JUNIOR PROFESSIONAL TRAINEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000300050001-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 4, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: April 20, 1964
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Releas RDP80-01826R000300050001-7
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
SUBJECT Junior Professional Trainees
1. It would be extremely helpful to know why s made the
recommendations in the attached paper. It is always airricu o comment on
proposals when you don't know their purpose. Nevertheless, I will take a crack
at the ones he has made.
25X1A9A
2. Certainly DDS should move quickly to resolve open questions of re uire- 25X1A
ments, qualifications, training, etc. for the expanded JOT Program. Also,
25X1A9Aiust be dusted off and, if nothing else, get a fresh date. With respect to
two main recommendations, however, I am not favorably inclined.
3. As for the first main recommendation -- transferring the JOT Program to
Personnel -- I have no doubt this could be made to work. However, it seems to me
that the proponent of any such change has the burden of proof that it is a prof it-
2 5X1A91 le change. 0 hasn't sustained this burden; he hasn't even offered an argu-
ment. Such a move, no matter how smoothly handled, involves a certain amount of
dislocation, loss of momentum, and perhaps also some bruised feelings. 0 has
pointed out no compensating gains to offset these losses. 25X1A9A
4+. It seems to me there are three key ingredients in the JOT Program:
a. the selection criteria and standards used in picking JOT's,
b. the depth and breadth of their training, and,
c. the careful guidance and handling they receive during the critical
early phase of their Agency careers when their first impressions
are being formed.
25X1
I don't question that, if given the JOT Program, Personnel will discharge its new
responsibilities with credit. Surely, Personnel has a major stake in selection
criteria and standards -- a stake it has not always upheld vigorously in the past.
You know my strong feelings, however, that selection ought to be a partnership
venture, not one dominated by a single component and certainly not by a single in-
dividual. I think that in the venture Personnel should have the laboring oar,
Training and the Medics advisory roles, and the Career Service to which the candidate
will eventually go the decisive vote. I believe this kind of partnership could be
worked out just as easily whether the JOT Program is in OTR or the Office of Per-
sonnel. Similarly, JOT training shouldn't be affected by the organizational loca-
tion of the responsibility for the Program. On the third item, however, -- the
care and feeding of new JOT's -- I honestly would tip the scale in favor of OTE,
primarily because training is such a crucial part of this initial care and feeding.
11_5 =
downgrading and
declassification
 Approved For Releas RDP80-01826R000300050001-7 AHL
L
Moreover, I think the environment in OTR, inherently, is more favorable for the
kind of fraternal atmosphere and parental handling that are so important during
the early stages when a JOT is forming his attitude toward CIA and developing his
career intentions. This is not to say that the job couldn't be done in Personnel;
it is simply to voice the opinion that it can be done better in OTR.
25X1A9A
5. With respect to the second main recommendation II makes -- a policy to
recruit large numbers of JOT's from within CIA -- I am also disinclined, possibly
because I don't get the full import of what he would have us do. Perhaps, too, be-
cause I detect in this recommendation the seed of real trouble. As you know, I
want the JOT Program to be the mechanism for introducing into CIA almost all of its
junior professionals who become career members. I want it to be the mechanism be-
cause it greatly increases our ability to apply consistently those selection stand-
ards which ensure the right qualifications among our professional careerists. And
it gets them off to a fast start by providing a solid foundation of training and
early guidance. 25X1A9A
6. The seed of trouble I see in 0 second recommendation is the possi-
bility of a return to the early concepts which underlay the JOT Program and which
I oppose. If we accept the idea that most JOT's should be selected after a year
or two in the Agency, we are quite likely to see the Program evolve into one for
a limited number of "executive trainees." No longer would JOT standards be applied
in the initial hiring of junior professionals; we would simply go back to our an-
cient practice of letting components pick their own by whatever precepts they see
fit. Then, we would try to winnow out from the young professionals those with
potential for executive development and crown them "JOT's." Perhaps in this I am
hoisting up a "bogey man" but I suspect this may be the underlying intention of
some who espouse the view that most JOT's should have a year or two of experience
in the Agency before going into the Program.
7. I don't pretend to know a lot about executive development but I have read
a good deal of the literature on the subject. And I am unaware of a single author-
ity who believes he knows how to select in their early or mid-twenties the senior
executives of the future. Moreover, a good many of the authorities (with whom I
agree) think a great deal of harm can be done in an organization that tries to
identify its senior executives at too early a stage. For this reason, I staunchly
oppose any attempt to re-make the JOT Program into an executive trainee program.
