LETTER TO MR. DWIGHT INK FROM (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M00165A001700110003-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: October 27, 1977
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved Felease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80M0SPA001700110003-2
Mr. Dwight Ink
Executive Director
Persontel Management Project
U. S. Civil Service Ccmacission
1900 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20415
Dear Mr. Ink:
We have reviewed Option Paper Number Six, "Job Evaluation,
Pay, and Benefit Systems" and are pleased to enclose
scene of the items which are of considerable interest
Agency.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Distribution:
Orig - Addressee
1
- ADDCI
(Info Copy
1
- ER.
(Info Copy)
1
- ADDA
(Info Copy)
2
- AD/PERS
1
- OP/P&C
to this
OP/PAC (RETYPED/OD/PERS/rj/27 October 77)
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01700110003-2
 Approved Fow-lease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80M001&001700110003-2
COMViF.NIS ON OPTION PAPER NUMBER SIX
GENERAL REFERENCE:
Part 6: Can the principle of merit pay be used to improve and
reward employee performance?
SPECIFIC REFERENCE:
Within-grade advancement.
CONVENTS:
Under present Federal practices applicable to the "within-grade"
advancement system, the statutory principle of "equal pay for equal work
with pay distinctions maintained in keeping with work and performance
distinction" is not fulfilled when the vast majority of employees are
automatically given within-grade increases.
There is little incentive for employees to excel when no distinction
is made between superior and acceptable performance.
The appeals procedures established for the withholding of periodic
step increases for employee performance considered less than "acceptable"
requires extraordinary effort on the part of the supervisor to document
and defend a decision to withhold.
There should be a direct link between the performance appraisal
system and the rewarding of employees with within-grade increases in
salary.
Option C with sub-option c(1) (a) and c(2) (a) would appear to offer
the most promise for relating performance distinction on the job to
rewarding employees based upon their contributions.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001700110003-2
 Approved Fo*lease 2004/03/23: CIA=RDP80M0010001700110003-2
GENERAL REFERENCE:
Part 7: What improvements are needed in the Job Evaluation
Process?
C('i.NT:
The introduction of the Factor Evaluation System (FES) has
simplified some of the complexities previously encountered in the
job evaluation system. These standards, once they are understood
by line managers, and articulated by qualified classifiers, should
improve the job evaluation process. We therefore believe that the
arguments set forth for total reform of the classification and pay
system should be rejected. Option A, with sub-option A(2) and A(4),
calling for retention of the present system, but, concentrating on
necessary systems improvements should be pursued.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001700110003-2
 Approved Fo0lease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80M001 001700110003-2
Y
OPTIONS
A. Proceed with present job evaluation system, but concentrate
on necessary systems improvements.
Suboption A(l) Increase staff resources for the production (and
implementation) of classification standards.
Discussion
The number of standards produced could be increased
through the accomplishment of a variety of activities,
e.g., greater production of CSC-sponsored single
 Approved For ease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80M0016MP 01700110003-2
agen standards, contracts to consul ts, increase
in the CSC staff or details of agency staff to CSC,
etc. This would involve long training periods to
fully prepare the staff for conducting occupational
studies that include development of corresponding
qualification standards as well as classification
standards.
Suboption A(2) Assure that job evaluation is performed by qualified
classifiers.
Discussion
A large number of suggestions received by the Task
Force involve the following:
(a) Recognize job evaluation in the Federal service
as a discipline. Publish complete training
curriculum as a mandatory standard for classifiers.
(b) Require certification for each level of performance
for classifiers.
(c) Provide a pool of trained classifiers to fill
agency positions.
(d) Conduct periodic seminars in major locations
throughout the country; publish technical
communications.
The first three suggestions would require considerable
staff resources and time to implement, but could
improve technical competence. The certification
requirement would probably discourage flagrant
misclassification, but might delay some personnel
actions when there are insufficient certified
classifiers. The last suggestion regarding seminars
would serve to keep trained classifiers up-to-date
in their field.
Suboption A(3) Restrict or remove classification authority:
Discussion
A minority of suggestions received involve taking
steps such as:
(a) Centralize classification authority for positions
at GS-13 and above.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01700110003-2
 Approved For ease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80M001 01700110003-2
Restrict classification auth i.ty to the regional
level, but retain classifiers at the installation
to advise and assist supervisors in writing
position descriptions.
