CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD 19TH MEETING Thursday, 28 January 1954

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01826R000500190018-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: January 28, 1954
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For-Release 2001 /04 A- -RDPj--01820000500190018-2
COPY 1 OF 3 COPIES
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
19th Meeting
Thursday, 28 January 1954
4:00 p.m.
DCI Conference Room
Administration Building
U Y'IGYt.>fioc .
CILSS. 0II AM-D To.
s c
10
NEXT REVIEW DATE:
RUTH: HR 70.2
DATE i9?s i
REVIEWER:
0291
Approved For Release 2001/04/0.
 Approved For Releas 001/04/05: DP8001826800500190018-2
5
CIA CAREER SERVICE BOARD
19th Meeting
Thursday,, 28 January 1954
4:00 p.m.
DCI Conference Room
Administration Building
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
Inspector General
Chairman
Matthew Baird
Director of Training
Member
Deputy Chief, PP
Member
Chief of Operations tr
Alternate for DD/P, Member
Special Assistant to AD/CO
Alternate for AD/CO, Member
Harrison G. Reynolds
.AD/Personnel, Member
Huntington Sheldon
AD/CI, Member
Lawrence K. White
Acting DD/A, member
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Special Assistant, DD
Alternate for DD/I, Member
25X1A9a
Approved For Release 2001/
 Approved For_iReleasJ001/04/05: C jRDP80 01826RQ 0500190018-2
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Chairman, Honor Awards Board
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Office of Training
25X1A9a
Chairman, Professional Selection Panel
25X1A9a
Reporter
Approved For Release 20
 Approved For-Release001/0 -0 826Rl,390500190018-2
Item Subject Page
1. Minutes of 17th Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Minutes of 18th Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
25X1A9a 3. Nomination of , to succeed
Huntington Sheldon, whose term has expired. . . . . 1
4. Final Report on the Women's Task Force . . . . . . . . . 1 - 3
5. Consideration of Proposed Career Selection Report. . . . 3 - 8
. . . 9 - 10
. . . . 12 - 13
6. Discussion of Exemption from Performance Rating Act
of 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9
7. Discussion of Personnel Evaluation Report. . . . . . . . 10 - 12
8. Selection of Permanent Career Staff, dated 8 January
1951+, from Professional Selection Panel . . . . . . 13 - 15
9. Proposed Policy Statements on Evaluation and
Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 16
10. Classification of National Security Medal, dated
21+ December 1953, from Chairman, Honor Awards Board 16
11. Revised Staff Study, "CIA Honor Awards", dated 26 January
1954, from Chairman, Honor Awards Board . . . . . . 16 - 17
25X1A9a 12. Request for Career Development Slot for
OSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 18
13. Discussion of OTR Monthly Report . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 19
114. Discussion of time of meeting of CIA Career Service
Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 21
15. Chairman's Report to the DCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. Insurance Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Approved For Release 6R000500190018-2
 Approved For Releas 001/04/05: CIA-RDP80,001826RQ100500190018-2
TIOW
. . . The 19th Meeting of the CIA Career Service Board convened at
4:00 p.m., 28 January 1954, in the DCI Conference Room, Mr. Lyman B. Kirkpatrick
presiding . . .
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Gentlemen, we have a pretty full schedule so we will
get started right away.
The first item on the agenda is the minutes of the 17th meeting. Are
there any corrections or amendments? If not, we will consider them approved as
submitted.
.-~., Item 2 on the agenda is the minutes of the 18th meeting. Are there
any corrections or changes in these minutes? If not, we will consider those
approved as submitted.
Item 3 on the agenda is the selection of a rotating member of the
CIA Career Service Board to succeed Mr. Huntington Sheldon.
MR. SHELDON: I'd like to nominate George Carey.
MR. REYNOLDS: I saw George Carey just before the meeting. He's going
on a trip so would like to substitute name for his. 25X1A9a
MR, KIRKPATRICK: Is that agreeable with you, Ting?
MR. SHELDON: I think that is quite alright.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any comment on the nomination of Mr.
25X1A9a
Hearing none, we will consider the nomination approved as submitted.
Item 4 is the memorandum from the Chairman, CIA Career Service Board
on the report of the Women's Task Force. Do I have any comments on this par-
ticular report?
MR. WHITE: I had only one, minor change, Kirk, in paragraph 2. I
it I would leave that out.
added anything to the letter. It's a very minor point, but if I were writing
thought the last or third sentence was a little gratuitous. I didn't think it
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think probably it would be best to leave that
take it out.
out, too. Does anybody feel strongly about keeping it in? Alright, let's
Are there any other comments on the report of the Women's Panel?
Now the handling of this raises several questions which I would like
kto present my views on for your concurrence or nonconeurrence. In the first
place, I think this group of ladies did an excellent job in their report. They
- 1 -
Approved For Release 2001 /0 - ?DP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved ForRelease,,, 001/04/05 C - DP `01826R 0500190018-2
have given us some statistics and details which I would think would be valuable.
I would recommend the Board send a letter of commendation to the group as a
whole, and a copy of that can be put in their personnel folders.
Secondly, the question arises as to whether the Director should
raise this problem in an AD's meeting or elsewhere. My view is that inasmuch
as the Director has commented on this several times at orientation discussions,
there really is no further purpose to be served by raising it specifically. I
think everybody in a supervisory position in the Agency knows that this Panel
has met and the problems they have raised. So I would recommend that the burden
of the proof go where it should belong, and that is to the Personnel Office, to
see what can be done toward improving the situation of women, if such needs be
tdone. Any dissent from that view?
