ABSTRACT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MEMORANDUM TO THE CAREER SERVICE COMMITTEE FROM THE DCI REGARDING THE CAREER SERVICE PROGRESS REPORT OF 22 JANUARY 1952

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000400050012-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 12
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved Fo
ease 2001/07/31 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000400050012-4
SECURITY INFORMATION
C NFIDENTIAL
ABSTRT and BACKGROUND INFO TION
For Discussion of
The RANDUM to the CAREER SERVICE COMMITTEE
From the DCI
Regarding the CAREER SERVICE PROGRESS REPORT of 22 January 1952
v oc REY DATE2-3 I SY Ogg 7
ORIG COMP OPI TYPE
ORM CLAM i PAGES / REV CLASS
JUST NEXT HEY ..,6)/,/ Wit: HR 10-2
C Nri ENTIAL
Approved For Release 2001/07/31 : CIA-RDP80-01826R000400050012-4
Approved For Releasev2004f0
SECURITY INFORMATION
1. "Llnate.....tte-oeTlt of nolic7 and substitute a directive....
appointing the CIA. Career Service- Board..5dinF7, to the functions that of
rating the Assistant Directors snd. fepatr AsAstant Director
Back.gound
a. Those who have lunched career service crorrai: aj'ee on the
need for publieicin- the p-ocram. Uxalolet Dr. J. J. ,Utt:ler,
Director of Personnel, Cnnoliclated &dion Company, s-'s (in "Persoii ,e1"
for qv 1945) "By ea of artIcles ,ad tL,?,loat5. in he colpaLi/s
house orn'an? as well by word of nouth? lake the pro7am's moz,--Lng
clear to all :xi ';';ers thu or;altiztirn. 4any -Ilunf:er-tJ,6Ings
zt
be avoided if ft 1,1ush-hu3ht oub1icit7 colic- is avoided."
b. Thee is also cu.;re tat tho o-zecess oP 1411,.;,; a orpgvi_.: as
he one oropsofi reglitror saiive suplort by t", oxe7,u'ives.
,xample: 'la. for IFetecvAtivo Dovolop loot" of Lie p-...te Cho iloal
Coy nont',ths the stateent "The 131,0 !.'n mu,,t be aelfiv.v1y supported
by top manarelent". iso dorepin? the CIA Career 25X1A2a
Jevelopment C:mforcnce ri 20 'cbrwxy, odyll QS'e 'Ara n re-A
c,71viotion id deter.,:i.rol,,00. on the p-rt o the top la-1 that e wants
to do this bpd1-7 itEqcu_h tor_: ly wor': -or opinton, re-
soonsibility for this Prot coulC, not be .aow the level
f the top -a-Ito Awuty."
Discussion
????????*?????????
The proposed policy stntelent was Oevl_sed as - of pnblicLzing
within CL 4 the C.2eer Service Pro:rnm (see n. above) '11(; of dellon-
str,?tin;: the activ,,, s'ipiort nd so,:n,orsip of the no:;rr the
IT (sod b. above).
Reconrnendation
a. That. a CIA Regulation in the General be pre-
pared for the signature of the DCI establishing the Cl & Career Service
Board and. the Office Career Service. Boards and stati:, briefly the
purpose for which: the Boards are being estalished.
bp That a CTA Regulation. in Correspondence and, Procedures series,
25X1A be prepared for the si71.aturo of the DD/A riving in greater
detail the responsibilities and procedures to be followed by the
several Boards.
c. That the Regulations be classified no higher than Restricted
and be given widest pesAblo distribution, e., Distribution No. 5.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/07/ 1: uv,FoonolAlsgompuootovrc 1-
Approved For Release 2r101/
'SECURITY INFORMATION
L."
2. "Rewrite Tab C eliminating the introduction and providing- separate
programs for the following classes or personnel:
A. Clerical and Adminietrative....
B. Specialists....
C. Proressienals....
Generally speaking, normal Civil Service procedure:1 provide adequately for
the career benefits of Clasnes A and e. The problems which are special to
this Agency, as contrasted with other agencies of Government, relate bas-
ically to Class, C, though it must also be recognized that in some cases
people rated within Class A, and even in Class B, will perform functions
comparable with those of Class C and, for our purposes, should therefore
be placed in the Class C program."