(c) Put the Personnel Officer on the Commission's
payroll with accountability to the Commission.
Discussion
These methods increase classification controls, but
might cause delays and interfere with personnel
management at the installation level. There is no
assurance that the classification actions would be
performed by better qualified persons simply because
they would be performed at a higher organizational
level.
Suboption'A(4) Improve quality of agency job evaluation programs.
In conjunction with development of improved training
for classifiers, a model job evaluation program
could be developed and promulgated to agencies.
Such a program could provide for a close working
relationship between classifiers and operating
supervisors and might include:
(a) Development of local policies to assure that
position descriptions are current and accurate
and that job evaluation is performed on a
timely basis, e.g., organizational and cyclic
reviews, audits selected by random sampling,
reports of position changes and reorganiza-
tions, application of new standards, documentation
procedures;
(b) On-going orientation and training of supervisors
and employees; coordination of classification
actions; management efforts and other personnel
offices; advice to management on position
restructuring and development of career patterns
for upward mobility and maximum utilization of
personnel; and evaluation of the impact of job
evaluation activities in terms of cost effectiveness.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001700110003-2
 tion C.. ACf9M2g F1q % po r004Aq t23a: Pb~ DFPPX%0se 0em00110003-2
supervisors managers broad discretion to reward employees
based on their contributions. Require that implementation be
contingent on the development, testing, and satisfactory
validation of performance appraisal systems.
Discussion
This represents a major departure from present practice. It
would provide the flexibility to supervisors/managers to
recognize degrees of performance and to maintain pay distinctions
in keeping with performance distinctions. The. expenditure of
salary funds would be tied to motivational value.
Implementation and operation of the system would require a
substantial investment in the development of performance
appraisal systems and in the training of supervisors. (The
development of appraisal systems should be viewed in terms of
a validation process by managers at the worksite rather than a
system devised at a central level for Government-wide applica-
tion.) Control mechanisms would be required to assure the,
system is administered properly and funds are expended prudently.
In considering this option, the two related areas of employee
coverage and the nature of the system must also be considered.
C(1) Employee Coverage
Sub-Option C(l)(a) Adopt for all General Schedule employees.
Sub-Option C(l)(b) Adopt for professional and administrative
employees.
Sub-Option C(l)(c) Adopt for supervisors and managers.
Sub-Option C(l)(d) Adopt for all employees in a stated
grade and above only (e.g., all GS-14
and above).
Discussion
Coverage of a merit pay plan will have a direct bearing on the
size of the initial investment and operational costs in terms
of developmental costs and training requirements. As noted
earlier, recent trends in industry are away from merit increase
plans for clerical employees. This trend could be temporary
or permanent, but it does tend to reflect the difficulties
industry has in distinguishing between levels of performance
for clerical employees.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01700110003-2
 Approved For ease 2004/03/23: CIA-RDP80MOO16001700110003-2
Other categories 0employees have more widely va ing spans
of performance because of a wider latitude for judgment and
the nature of the decisions'they make.
C(2). Nature of the System
Sub-Option C(2)(a). Use a pay structure with step increases
based on longevity and an "acceptable level
of competence" only up to the midpoint of the
pay range. Reserve all additional increases
as merit increases. Failure to receive a
merit increase would not be subject to appeal.
Time intervals for, and the amounts of, merit
increases would vary based on levels of
performance.
Sub-Option C(2)(b). Use a pay structure with only a maximum and
minimum rate for each grade. All increases
granted would be merit increases, except that
general comparability increases would be
granted as necessary to keep an employee at
least as high as the minimum of the rate range.
Employees dissatisfied with the timing or
amount of increase received would have no
formal appeal right--but could obtain a review
with a higher level of supervision.
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165AO01700110003-2
 Approved For ease 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165 001700110003-2
Acting Director of Personnel
5 E 58 }T
Acting DD/A
Acting DDCI
Director of Personnel
5 E 58 HQ
Executive RRegic:tty
}
Attached is a proposed response
to Option Papers Numbers Four
and Five submitted for your
review and authorization to
release.
0 - Return to D/Pers
1 - A/DDCI
-I- - ER
1 - DD/Pers/P&C
1.- D/Pers Chrono (w/held)
Dist:
DD/Pens,
jiaa (7 Oct 77).
Approved For Release 2004/03/23 : CIA-RDP80M00165A001700110003-2