25X1A94
1correct?
MR. The last sentence of paragraph 3a comes out, is that
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
Now, the last sentence of the entire report raises a red flag with me,
to a certain degree, and that is this business of statistical trends on the
Istatus of women. My general impression of that is along the lines of a great
deal of labor for probably not a very great result. The change in the status
of women in the Agency is not going to be a result of a lot of statistical
studies, it's going to be the result of a determined effort on the part of super-
visors and the Personnel Office to be sure women are put in positions where they
are qualified. And it is my guess the statistics won't change a lot in a short
S'F
time.
25X1 .19a
MR. WHITE: I was wondering--Mr. - here would know--whether you
do all this statistical business anyway, if he knows what kind of a breakdown
you want. I should think maybe how many women you have and what their grades
are could go into your regular statistical report, with very little effort be-
cause you are doing that anyway.
I think your point, Kirk, is well-taken. What's the use of preparing
a separate study semi-annually if you could, with very little increased effort,
modify your present statistical reports to reflect.that information, which I
think might be worthwhile doing.
25X1A9a M.R. _ semi-annually it wouldn't interfere because semi-annually
1--111
Ir
Approved For Release 2001 /0 W 1lA:RDP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release.,2001/04/05: CIA-RD -2
we prepare statistics on age and grade distribution of male and female, so
there is a comparative review there that is possible semi-annually.
MR. WHITE: That would be contained in a report you are going to do
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that would be sufficient.
That is what we had in mind, Kirk.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Good.
Any other comments on this? The Board considers this approved, then,
with the changes as indicated.
Item 5 on the agenda is a memorandum from the Chairman, Special Task
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Force on Evaluations, with recommendations on evaluation reports. Now, we have
this Task Force with us today and I think that probably the quickest way to 25X1A9a
join this issue is to have some comments by Mr. Bill?
25X1 A9a MR. I think one of the things that worried people about the
initial Form that we worked out was that it seemed to duplicate, in many re-
spects, the present PER - Personnel Evaluation Report. On studying this problem
it occurred to us that probably the simplest solution was to use this Form,
which is designed to evaluate a person during the first three years of his
service with the Agency before he becomes a member of the career service, and
then after he has entered the career service use the present Personnel Evaluation
Report, which is more of a tool to help in planning his career and assignments
than it is as an evaluation or examination of his ability. We spent a good deal
of time trying to come up with an actual Form which would be most useful. I'd
like to ask to explain the Form itself to you since he is more
or less the designer of it.
I expected to be charged with the responsibility for
it, since no one likes to have anything to do with these problems of evaluation
of people. But while the members of the Professional Selection Panel and this
Task Force may indignantly deny any connection, they helped me a great deal by
their positive and negative attitudes as we wrestled with the problem of how to
propose a system which would be equitable and fair to the individual and, at the
same time, safeguard the interests of the Agency.
I'd like to make two or three statements before taking up the Form
itself. First I'd like to remind ourselves what an evaluation report of any
type is. We always want to remember that it is simply a recorded painting of
j npQO-01826R000500190018-2
Approved For Release 2001/04/04;.C
 Approved For ReleaseJ001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826RQP0500190018-2
one person about another, and hence has a good many limitations of human
Ijudgment. So we will never get one that very many people will be satisfied with.
Secondly, I'd like to stress why we have one. Why do we have evalua-
tion reports at all? That is simply owing to the fact that we have a number of
problems. If one person has three people under his supervision and he can take
all the actions with respect to them then no form is ever needed. It is only
when information is needed by a higher echelon and where a number of supervisors
are involved that we need to make any record and formalize it at all. A super-
visor dealing with three people never has any problem. He can tell who he
wants for each assignment.
Thirdly, I'd like to stress the fact that forms are only a partial
answer to this problem and are not the most important. The most important
factors in training evaluations are the spirit in which the supervisor approach-
es his job and the policies which surround their use. That is one reason the
Task Force has stressed in its memoranda it is desirable to have this report
not shown to the individual, and should be seen by as few people as possible.
I think it can be demonstrated that evaluation systems for the purpose for which
this one is going to be used, will be more successful that way.
I might add one more thing, that this Form is presented in the hope
that it will be a little better than working without one. None of us have any
illusions that this Form will reduce the discussion of evaluations or criticismsy
in the process.
I take it you have seen the Form and that we need not pause on the
section concerning identification. The remaining sections of the Form are based
on two very simple principles. First, we are trying to ask questions in
different ways, which get at essentially the same thing, so that we might have
some way of checking what the supervisor says in one section against another
section. Secondly, we are trying, at least in one section, to be extremely ex-
plicit in stating what we want the supervisor to say in terms of the purpose
for which it is to be used. I will refer to that when we come to section 5.
Section 2 is the one that I think anyone that has had experience in
working in a large agency, would see the need for. There we ask the supervisor
to indicate how he uses the individual. A person who knows the characteristics
of the task that is being done in that particular section of the Agency, will
be able to evaluate, in one sense, or infer how much the supervisor thinks of
Approved For Release 2001/04/05: IA-RDP80-01826R000500190018-2
{
Ns.
 Approved Fortelease.2001/04/05: CIA- P --0,~826RQD0500190018-2
the individual by how he uses him. Does he assign him to important tasks or
does he assign him to run of the mill tasks, or does he consistently use him
on tasks which do not make very great demands upon him? I think we are all
familiar with the fact that we can rely on people we think are the best. That
gives us one clue as to what the supervisor thinks of the individual.