Backeiroupd
The Career Service Program planned
Groupe has, to date, embraced the
the Committee and the Working
lowing principles:
a. Blieination of the "elite corps" concept.
b. Intent to make a career of civilian employment- in CIA.
ce "Proven" service demonstrated by performance on the job.
d. To those who have not qualified qualified under b. and e., would
be applied personnel,- eeeseemefit-end training practices of the highest
order consistent with Civil Service - and other Government - usages
under existing law and without invoking to any marked degree the special
powers or the DCI.
e. To those who qualified under b. and 0., mould be applied
- the careful and neticalous planning of their careers on a long-range
basis invoking the special powers of the MI, to whatever extent is
legally, ethically and practically justified, to develop, train and
exploit the latent talents of the individual in bag-range interest
of CIA and to make service eith CIA so attractive that he will not
seek other employment.
f. It is not possible to establish without aldeitional legislation
a "commiseioned sereeee" such as the Foreign Serviee, the Public Health
ServIce, the Coast and Geodetic Service, etc.; nor is it probably de-
sirable, since required flexibility would have to be sacrificed.
Diecussien
a. The Classification Act of 1949 (P. L. )29) repealed the
Classification Act of 1923 as anended and changed a basic conept of
Job classification in Government. Three series of jobs were coebined
Approved For Release 2001
0400
Approved For Release .2001497/31 :
SECURITY INFORMATION
into one because
(1) borderline cases were numerous as to cauee
inefficient administration,
(2) "crossing overU and advancement were impaired, and
(3) morale was Improved by elimination of intangible
class and status distinctions.
The chae:e0 oft.er 25 years' use, was that the
Clerical Administrative and Fiscal Service CAF ()ries),
Subprofessional Service (Si' series), and
Professional and Scientific Service (P series)
were eliminated and combined to fore a
General Schedule (GS series).
b. The Department of State would appear to have adopted a
longeeenge proem= of olimineting, or at leaut reducing to the
greatest extent possible, comle tibia with existine law and tra?
dition, the distinctions between the Foreign Service and the
Departmental (Civil) Service on the one hand and, within the
Foreign Service, the distinction between Fore;en Service Officers
(FSO), Foreign Service Reserve Officers (FSRO) and Foreign Service
Staff (FS,), in the latter of which there are two further dis?
tinctions ? Officers (Class 1 to 9 inc.) and hemployees (Class 10
to 22). This Prograe is the reeult of recomeendations to that
effect by the Hoover Commission and the Secretary's Advisory
Committee on Personnel (the Rowe Committee). Departmental
Announcement 47 annoancine the "Directive to Improve the Personnel
Prograa of the Department of St?,te and the Unified Foreign Service
of the United States" says
(1) adjustments will be made within the fraeework of the
Foreign Service Act of 19460
(2) the Department favors and will promote. entrance of
Civil Service departmental employees into the Foreign Service,
(3) the Foreign Service Officer class will be increased
and the Reserve and Staff claeleee decreased, and
(4) while total integration is not now possible, the
Department will move toward the ultimate objective of a fully?
integrated service.
All of these moves are designed to eliminate the various "classes
of personnel to which the Department is now bound both by law And
by tradition.
Approved For Release 2001/07/31
Approved For Release 2ft
SECURITY IN 0
000400050012if
c. The Committee and Working Groups have recoenized that there
'mild be many "job patterns" and "job ladders" and that there would
be fewer, but still a considerable number of "job f%lilies". Many
different programs would be established by the Career Service Boards
to further the development of individuals belonging to these numerous
"job ladders", The prozxams -ould not be 17orma1ly Identified nor the
individuals formally named as belonging to enecific "job families" in
order to avoid the difficulties of borderline cases, crossing over
ad morale.
de Diagrammaticall the Conmittee has recommeeded "A" below..
The requeeted adjustment could be diagrammed as in "B"
'It
New Personnel and
Old Personnel
without Career Intent
ndation
That the. Committee carefully examine the requested adjustment that
there be established separate programs for a tripartite personnel
system and, if the anticipated advantages outweigh the known die-
advantages and overiences of the Department of State and the Civil
Service Commission, to replan the Career Service Program accordingly.
Approved For Release 20
26 000400050012-4
Approved For Releass,20
SECURITY DWORMan
3. like the simplicity of your proposed rating form, but question
whether the rated officer should see the supervisor's rating and comments on
the reverse side of these reports. Such comments should be confidential. It
is proper, however, to have the rating officer state that he has discussed any
shortcomings with the officer."
Background
a. In general practice, a "rating form" is not shown to the employee.
be The Working Groep preparing this form avoided a "rating form" as
such and designed the "Personnel Valuation Report" so that it would be
shown to the employee and form the basis of supervisor-employee discussion
of responsibilities and performance.