8. I seriously wonder also, whether by requiring young professionals to work
a year or two before applying for the JOT Program, we would shortchange them during
their introduction to the Agency. Under present JOT concepts, new professionals
get a good foundation of orientation and training before beginning their jobs. If
we reverse the procedure, might we not put them and the Agency at a disadvantage?
Unless, of course, we intend to provide some foundation training for all new pro-
fessionals; and if we do that, what is the purpose of a JOT Program? To aid in-
dividuals to switch careers, as the original "internal" JOT Program operated?
These are questions which I think need considerable exploration and discussion
before anyone tries to form a final judgment.
2
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : - DP80-01826R000300050001-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000300050001-7
9. one of the great difficulties I have always had in trying to "debate"
the JOT Program is the problem of divining the true concepts and purposes behind
ideas being expressed and proposals being made. This is a subject almost every-
body is willing to discuss ad nauseam but few are willing to discuss in conceptual 2 5X1A9A
terms. Just what is trying to achieve? Or Matt 25X1A9A
Baird? Or anybody else? Only by knowing their real intent, and the philosophies
which underlie their ideas and proposals, can we really discuss their ideas pro-
ductively. There is more "shadow boxing" on this particular subject than perhaps
any other I have discussed in the Agency through the years.
10. The JOT Program had a solid conceptual basis when General Smith launched
it in 1951. He knew exactly what he had in mind and so did everyone else whether
they agreed with him or not (quite a few didn't, of course; I am one). He wanted
an executive training program designed to bring into the Agency each year a very
limited number (40-50) of gifted young men and women to be developed for positions
of senior responsibility. In 1956 or thereabout, this concept was changed. The
program was to be expanded to provide highly qualified junior professionals to
meet a great many personnel needs throughout the Agency. And in 1958 or 1959 25X1A9A
directorate quotas were set totaling 125 or 130 a year. Somehow, however, the
output from the Program never matched this expanded ambition. I have always sus-
It was at this stage in the life of the Program, so far as I can determine, that
its conceptual base got "fuzzed" up; but, significantly, the Agency's top manage-
ment failed to step in and chart the course clearly for all to follow. On this
latter point, I have always been much more impressed by what the Program cranks
out than by what its charter calls for. During the last 5 or 6 years when the
Program was supposed to yield 125 or 130 JOT's annually to meet needs throughout
the Agency, it consistently fell far below these figures and existed pretty much
as a device to supply the case officer needs of the DD/P. Yet no remedial action
occurred. Re-writing policy statements and all that sort of thing accomplish very
little unless we are interested enough and determined enough to really chart the
Program's course and see to it that the Program keeps on course.
11. I believe we are at a point in the history of the JOT Program where we are
about to make a fundamental change in its actual accomplishments. We are about to
alter its course so that it will become the mechanism for introducing into the
Agency most of our junior professionals. If we begin tampering with what we have
just wrought in the way of policy changes, we run the risk that our tampering will
get out of hand. Everyone is entitled to his own view about the JOT Program and
entitled to be heard if he wishes. But I don't think we should allow people to
mask their intentions or conceal them when they speak (or write) so that what they
are really trying to do never gets flushed out into the open. Debating the future
course of the JOT Program is a healthy process. I am all for it. But, for goodness
sakes, let's insist that those who wish to enter the debating arena do so with their
full colors flying! Let's not have beguiling proposals which appear to accomplish
ApprovedFor Release 2002/05/09 CIA-RDP80--0--4826R0043O00?O004-7-----
 Approved For Release 20 80-01826R000300050001-7
d
certain purposes but which are actually intended to, and will in time, accomplish
quite different purposes.
12. It is particularly hard to comment adequately on various aspects of the
JOT Program without injecting personalities. But even if this is one of the
hazards, I think it would be advisable to invite into one forum the proponents
of the various views that count with respect to the JOT Program and let them have
it. I certainly would welcome such an opportunity and can assure you that none
of my own views would either be masked or concealed.
25X1A9A
Chief, Plans and Review Staff
Office of Personnel
25X1A9A
on "Junior Professional Trainees"
dtd 1 Apr 64
Attachment:
Draft by
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP80?-01826R000300050001-7