Section 3 is probably the one that is most controversial. There we
are simply making the effort to ask a number of specific questions about.the
characteristics of this individual, so that they may be logically interpreted,
and that will provide the basis for another overall assessment of the individual,
which may or may not be consistent with what is said in other sections. Now
the reason we have put in 25 blocks there is not under any illusion that people
can make that fine a distinction about those traits. One reason for using it,
and the minor one, is that some supervisors insist on making the shading,
whether we feel it is meaningful or not. The second reason, and the main one
for our purpose, is that it gives us an opportunity of studying a little more
fully how this Form is used by the supervisors so that we would be in a position
to advise the panels a little better on what the actions mean. Also, of course,
the section has a certain logical meaning in terms of the traits used. The most
important thing about these traits is haw they were derived. These were not
made up by the Task Force, sitting in armchairs. We drew up a questionnaire
of 133 characteristics of people which seemed of importance to people working
in the Agency. The members of the Professional Selection Panel circulated
this questionnaire to members of their own Offices, asking them to react to
each of these 133 descriptions in two ways: First, could they observe it about
their relatively young people under their own supervision - could they actually
observe the individual concerning that particular trait? Secondly, we asked
them to rate them on how important they thought they were. On the basis of
those figures we reduced that list to the 50
the two samples that you see
there, so that these traits are, to the best of our knowledge, considered ob-
servable by most of the supervisors that we contacted, and are considered of
some importance for the jobs that they are doing.
Section 4 concerns specific questions designed to bring out even more
outstanding things about the individual. You will note the first question is:
What are his outstanding strengths? If they are not indicated in this list we
have here let's put them down here - the thing that we think the individual is
-5-
Approved For Release 2001/04/0 &L' 0 1290 "" 826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release.2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-0 826RQ00500190018-2
most outstanding for. His outstanding weaknesses are obviously of concern.
Question "C" we are quite interested in: Indicate if you think that any single
strength or weakness outweighs all other considerations? That is frequently
the case for some assignments. I think you can all imagine" that one thing
might outweigh any other desirable characteristics and should veto any other
provision that is made.
Question "D" - I think it is obvious there what we are getting at:
Do you feel he requires close supervision? Yes, no - and if so, why? Is it
because he is new or because you can't trust him to carry out his assignments?
"E" is simply a space where they can say anything else they think is
timportant to assist the examining panels to reach a decision as to whether an
'individual should be re ained in the Agency or brought into career service.
Sectionj explicitly stated rating scales, which are particularly
S
pertinent to how this is going to be used. First, how well did he perform his
job? Second, how much potential do you think this man has? Third, his atti-
tude toward the Agency. And, finally, an overall statement - the supervisor's
explicit recommendation as to whether he should or should not be retained in
the Agency. We have made those as explicit as we can, and there can be no doubt
that the supervisor will know what he said in his final recommendation and the
Panel will know what he meant to say.
I would say, in one final word, that I personally would urge--and I
believe the Task Force would agree with me--that in the use of this Form pro-
vision should be made for constant study to see how the supervisors are using
it, so that the very latest interpretations can be given to the Panel.
MR. KIMATRICK: I noticed at the end there are two blank spaces
indicating signed by one and reviewed by another. Is it your general idea that
the Branch Chief would fill out the Form and the Division Chief would review it?
1 A9a MR.
the good things, as the case may be. Personally I would go even further, but
pass the buck to his own superior to say the bad things about individuals, or
The immediate supervisor will fill out the Form. It
is sent to the next echelon only for authentication purposes, with no intent
that it be changed or endorsed in any sense. The philosophy of the Task Force
was that the more we could make the supervisor feel that this was his respon-
sibility, the more likely he would take it extremely seriously and not try to
Approved For Release 2001g" R P80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release 001/04/05: CIA-RDP8 - 826RQp0500190018-2
%W L
the Task Force talked me out of it. I would say to send it directly from the
supervisor and not have it endorsed at all. We know it should be at least seen
by the supervisor's supervisor to eliminate, as much as possible, the opportun-
ity to knife somebody without anybody knowing about it, which opportunity would
be provided by the other procedure.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think it is almost mandatory to eliminate per-
Just sign without commenting or anything else, which
means the supervisor must show it to his boss and that will eliminate most of
the opportunities to treat someone unfairly.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would like to comment on it from two aspects, using
my two hats for the moment. From the Inspector General point of view I would
rate a very large majority of Agency problems as being in the nature of personnel
management problems. The lack of a thorough, comprehensive Personnel Evaluation
Report has been one of our biggest headaches, added to the fact that most
supervisors, being human beings--which I suppose we can't change--have a tendency
to give everybody a good record. Now that we have a ceiling on us we are going
to be looking at somebody else who is better and want to bring him in but have
a full TO, so suddenly they are going to start downgrading efficiency reports,
something that happened in many instances.
Switching hats, again, to that of supervising the Agency's Con-
gressional liaison, this is also one of the problems that will raise most of
our difficulties with the Congress--and has. Nearly every case that we get now
where a member of the Congress writes us a letter raising some question
about the propriety of an Act, relates very specifically to an employee per-
formance, and I would say that is 90 per cent of the problem up there. There-
fore, I would conclude that it is highly important that we get an evaluation
report or form which we all consider to be satisfactory and which should be
very, very thorough. In looking at this, this Form seems to be pretty close
to filling the bill.