04 With this in mind, the form omits those aspects of a rating which
generally are not shown to the epployeel i. e., ratings of specific factors
such as drive, imagination, mentality, leadership, etc., and estimates of
promotion potential.
de The form includes only those items -which the Working Group felt
could and should be shown to the employee, i. e., particular strengths and
weaknesses; ways to improve present performance, and proposed development
program for the individual. The supervisor would clear his statements
with the reviewing official before he discusses them with the employee.
se Raving the employee see and sign the form ensures that adequate
discussion of performance takes place. In discussing performance the
supervisor may get off on the wrong foot and antagonize the employee.
The form is designed to guide and help him in the discussion.
f. The rking Group strongly recommended that the offices of Personnel
and Training collaborate in preparing supervisory training material to aid
supervisors in carrying out these discussions with employees.
Discussion
The Working Group recommended that the proposed Evaluation Report be
immediately installed throughout CIA and that it be revised, if necessary,
after one year's experience had been acquired. The question of whether any
form additional to the Personnel Evaluation Report would be required by the
Career Service Boards in making their decision regarding rotation, etc.,
was referred to the Working Group on Personnel Development Program. In
view of the impasse concerning the legal position of CIA and with respect
to the Performance Rating Act of 1950, that Working Group deferred action
on three items of its agenda relating to this problem until it could
receive policy guidance from the Career Service Committee,
Recommendations - There are three alternatives, i.
a. Adopt the recommendation that the Personnel Evaluation Report be
installed now and revised later,
be Devise now a "rating form" that will be supplementary to the
Personnel Evaluation Report.
Approved1RorTRAW0VAAMPAS,105A56 gheaddalliVrts
ee
25X1A
Approved For Release-12001 - -, Wirt '74g!r
: 411 '"- '0 r040041400102-4
o.
'
L. "The Class C program professionals, i. e,, officer7 s should be applied to
al professional intelligence officers from the time they enter the service and the
program should determine the system of selection, training, promotion, and rewards.
Witten agreement of the intent to make a career with the Agency should not be
required nor do any special security concurrences seem necessary as part of this
program. The intent to follow the career of intelligence officer must exist and
will be a matter of' primary concern to the Career Board."
Background
a. There are two schools of thought with respect to the declaration of
intent to rake a career in CIA. Apparently the two schools are irreconcil-
able. One holds that a signed statement of intent ie "a scrap of paper",
unenforceable, and is "an invitation to perjury". The other school holds
that while such a document is, of course, unenforceable legally it is
valuable as a psychological tool that forces an individual to think eneat
his long-range relationship to CIA. If he has signed such a statement
with his tongue in his cheek and this deception is scovered it is an
important revelation of the individual's character. The Agency's plans
for this individual can be appropriately modified. - declaration of
intent, such as the one which has been proposed, is admittedly good eaLy
as of the day on which it was signed in the same way that a security
clearance is only eood as of the day it was isseed.
b. The concept of a declaration of intent, however $ alreany been
approved as Agency policy in CIA Regulation No signed by the
Deputy Director of Administration, effective 21 February l952? in connec-
tion with Requests for Non-CIA Training. Paragraph A. (2) (g) requires
a "Statement that it is the present intention of the employee to make a
cereor of employment with CIA." This statement would be sinned by the
Assistant Director or Office Head whose employee was being considered for
extra CIA training.
Discussion
a. It has been recognised by all persons who have seriously considered
ne problem that, in view of the security regulations regarding dis-
closure of CIA mission, proceures, etc. to applicants for employment,
it is unintelligent to expect any employee when he enters on duty to be
able to make a decision as to whether he intends to make a career of
employment by CIA. It is for this reason that. tIse question of intent
has, by those plaening this phase of the orogram,been_ postponed until
approximately two years have elapsed after EOD.
b. If the statement "The intent to follow the career of intelligence
officer must exist and will loo a matter of primary concern to the Career
Board", is valid and no statenent of intent is .ade by the individual,
the Career Boards will have to devise some other way of estaelishing
whether th.. intent enists or not.
c. With respect to the "system of selection" the eerking Group on Trainees
has in final draft a report to the Committee reconeeending a system of
selection for all junior Intelligence Officers.
Recommendations - None
Approved For Release 2001/07/31 CIA-RDP80-01826R000 000500124
r- r
Approved For Release 2001i07/3 . ArteW-018
SECURITY INFORMAT ON
4 OW0011-4
5. "In view- of the confllet betwee t .e conocLon uf tanuze in
acadetic aelds the provi,....;ions of Section 102(c) of uwo 4_1tionP1
Securily Act of 1947, no reference to "tenure" should :A:. 'ade in the
pror;in at this ti,;e. The positive idea of ;;ecurity i o:L'Lce daring
good beh.Nior ond effective perfor,y.-tyLce of duty Is impli't in the
career Droram itself."
