is a sense of justice on the part of the
rater. Most supervisors do not sit down with their employees individually
between fitness reports and discuss their performance with them. They may
chew them out on occasion, but this is not what I have in mind.
Center supervisors need to know more about how an employees performance
should be monitored, about how to face up constructively to employee de-
ficiencies, and how to write a good fitness report. Divisions and groups
should understand that persons performing the same function should have
comparable specific duties. All should take cognizance of the fact that
not every employee is proficient or strong on the performance of his duties.
Undeserved fitness report ratings and pointless platitudes are de-
moralizing in the long run. The least to which a person is entitled is
an honest appraisal of his work and his potential, and some help in
correcting deficiencies through counsel and on-the-job or off-the-job
training. Outstanding (I think the term too restrictive in its connotation.)
performers too frequently are rated on fitness reports the same as those
who are distinctly less able.
The Pressure Points. In spite of my reservation about fitness reporting
(I would improve fitness reports rather than abandon them.), this is the
GROUP 1
!RGIMed (rum a[rcrs_'.
most rewarding point at which to apply pressure. There should be a plan.
Everyone should be adequately informed of what will be done,-and what is
expected. Then there should be consistent follow-through.
Another pressure point is challenge a person's pride in his work and
Approved For Release 2004/02/12 6 IA-RDP78B05703A000400080057-2
ECCET
 SY Y Ew
Approved For (tease 2004/02/12: CIA-RDP78B05703' 00400080057-2
to do as well or better than his peers. The scheduling of periodic
seminar discussions to deal with selected facets of personnel handling
could serve not only as an occasion for stocktaking but also as a de-
vice for smoothing out differences from component to component in im-
plementing the system. For senior Center managers, this might be done
at the CSB.
You could sample and critique fitness reports from time to time
with group chiefs as a means for checking up on how well they are dis-
charging their responsibilities, including how well their subordinates
are doing their part of the job. Some of the more pedestrian sampling
could be staffed out by the Personnel Branch and their findings delivered
to you for action. One time they might investigate the pertinence and
uniformity with which specific duties are designated, another time the
cogency of the narrative. Still another time they might examine varia-
tions in the distribution of "grades." Doubtlessly, you would be inter-
ested in learning more about a division or branch that seems to have
nothing but excellent performers.
Finally, if the Center had some objective measure of productivity,
this could be a very significant datum. However, until such time as there
are prospects of using such information constructively without making
the Center more like a factory, I think the disadvantages of this course
of action outweigh the potential gains.
GROUP 1
Exclttlec runt a-.
Approved For Release 2004/02/9): A--_RDP78B05703A000400080057-2