One other comment, in working on this Executive Inventory the PER's
that were filled out to assist that, in very few instances were much assistance,
I think simply because of the vagueness of the PER itself. Something like
this Form would have been much more appropriate, and certainly would be a
-7-
Approved For Release 2001/0 1 f4 "0-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Iease.2001 /04/05: CIA-RDP80-0826R0500190018-2
f~
much better guide to the Director when he is looking at an individual's back-
ground, because here you get right down to brass tacks.
The only thing this leaves out which I have thought of as possibly
being desirable, is making the supervisor go even further by saying how many
employees he supervises and where he would rank this man. You come awfully
close to that, but not in so many words. This is just as good as a test of
the supervisor as it is of the individual he is rating.
Well, gentlemen, what are your views on this?
5X1A9a MR. Mr. Chairman, isn't it correct that both this Form
and the PER are illegal unless we obtain an exemption on that Performance
Rating Act of 1950?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Right.
Therefore, shouldn't the first step be that this
Board see that that exemption is requested?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What are the technicalities of getting that?
MR. We have to go to Congress.
MR. WHITE: The Civil Service Commission is all for it. I mean,
they won't stand in our way. They admit that they can't stand in our way.
But in the meantime I personally feel we aren't running any great risk because
our skirts are clean as far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned. They
know what we are doing.
25X1A9a . - But if someone is removed at the end of the year
because we say he is not satisfactory, and he chooses to bring an action, if
our exemption doesn't exist--
MR. WHITE: There are all sorts of ways to skin a cat.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Public Law 873, 81st Congress, has an Act on this
particular item, and the pertinent section, Section 4+, says: (Reading)
No officer or employee of any department shall be
given a performance rating, regardless of the name
given to such rating, and no such rating shall be
used as a basis for any action, except under a
performance-rating plan approved by the Civil Service
Commission as conforming with the requirements of this
Act.
So what I propose we do is to approve of this type of report and get it into
operation, and ask our Legislative Counsel to get us a rider on a Bill which
will give us this exclusion. And, Red, I understand from you that the Civil
-8-
Approved For Release 2001/ -RDP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For ReleaseJ001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-01826RQ00500190018-2
NNW --,NP N"Of
Service Commission approves of doin4 that?
MR. WHITE: Yes, they do.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: And Chairman Rees of the House Civil Service Com-
mittee being a very close friend of the Agency, I don't think it would be
any problem. But I think we ought to get this rolling immediately because it's
going to take months to get it into operation, particularly overseas.
MR. WHITE: Its not going to be any more illegal than the present
one.
5X1 A9a MR. ~ But it might put us a little bit more in jeopardy by
reason of the way in which this is devised.
MR. BAIRD: It's only one of the bases of an action. Your action
isn't based on this solely.
25X A9a
25X1 9a
MR. _ This is really just a guideline.
It seems to me that the Selection Board is functioning
much as promotion boards in the Army. They get information on the efficiency
reports and the board takes the action. This is only one piece of information.
MR. WHITE: I think we all agree with Harry that we should get this
exemption and get legal as soon as we can.
MR. KIRKFATRICK: Well, Rud, will you prepare a memorandum to the
Legislative Counsel telling him the Board requests that a rider be sent to
Congress on this subject?
25X1A9a MR. _ That is apart from the Legislative Program--
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes, apart from it. I think this can go ahead on
its own, and should.
Now, as to this report Form itself, any comments?
MR. WHITE: Is there any idea of a score to be developed?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: IBM scoring?
Our approach to that would be that if we could de-
vise one that we thought would help the Board in its task, we would put one
on. But this would be only for the CIA Board itself. It might be an aid
to them to select which individual should be interviewed, and it would be
used in that way only. But there is no thought, at least in my mind, yet,
of trying to put any arbitrary, quantitative figure on this.
MR. WHITE: There is one question in my mind. I'm not sure that I
Approved For Release 2001/04/ DP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release2O01/04/05: CIA-RDP80 V826RQp0500190018-2
fully understand the reason why you recommend using this Form for the first
three years and then the present one after that. What that philosophy seems
to me to be saying is that once you are in the career service it's alright
from then on. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is, that you only use
this detailed Form the first three years and then you use something which we
now consider unsatisfactory, I understand, for the remaining period.
MR. BAIRD: They weren't asked to do anymore than that.
I'd be happy to try to answer that, because I think
it is a basic question.
MR. WHITE: It's just a question I had in my mind.
For the first three years have a selection-in or select-
ion-out process, which we are not geared to in the present PER. After the
first three years then we have a career development problem, and the present
problem is intended toward that objective.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: But I don't think we should ever lose sight of the
fact that at anytime after those first three years anybody can be selected out
when they start to stack their arms.
MR. We were concerned primarily with the selection process.
MR. WHITE: I thought I read in here somewhere you recommended using
this for the first three years?
There are, I would say, a number of reasons. The
Personnel Evaluation Reports' success or failure will depend on how well they
are designed to suit their purpose. I am glad you brought that up because I
would like to say a good word on the PER as it stands. The PER as it stands
is designed to help the supervisor deal with the individual. Now there are a
lot of things that he wants to put down that should have no quantitative or
comparative or competitive reference whatsoever. When you are evaluating a
person you have an entirely different situation and you have to design your
Form for it, because experience has shown us that when you try to put the two
purposes in the same form it never works because they are incompatible. One
reason for that is the supervisor can't keep a consistent point of view. When
he starts making out a PER he might want to say some extremely disagreeable
things, in an evaluative sense - he says, "Now I would rate him pretty low on
this. Then he sits back and says, "Well, I have to live with him."
