Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 17, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 12, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
August 31, 1962
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1.pdf801.2 KB
3 c%z- '..1,573 Approved For Release 2000/08SI . P80-01826R000300100001-1 ne each Lu referenee tive for 447; fundementel iving verieux such as itentUt and concepte of policy OPPrOval ni3 aet,tm 6 least partially incorrect underntendings of practice* of the Ageney. Limay, there im a greet not be telly waderstandine of sone of the recommendati that was undeeatood by the Teak Wirce. v ble molation to Agency personnel program. cenerated by widely divergent authorities, high security cospertmentat of organization and command. tee fact is, however, cit and mechanise ham been evoived. *ere as I strongly erori proposed to continue our studiee end further evolve and strenethen our personnel atenagenent eystem, I ;ie., not agree and iedend think it would be 1.4ost detrimeatal were the AGenty to "abolish" The entire Career Service eyetem. also must disagree tbat the present witted l'hes served to die- sipate tht comnand renpuesibilities of the line executives.`' Ti:xeminetien fet our numerous career eerviees discloses that they basitally conform to the orgardzationil structure of the Agency and are operated under coonarA the related Deputy Director congenial() eep miume beleroerinte, rIffiCe a subordinate to him. easour. As you knee this is bei done. Mnour. Study has been cestedorted end set rec RP/ CATE 119" sy 02-7 it- ORM COMP Affriame_clEck_Relefase42600/ ORM CLASS PAGES REV CLASS JUST _ NUT REV.--VW *NTH: HR 10-2 tRDP80-0 0001 014011P 1 liclutled ROI 140,111.atic downgradiki 100 declass:Maki Approved For Release 2000/0 rft, -RDP80-01826R000300100001-1 think that the real reccessendati r than in Recemmendation No. 4 as statet. this needs to be studied in greeter 12epth. The s out the individual's fitness report is, in many 1natnce, unable to advise the individual of exactly where he stands in competition vita his contemporaries. To be effective, think that this probably have to be done at as higher level ve are now organized by name bigher echelon in the Career Service. Recommendation MO. 5: 1 have serious reservations as to the wisdom of issuing such a notice. I believe that there are other is to aceom- plish the same objective and that this alone would not do much to boost aerdie) in fact, unless it were followed by tamgible evidence of some kind it could do harm. I am perticularly doubtful as to the wiadom of the apparent proposal contained in parsexaph 4 of the suggested notice. I believe that a special exercise requiring a conference between each ganyee end his supervisor would tend to slam the employee body at large rather than reassure it. decondly, as indicated in my coenects on iccommendetion No 4, I do not believe the first-line supervisor is in a position to couneel the apployee to the degree implied in the draft notice with respect to hi* "precise status" and "future prospects. :Recommendatioes, 6, 7 and bleu pertain to the Agency ;yet= of fitness reports. In this connection I 'wish to paint out that the Agency has only in the past few moethe put into use a nsw? and we believe sigeifi cantly improved, form of fitness report. My basic position is that we should coneentrate all of our efforts toward ensuring that the require nents and ratim!, standards of the new form are clearly understood end allowed by all supervisors. A close system of mooltoring, not only by he Office of Personnel but by all levels of line supervision, mill be required. My specific ccunter-recommendation is that the Director of Personnel immediately develop a joint nonitoring and correction system in co1laboration/A.1th each of the Directorates and that the latter exercise strong leadership in requiring greeter perception and depth in perfornance rating process and in bringing about greater oniformity in the use? of rating ',tendert*. Subject to these general statements, TRy specific cements on recommendatioos 6, 7 and 8 fellow. leleoemendetlamilno. 6: This is au objective wail worth striving for; however, I ma not optimistic that any system can be devised which will eliminate the human aspects of asking out fitness repekts. We mant every supervisor and revieving official to be completely honest in his evaluation of at individual. Iam not sure that this is consistent with the eetablisbment of an administrative requirement that a certain per.- centage of all employees must be rated in the lower, middle, or upper category. There are just too mem human judgmeots involved to allow the actual distribution to coincide 'with the theoretical. Approved For Release 2000/ DP80-01826R000300100 1 culn.piizii awn automatic g:W="44V Approved For Release 2000/ -RDP80-01826R000300100001-1 4?prit 24a.cosaszatra: While I have no objection to ehangiag the current fitness report form, the ink is hardly dry on our latest effort in this regard. This fore requires sepervieore to be rated on this aspect of their perfermance. This is not to say that this or any other fora veto- not be improved upon, but I do not think that the form is really the key to the problem. Whet you have to do is try to get people to be honest ana completely objective in sulking out fitness reports on soy fora and throude any system. I doubt very seriously that a new form will /n and of itself accomplish the desired result. catin c.Nere again I concur in the objective, but I sub- .,'a--t--7-----Va&-'-t--hesaa:orvisor (rating officer), in moot cases, is not in a position to advise an employee of his re/stive standing. Neeonmoaation No.": I believe that the thrust of this recoensed t on Is stated in paragraph 10 rather than in Recommendation No. 9. 1 concur In Reecommendatice No. 9 in primelplej however, there is a at deal of work to be done beers it can be effeetively lenlemented, and I wad like to see a system devised and approved by the DOM beer* attempting implementation. loo No..10: I weula vant to see a commendation before concurring. Id not and probably could not 'War *cross the board. probably are many positions monatlich there is a defi- nite *oiling and in ehieb employees very definitely can continue to do a superior job indefinitely without promotion. The Director of Personnel is not in a position aration allowances. Assuming that our present compeneation is a sound erecedent, it revires of the Budget, Civil Service Commission, President's Personnel Advisor, Attorney General, Cametreller General, and four Cangreasional Committees. If vs are successful in implementing Recommendation I. 1, this will be pretty veil Uktua care of. aecammeniation No. /2: I concur in the recommendation. However, I am firmly (*evinced that in the final analysis, no wetter shot the AgonoY 6oes, a surplus employee will or will not get a. job elsewhere deeeodiag to every high degree on his personal qualifications and the impression which he is able to make mon a prospective employer. 'aviary prospective employer is eoing to search for the answer to his qpestion, "why did CIA let this man goTm. Assuming that me can provide a good answer to this question, ninety per cent of the problem still rests with the indi- vidual and his ability to convince a prospective employer that he has something that the employer need*. 3 - Approved For Release 2000/08/ _ P80-01826R000 otiOtle 1 . IVO automatic 00triat/ 4-1 Approved ForRelease2000/08/16 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000300100001-1 eirepiri#Eltettkitim It seems to me that the primary rimmommmdation in paragraph 14 rather them in the specific TtCOMMOV* ewe that this is a probing **kith needs much deeper oma reservations about the effect on the moral* of JOT's if each JOT is esraarted as belonging to that ch ere to be cbosen pecrple to till the *geese* key tbat the JOT's might mell be dieillusioned at a Approved ForRelease2000/08/16 :CIA-RDP80-01826R00030010 0 0oUriiiingutaarillniatIC declassification Approved For Release 2000/08 DP80-01826R000300100001-1 $ as orament of this on and At the that 214:.' Concur. ati Does paragraph 25 man tbat the flD/P bee tone went than other Agency cormorants? The more centrali Led control in personnel re a final position can be token on this I still believe that the Area Division r. Distribution: - Mreeueo 1 - DD13 Chrono I - DD/B subject w/basic 3 - D/Pers (Subject) ApproVediYr Release 2000 OQ u -RDP80-01826R00030010 P 1 alltlIbtrIorn automatic I -downgrading and declassification