There has been no thought at any timo tivit "tenure" would conflict
7r1th the right o. hu DCI to "....te.-ninato the employment of any
officer or employee of the Agency -whenever he 13.11a.11 Oeert such termin-
ation necessary or advisable in the interests of the Ilniterl
(Section 102(c) of the Nationnl 5ecurity Act of 1947).
Discussion
The word tenure" oecurs only in Tab 6 of .he Co,LAItteel Pro,ress
Report to t'ie DC1. l'-raur:Th 3F: It :=t? therefore, ,lake
its career service incentives - such a3 a:vancoacat, tenure and
retire -lent - strong enou;;h to attrwct ant: hold -1;.-.11,; ,:rsons who -want
jobs that not run-of-Lhe..mine overnment. c:loves 1,1 a tidy and
secure niche cemnt:.d to a sin, 1:: ,eo_Taphioll pc:at." This is in
connection .with the "written sc,re.:.lent to serve Ih ,'olestic or over-
seas CIA posts....". S'noo thee is rluostLon bcfoa-a th Commitee
as to whether the -e should be any wrIL:,on a?;recaent all, the
question of ao...nc, the -:ord "tenure" :loie Ls so,-Iew, academic.
Paragraph 4At "Co,dific;...tion of r..?hk,s and beneflts so that he
employee knows where he stancis and what e iay rea.,:onbly plan for.
These shouJZ In.?lude preferential advancement, ',enure and retirement
for those In the evelopment Pro,;ram."
o,mondation
a, That the word "tenure be eliminated from the vocabulary of
the Career Service Program.
b.. That in an appropriate plsce in the Committee's nnal Repor
positiv statement be 7ftede to the effect thA since the Del has the
right under Section 102(c) of the ia.tiorial Fecurity Ac.b of 1947 to
discharge persons at his disgresUon, the word "csrecr" ,71.1 used in
CIA does not imply any limitation on thr!.t
Approved For Release 2001/0W1k:p1A-C8n1ER
00050012-4
Approved For Release 2001/07/
80-0 826R000400050
6. "I do not wish to proviRWAORMANY for hazardous duty as part of the
career service benefits (Part II of your Tab E) and would limit the meritorious
award system to Classes A and 3 under 2 above.... I would at this time eliminate
he recommendatiog relating to special compensation to dependents of personnel
engaged. in hazardous duty who are themselves exposed to hazard, and LThe recommen-.
datiorrelating to death gratuities to dependents of CIA personnel ? .ose death
occurs overseas....",
Background
a. Hazardous duty nay has not been considered by the Working Iroup on
Career rkenefits to be a benefit inherent in the Career acrvice 'roaram. Rather
is it an emolument that should be oaid to any employee eaoosed to hazardous
duty. The recommendation was developed by this Working Oroup only because it
was informed and comoetent to deal with the problem. Pasardous duty nay is
urgently needed.
b. The meritorious award system for recognition of distinguished service
to the Agency was devised on the principle that an honor award should be made
without regard to the status of the individual as an "officer" or a "private".
If there is to be a system of recognizing distinguished service for clerks
and technicians, there probably should also be some sastEi for recognizing
distriguished service among Professional People.
Discussion
a. Legislation respecting pay for oeraons who are detained involuntarily
by foreign governments (Missing. Persons Act) will probably be easy to obtain.
b. Legislation for a more liberal retirement system and for an adequate
leave system for overseas emoloyees will be very much more difficult to obtain.
Recommendations
a, That additional pay for hazardous duty be eliminated from the Career
Service Progra:J and forwarded to the Deputy Director for Adoinistration for
action. (a. of Tab E).
b. That the honor award system for all e Asyees criting honor recoani-
tion be reconsidered. (b. of Tab E)0
co That legislation respecting the "11ssina Persons Act" be vigorously
pursued in collaboration with the Delartment of Defense. (f. of Tab E).
d. That legislation respecting the following natters not be sought during
the oresent year:
(1) Alplication to denendents of the principles of the U. S. Employees
Compensation Act. (d. of Tab E).
Death gratuity of sixmonths' pay to dependents.
More liberal retirement system. (g. of Tab E).
Adequate leave system for overseas employees. (h. of Tab E).
Approved For Release 2001
weeeee
Aprowy frgrftIggsgerafirt31
o Tiave ? tte 01204
ecefe eeeestions as to what is
meant by rotation, answering such ques orr
CONFIDENTIAL
WA.
B4
Dc you recommend limiting overseas duty to any particular number of years?