Approved For Release 2001/04 RDP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-0826F0500190018-2
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is the best argument I have heard for the
why we are getting false efficiency reports.
discontinuation of this form, because to start to tamper with the judgment of
an individual--because he has to live with him--is perhaps the basic reason
MR. WHITE: The PER was not designed, I think, to primarily serve
25X1A9a 11
uction, not a career planning program. I think we may be confusing the two
here. I know from my experience what you say is certainly true, that you don't
career planning. It was designed, as the title implies, as a personnel eval-
get on a personnel evaluation what a supervisor really thinks, because he has
to live with the guy. I'm not sure we are being very smart to say we will only
do this for three years, though.
MR. - I think Mr. can contribute information on that -25X1 A91,
25X1 A9 MR. - I am one of the people to blame for the PER because I
A
was in on the work that went into it. I think for the past couple of years we
have, as an Agency, lost track of the purpose for which it was basically de-
which is what it was designed for, I think we would find it would prove quite
effective. And if we don't use the PER we will have to devise something else
to do that, and I don't think we will come up with anything much better for
as it was originally intended and use it as the basis for career planning,
signed, and I think most of the faults we find with it come from trying to
expect of it the kind of thing that this rating Form will do.
I have here some of the older materials and I'd like to read what
the purpose was at that time. It states here that personnel evaluation in CIA
is the supervisor's considered and judicious appraisal of the performance and
capabilities of each individual. It is not a performance or an efficiency
rating in the sense that individuals are compared on the basis of a predeter-
mined, adjectival or numerical scale. The significance of a personnel evalua-
tion lies in the constructive action which will be taken to develop and use
each individual's abilities and potentialities most effectively.
Under specific uses one of the most important was that it was to
promote discussions between supervisors and employees, to identify aptitudes
and ability, to serve as a basis for individual plans for career development.
Now at the same time that we have been critical of the PER as a
rating device, we have also been critical of the fact that very few career
plans are being developed. It would seem to me that if we picked up the PER
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 A L'" 4A 91826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Re.Iease.J001/04/05: CIA-RDP80-0182680000500190018-2
-w VW-F
25X1A9a
that purpose.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think we are on a fairly fundamental issue, and
that is whether this should displace the PER at the end of three years. I
would recommend the Board accept this Form and put forward to a future Board
agenda the question as to the continuation of the PER after the three-year
period, or whether this continues or whether both are used. But I would like
to urge everybody to consider very seriously the burden we are starting to put
on supervisors for filling out forms, and whether we are going to get both done
well. Obviously every supervisor won't have a large number of less than three-
year employees, except that the statistics of the Agency happen to show that
we are 67 per cent three-years and under. So that will give you an indication
of exactly what your supervisors' burden will be with these forms. Then you
add to that his PER's with everybody three years and up.
The point I am trying to make is that we want the supervisors to
devote their best effort and greatest wisdom to the evaluation of their person-
nel, and I don't think we want to make it so complicated for them that they are
going to throw up their hands in disgust before they sit down to do it.
So I would recommend, if the Board is of such a mind, that we approve
this report Form to go into effect as quickly as possible, as the evaluation
form for all personnel up to three years. Then, put on a future agenda the
discussion of whether this should be used after three years, and the future of
the PER.
MRS has one question concerning the
content of the Form. Since this is a vehicle for selection of a member for
5X1A9a
the career service it appears to him it might be desirable to include in this
one vehicle an appropriate space for the reviewing authority so that it is all
bound in one document, - the question then being an appropriate space for the
approval by the Panel and the approving authority. Then it would all be in
this one document.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that is very sound, to have it all tied
together in one package.
MR. Of course, the Panel won't entertain the matter until
they have had three of these. I don't believe it would be effective to have
the approving authority included in this.
Approved For Release 2001/04/0RPP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release.2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80--0 826R 0500190018-2
MR. KIRKPATRICK: But the Form could.be made sufficient so that
endorsements and other statements made, regardless of who is making it, would
be attached--I think that is his point.
MR. - That is the recommendation, so that it is in one package.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Did you have some comment, Mat?
MR. BAIM: No, Kirk, I'm waiting. I just want to make sure of the
other actions that go with the Form. I am assuming you are approving now or
are going to discuss now the selection of permanent career. In other words,
there are two parts to Item 5 on the agenda. Are you taking that up separate-
ly or is that included in this approval of the Form?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: No, I would say the Form goes by itself.
Is there any further comment on the Form.
MR. one point on this question of adding a place for en-
dorsements, etc. I think we may run into a problem on doing that, if we have
to add an additional page. What might be better is to let the CIA Selection
Board, when it is set up, devise an appropriate sheet for action, with endorse-
ments, and after it gets to the Selection Board just attach that sheet.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think that is alright.
MR. M It would be something of a design problem to add any-
thing more to this.
MR. BAIRD: It might give it more distribution than you have
recommended.
I would just like to say one thing regarding the use
of a different type of form after the probationary period. It seems to me
worthwhile considering the morale of the people when they are at the point
where they are accepted as full members of the intelligence community, and at
that point if the screening process has been done well the problems of separa-
tion, etc., can be taken up as separate actions, rather than having to have an
evaluation form. That is why I was arguing for keeping the two separate, and
very seriously considering the PER type of thing for the future.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other comment on the Form?
Now let's proceed to the paper dated 8 January 195+ on the Career
Staff, entitled "Selection of Permanent Career Staff."
MR.- I have a question for As regards 25X1A9a
the establishment of examining panels, do we understand that that is to
- 13 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 ? 0-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Release.., 001/04/05: CIA-RDP80 jj826RW0500190018-2
"T
25X1A9
extend to Field Missions, etc.? In other words, is it world-wide in its
concept?
MR.- There is no intent that there would be examining panels
in the field, - only in Washington.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I know exactly what
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
at, and that is, how about your people abroad.
years are up, you haven't gotten the grip yet.
board in the interim? Then you don't become career until you get back to
Washington. Then we must be very careful when we christen this ship that we
make it understood that if you happen to be out of Washington when the three-
is getting 25X1A9a
MR. They get examined when they next report in Washington.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: But supposing your three-year period goes by the
his three-year period is up. There can be pre-examination in certain cases.
examined by the Panel prior to his departure, but he still is not a member until
the end of the three-year period and he has to leave Washington, he can be
MR M It is also anticipated that if a man is about to reach
MR, KIRKPATRICK: Then at the end of the three years they can go
25X1A9a
25X1A9
25X1A9a
25X1 A9as
ahead and approve of him and he is accepted then?
MR. Isn't that correct, Bill?
not come to grips with.
MR. It's kind of a logistical problem which the Panel has
for them? Then where is your Career Service? Is there any way to feel the
find that only 15 per cent of the people in the Agency are willing to sign up
if we do go ahead and promulgate most of these rules and regulations and then
that nobody has the answer to, but I've thought a lot about it recently. What
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It's a morale problem.
MR. _ Provided it's clear, there is no problem.
MR. WHITE: Maybe this is an inappropriate time and maybe a question
pulse or to find out if we are right?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I get at least a fairly constant throbbing of the
pulse in my office, and what the pulse indicates is: Tell us what the Career
Service Program is about. We want a Career Service Program. How do we get
into it?
-14+-
Approved For Release 2001/0 P80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For,R~elease.A01/04/05: CIA-RDP80826RQ'0500190018-2
25X1 A9at MR. - I think they are waiting for action.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I an going to hand out a little piece of literature
at the end of the meeting which was the result of last Friday's snowstorm,
and in that I say, without using those words, that the time has come to stop
talking about Career Service and do something about it. You know what the
paper is, Red.
MR. WHITE: If you end up with only a minority of the Agency who
want to be in the Career Service there is no way to get rid of the rest of the
people and you don't have a healthy situation.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Let's join that battle when we get to it.
25X1 A91 MR. - This paper looks pretty good.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I like this paper. This paper shows an excellent
MR.~ It has just been editorially revised as the Board
asked that it be done.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any further comment on it?
We have a pretty full agenda here, - a two weeks' agenda, so does
the Board wish to approve this paper as presented, then?
25X1A9a I MR. _ Yes.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. M Including the on the Panel of Examiners?25X9
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I don't think that is exactly firm yet.
I'd like to express the appreciation of the Board to the members
that participated in the development of this paper and of the Form. I think
we have made a real step forward.
MR. BAIRD: Kirk, if this is the bowing out of the Selection Panel
I would like to say that I think they have done the Agency an outstanding job,
with the greatest trials and handicaps that could be imposed on one body.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: If the Board approves, I'd like to ask the
Executive Secretary to prepare a memorandum to the Director telling what they
have done and what they have accomplished.
25X1 A9a MR? - Unfortunately the Panel can't bow out because we still
have about 10 cases.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Now, for reasons which will become apparent later
15
Approved For Release 2001/04/O, fGli!IDP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For tlease,3001/04/0 26RW0500190018-2
vwwwafft~, 5,
I will skip item 6 on the agenda, the proposed policy statements on evaluation
and promotion.
MR. _ I would, too. (Laughter)
KIRKPATRICK: And I will go on to item 7, the Staff Study from
MR
.
the Chairman, Honor Awards Board, on th~ classification of the National Security
edal, dated 211 December 1953?
25X1A9a r- You had disseminated to you by Mr. -on 28 January the revised
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9
Staff Study put on at the request of General Cabell. I think I can give you
the gist of that very quickly--and can fill in--inasmuch as I dis-
cussed the original paper at some length with General Cabell. He took exception
to it on the basis that the highest award was not one for valor, and he also
excepted the principle of adding a device to the Medal to indicate valor. He
thought there ought to be a clear delineation and distinction between awards for
valor and awards for merit. Consequently, I presume that that is the basis on
which this was re-drafted.
the slightest disadvantage in adding this award which has been suggested. I
don't think it can hurt the program, Agency, or anything else.. It does make a
"25X1A9a MR. _ Kirk, in view of General Cabell's feeling I can't see
MR.- That is correct, Kirk. General Cabell asked for an
opportunity to discuss his views with the Honor Awards Board, and at a meeting
yesterday in office he explained his view, which in fact coin-
cided very closely with the views of the original working group on Honor Awards
which were set forth a year ago last summer. Those recommendations involved
the establishment of one valor award to be the senior award, and then several
degrees of awards for meritorious service and/or achievement. In the interim
the National Security Medal was created by Presidential order. Under the frame
of reference that had accompanied the rejection of the original study prepared
by the working group, an additional Staff Study--which was the first one sub-
mitted--was prepared. It provided for two CIA Medals, each of which could be
awarded for valor or meritorious service, or for achievement. General Cabell
pointed out that in his view, and calling on his experience in the military
service, the award for valor should-take first place and there should be a
clear-cut, well-established valor award. The Honor Awards Board then revised
its original study and came up with the product distributed to you today.