Do you recommend bringing all foreign personnel home, say, one year in
each four or at any other intervals?
C. Do you recommend moving officers as a matter of policy from Office to
Office within the Agency or do you mean from division to division
within an Office?
"D. At what rank does the rotation by the Career Service Board stop?"
Background,
The DCI comment above was made without benefit of the Final Report of the
Working Group on Rotation which was received by the Career Service Committee on
30 January 1952, after the Committee made its Progress Report to the DCI on 22
January 1952. Answers to the above questions are largely contained in this
report
Discussion
In brief, the answers to the four questions posed by the DCI? based on the
report of the Working Group, are as follows:
To "A": Overseas duty would not be limited to any particular number of
years; depends on circumstances revolving about the qualifications of the
individual and the needs of the Agency.
To "B": Generally speaking, all overseas personnel would continue to
receive home leave (i. e., every two years) as well as receiving periodic
tours of duty at headquarters. It is highly important that there should
not be created the concept of a headquartere group and an overseas group.
To "C", There should be no policy that would preclude moving officers
treat' Office to Office within the Agency, or from division to division.
Such rotation depends on the individual. A small Treiber of key officers
should be rotated from Office to Office in order to fit them for top
executive positions on an Agency-wide basis. As a matter of policy these
officers should never be identified by name as a selected group. Knowl-
edge of their identity should be limited to the office of the DCI and to
the CIA Career Service Board. Rotation of officers from division to
division within an Office should be primarily the responsibility of that
Office, depending on its needs and the qualifications of the individuals
concerned.
To !Wst As a matter of policy no limit on rank should be set at which
rotation stops-. The greetest flexibility should be maintained and
decisions on rotation by the Career Service Boards should be based
exclusively on the needs of the Agency without respect to any arbitrary
limitation.
eldat
That the Report of the Oorking
Final Report of the Career Service
specific questions be based on the
Approved For Release 2001/07/31 : ClpeR
4
Group on Rotation be incorporated in the
Committee and that answers to the four
discession above.
Approved ForRelease DY01/0711 7-010,74T0---P 0050012-4
4 7 f?
8. "...the CIA Career ,e ecc oar. a
de...act ez the rating
board for all AD's and DAD's, and...,the AD, DAD, and one of the division
chiefs on a rotation basis....act as the reting board for the other staff
or division chiefs. Fer officers below the grade of staff or division
chief, your Office boards would function.bute...add as e eember in each
Office one officer below the grade of a division head ande...have each
Office board include at least one member selected from another Office, if
only SS an observer,"
Background
a. The Working Groups, in creating the Career Service 'boards,
considered that they would not be "creators of personnel evaluations_
but that they would be the principal "users" of these evaluations,
b. Apprnisel by boards and multiple appraisals by several persons
on a higher echelon was seriously considered by the Workine Group.
These techniques are used in various industries. However, the Working
Group decided against such a system for two reasons: (1) The compart-
mentalization necessary in CIA for security reasons eade multiple
appraise' or board appraisal impractical, and (2) tultiple or board
appraisal required a lerger amount of tine on the pert of the supers-
visors and CIA. was, on the whale, not reedy for such an advance
technique nor able to devote the necessary man-hours to it.
cS The Working Group agreed, in spite- of known dinadventeees,
that the evaluations- should be eade by those directly responsible in
the chain of command, i.e., the immediate sepervisor.
d. Heving officers of a lower echelon partictpste in the evaluations
of their superiors was studied by the Working Group. Although there is
a body of opinion supeorting this view, the Working Group concluded thet
it Was unsound and violated the principle of chain of command.
Discus ion
The question of observers frem other Offices sitting with Office Boards
was not considered by the Working Groups, It was felt that the Career
Service Staff, through its aid to and collaboration with the Career
Service Boards, would fulfill the need for obtaining uniforeity of practice.
Reco'rendattons
a. That the DCI evaluate the four Deputy Directors.
b. That the Deputy Director evaluate the Aseietant Directors and
Office Heade within their jurisdiction and that the DCI review these
evaluations.
e. That the Assistant Directors and, Office needs evaluate their
Deputies and that the Deputy Directors review these evaluations.
d. That the Career Service Boards be regrded os "users" of evaluations
rather than "producers" of evaluations,
e. That no officer be expected to perticipete in the evelustien of
another officer who is on a higher echelon than himeelf.
f. That the Career 77o
ApproxofefAmsa4fpwaigy A I " ;
4"- la'
? mb
observers on 'iffic e- - -
tte;- b the instruient of obtaining
0 ?Wither Offices as
C NrI ENTIAI