-16-
Approved For Release 2001/04 $1 RCP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For tglease 001/04/05: CI - P80 826RWO500190018-2
? ? J
clear distinction and will probably be something only given in wartime. There
should certainly be no objection to having it on the books, as I see it, and it
does serve to take care of all the conflicting views on this question. It
seems to me the thing to do is to approve it, get this thing set up, and get
the Medals designed.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any dissent from that view?
Well, then, consider this paper approved by the Board as presented,
and we will push it through.
The next item is on the supplemental agenda, the request for a Career
Development Slot for OSI. In addition, there is attached
a Career Development Slot Status Report dated 25 January 1954. Is there anyone
to present this request for a slot?
MR. I have the papers. This is a request signed by Dr.
Chadwell for a Career Development Slot which has been approved by the Assistant
Director of Personnel and by the Director of Training, according to the pro-
cedures of the Board.
M is from the Nuclear Energy Division of Scientific Intelligence
and has already, by agreement with SR Division, done a tour of duty in the
Office of the DD/P. It is necessary for a Career Development Slot since SR
Division does not have a slot available for this purpose, and OSI must fill
25X1A9a the job which Mr. = occupied during the two-year tour which he will be on
on rotation duty with SR.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Do I hear any objection?
Incidentally, I think you should note, gentlemen, that we have 40
slots. This will be the 25th to be filled. One automatically reverts back
No. 22, and 5 more revert back between now
and June, so that actually the pressure of slots is not very great.
Hearing no objection we will consider the Board has approved the
development slot for
MR. SHEIDON: Kirk, may I make one comment on the 5th slot here of
Since I understand there is no super-grade available in this
group of slots it is really academic to consider _ on a rotation slot. 25X1 A9a
We are carrying him on our TO and, in effect, you have an additional vacancy
there. I think the record should be squared away on that.
17
Approved For Release 2001/0,119 _1 DP80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved ForPApIeass.2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80 8268 0500190018-2
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
may be taken.
MR. You don't have to carry him. No super-grade action
being able to fill that, - for ceiling purposes.
MR. You have somebody in that job and this aids you in
MR. WHITE: I thought we had discussed that and it was understood
that it doesn't help anybody and that it just uses up a slot unnecessarily.
25X1A9a I MR. _: The Board did approve--
MR. SHELDON: But they had no power to implement it, as far as I am
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Far be it from us to argue with you for giving up
MR. SHELDON: It doesn't help me any.
MR. WHITE: But that doesn't help Ting, because he has a ceiling.
25X1A9a MR. _ Then he didn't need the slot.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Since Mr. Sheldon is being ungrateful about the
25X1A9a procedures (Laughter) -- just remove- name.
MR. BAIRD: Kirk, I have one other problem and that is that I don't
available.
to initiate or even pass upon the promotions other than to say the funds are
want anything to do with promotions on this thing. In the first place, I
wouldn't know anything about the individuals, and I don't see why I should have
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Is that a problem?
MR. BAIRD : There has been a problem. That came up with _of 25X1 A9a
OSI. The Office of Training was asked to initiate the promotion and I just
turned it back to them. I wouldn't approve it because I haven't any authority.
The originating office should carry on just as usual on that.
MR. WHITE: I should think that would be taken care of by the
Personnel Office.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It certainly isn't an Office of Training problem.
Item 2 on the supplemental agenda is the OTR Monthly Report dated
December 1953. This Report is now prepared by the Office of Training on the
various individuals in training from the Division offices in the Agency. This
relieves all of the offices of the obligation and necessity for preparing
such a Report. Is there any comment on it?
MR. BAIRD: I might comment to the effect that it would be more
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 :&I - P80-01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For Iease.2001/04/05: CIA-RDP80- 26R@60500190018-2
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
meaningful -- in other words, these courses that are listed under Program G,
and A, etc., should at least have the language or the area, and wherever the
form will permit we will identify the training program in something that makes
a little more sense than just a code name.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Mat, a statistical study like this, to my mind,
always succeeds or fails on the basis of the utilization of it. This one ob-
viously requires considerable man-hours to prepare. So I would recommend that
we give it a trial of three or four months to see whether it is utilized or of
value, and if it isn't then just turn the whole matter back to you.
MR. BAIRD: This one took 16 man-days.
MR. _ I would agree with Kirk that we ought to try it for three
months, but I question right now the general utility of it.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: It's an interesting statistic, but if it's not of
value let's not waste 16 man-days.
MR. BAIRD: Look now, I didn't ask this be done.
MR. No one is picking on you.
0 1 MR. BAIRD: This form was made at your request, wasn't it, Rud?
MR.~ It was made in order to explore the possibility of
relieving the Career Service Board$from spending about 32 to l8 man-days in
reporting training to this Board.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: All right, we have had one liberation in getting
the Career Service Boards liberated from doing it, now let's see if we can't
accomplish a second by eliminating Training from it. Let's give it a trial of
a couple of months, and then in March if the view is that it is of no practical
value, then let's eliminate it.
MR. BAIRD: I have to make a report to the DDCI. This report goes
to the DDCI. The subsequent runnings of this report obviously won't take as
long because the devising of the form is the thing that takes the man-hours.
The next one will just be filling in, so the next one won't take 16 man-hours.
25X1A9a MR. = Let's accept the suggestion to try it for three months
and then have it reviewed.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Now we come to the new business. As the first
item on the new business I would like to welcome Mr. Harrison Reynolds, and I
hope that before too long Mr. Reynolds can take over the job of running the
Career Service Board.
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 01826R000500190018-2
 Approved For pleasa.2001/04/05: CIA-R 80.Q,1826RAr40500190018-2
Q r- lk R -1-1 w
+w -
i i + i Y . a e s .,,.
Item 2, we have been trying to decide when is the best time for this
Board to meet. There have been some mutterings about the fact that when we
meet at 4:00 o'clock certain members have to battle the Constitution Avenue
traffic to get back to their offices. I'd like to get a statement of sentiment
as to whether the Board as a whole would like to change the hour. I under-
25X1A9a stand that Mr._raises one very strong objection to giving up an hour on
his last free morning, and I can't sympathize with him more completely.
Is there any strong sentiment to change the hour of the meetings?
25X1A9a MR. _ Why not meet at 5:00 o'clock?
MR. BAIRD: If you could hold it at such a time as it would be too
late to get back to our offices -- in other words, 6:00 o'clock instead of
finishing at 5:00.
Mr. Amory can never come at this time on Thursdays.
25X1A9a MR. _ That is the chief problem. He was hoping that we could
25X1A9a
set a time when he wasn't at the Planning Board.
MR. WHITE: I might say that of course it is convenient for me, but
it does necessitate keeping chauffeurs overtime to get these people back down
there, and it happens everytime we get a meeting here we have to keep the cars
in the pool. I'm for changing the time.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: What is a better time? We probably used up more
valuable executive time trying to change the hour of this meeting than would
pay the chauffeurs the next couple of years.
Rud has a master plan here.
MR. - Thursday morning at 11:00, but Mr._ doesn't like 25X1A9a
MR~ If I am going to be the only one that is going to ruin
that I certainly would be glad to review it. But what Kirk said is absolutely
true, that I have literally no mornings left in the week. By the time the
Director's meeting is over, and the meeting below, then it's lunch time.
25X1A9a MR. _ Then if not Thursday morning at 11:00 it will have to
be in the afternoon, and then it's a question of whether it should be held
immediately after lunch.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: But everybody's lunch hour varies. This is
really not a major morale problem.
25X1A9a MR._ We have been getting out regularly at 5:00 o'clock, and
20-
Approved For Release 2001/04/058
 Approved For (ease 001/04/05 : CIA-RDP80 826RRO500190018-2
nnnicinrn1-r1 n_I
some of us have to get back to our offices to sign cables.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We will continue the meetings at 4:00 p.m. on
The paper which I wish to present now represents my views on the
Career Service Program. I took the occasion of getting snowed-in last Friday
to just sit down and get on paper what I feel. I think I would be perfectly
safe in saying I don't think any of you will agree with all of them. I think
some of you will agree with a lot of it, and I think some of you will disagree
with a lot of it. But I feel very strongly that we are at the cross-roads
where we should look very carefully at the magnitude of the organization we
have working on a Career Service Program and start seeing that the accomplish-
ments get down to the fellow on the working level, and cut down on the amount
of paper work that we are doing, which is purely policy and philosophy. I
think the Selection Panel has made a major step in that direction, but I
would like to see the whole program launched as of a specific date, at which
time we go into the three-year selection period and all of the other factors
involved in this.
I think one thing which I probably didn't make clear enough to the
Director--although I think he appreciates it--is that basically speaking we
have exactly one thing to sell to our people which is not true of any other
government agency, and that is, simply, that we have a more fascinating type
of work, and that we hope we can have a better run Agency. But we don't have
any benefits that the others don't have, and actually we have a little less
than the others mainly because of the security factor and everything related
thereto. But I present this to you with the hope that you will read it and
with the suggestion that we do devote a future meeting to hammering out
what is proposed herein in the way of future reorganization, and see if we
can't--in the next few weeks--get down to a firm decision as to when the
Career Service Program should be launched, if it should be launched.
Now, the last item is the Insurance Task Force.
25X1A9a
MR. The Insurance Task Force is about to call the
actuaries into active consultation. Statistics are being prepared now under
the direction of the actuaries. They have not actually worked on the premises
but the Task Force has been preparing this material so that when they do
Approved For Release 2001/04/05 b
 Approved For aplease 001/04/05: CIA-RD 80,Q.1826RG40500190018-2
come they can most efficiently consider it with the expenditure of the least
amount of time, since their time is extremely valuable in terms of dollars.
It's almost impossible.. Kirk, to be sure of when the Task Force
will be ready to make its final report, but I would guess within a month.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: In other words, they are just about to start
getting down to brass tacks with the actuaries?
25X1A9a MR._ That is correct.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Well, I think that is important, because we may be
able to come up with something concrete in the way of a career benefit that
we don't have today.
MR. The statistical analysis of deaths, hospitalizations,
and so on, is completed, and is being done according to the requirements that
the actuaries have specified, so that all of these statistical analyses have
been made and it may be that the actuaries can do their job in just a very few
hours after they sit down, but we can't be positive of that. They will, of
course, be indoctrinated by Mr. of the Security Office.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Any other new business?
We stand adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen, for attending.
. . The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. . . .
22
Approved For Release 200 1/04/05'DP 0 :._~ _ry 149~L4J bJN 2