HISTORY HIGHLIGHTS 1949-74

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 81
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 28, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 1, 1975
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 200531~V~7R: Fl~-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
HISTORY HIGHLIGHTS
1949-74
Part I. Position Management Functions
Part II. Position Classification Functions
Part III. Administration of SuperGrade Personnel
25X1A
I
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003101127E CIA FEDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Part I. Position Management Functions, 1949-75
Definition: Position Management is concerned with organizational structure, alignment of functions, number of positions at different skill levels,
occupational levels required to carry out missions, ratio or professionals to clerical, number of supervisors to work force, overlapping
or responsibilities.
1949 - 1961
Requests for Tables or Organization or changes thereto, which presumably took into account the position managment functions as outlined, were
prepared by the line command and submitted to the Management Staff of the DDA or later DDS. The actual process was described by Col. Lawrence K.
White during his 26 July 1971 interview for the Oral History, Tape 18.
The Agency grew so fast that people really made out their own T/O's and put down what they wanted. There was not very much external pressure
and no real authority within the Agency to control manpower.
It was the old management staff, which was set up originally under 0 and Hillenkoetter with as the head of it, that was
supposed to decide how many people we needed and the Personnel Office did not have very much to say about that. Their job was to decide on the 25X1 A
grade allocations based on the number of people and the way they were going to be organized. So, for many years the Management Staff would recom-
mend the organizational structure and strength and the Personnel Office would make recommendations on the classifications. Although the process
was not too effective, we rocked along this way up to the McCone administration (1962).
In May 1961, the CIA Management Staff was abolished leaving the position management function, which had never been exercised very vigorously,
adrift. In its place a manpower control function began to be exercised by the Planning, Programming and Budgeting Staff (PPBS) later OPPB, which
was concerned with ceilings and strength, but not T/O's.
JJW Note: While the Management Staff function at Agency level was abolished, the position management function was carried on at a lower
25X1A organization level. T/O requests, which might be co-ordinated in a routine fashion by the component Personnel Officer, would be originally
by the Division Chief or Office Head. They would then go to the Directorate level to be massaged by the Management Chief in DDI and late25X1A
25X1 A I~ or Admin Chief, DDO I P. or to a lesser degree the Chief of the CS Personnel Staff J. In the DD /64T, the DD 25X1A
imse , at least in the days of Bud Wheelon, entered virorously into the position management function at the 115e o ceiling allocations. Col L.
K. White, as DDS and later Ex-Dir/Comptroller exercised a strong and decisive role in disputed T/O requests.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 200?1(11@77 C14-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
On 23 January 1965, the DDS (at that time Col. L. K. White) approved the OP proposal to augment the Agency's position classification program with
staff responsibility for position management. At this time the name was char ed to the Position Management and Compensation Division (PMCD), OP from
the Classification and Wage Division (CWD). The current Chief, PMCD, I I, described the state of the function during an interview for 25X1A
the OP Oral History on 9 May 75. Tape 46.
The abolishment of the Management Staff in 1961 left a hiatus in the management function of the Agency, obviously a necessary function.
Since the present PMCD was the only organization that had current organizational information and was in a position to make changes in
organization and did so ... the logical place for the management function was in PMCD. So in 1965 the title was changed to Position
Management and Compensation Division from Salary and Wage Division. PMCD was never formally given the management function. It was
however accepted and performed as a normal function because it was necessary that it be done and PMCD did it. You can say the PMCD has
a 'de facto' management function and not a 'de jure' one.
1973 - Wm. E. Colby abolished the Ex-Dir position in Sept 1973 when he became the DCI, leaving the D/Pers as the position management
arbitrer.
Approved For Release 200311112 bl -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20Q3/ 1Q2p,:Ip*-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Part II. Position Classification Function, 1949-75
Definition: Position Classification determines how the position is to be classified - where it fits into the classification plan that applies to it
and to other positions like it, and what its title and pay level should be under that plan. The position classification process must be
preceded by position managment decisions. In CIA, the position classification function has always been centralized since 1 Dec 1950 in
a specialized division of the central Office of Personnel.
25X1 In August 1949, the Civil Service Commission ruled that, by terms of the CIA Act of 1949, the Agency was not required to follow the Classification
Act, and that the Commission as a matter of law was not required to enforce the Classification Act within the Agency. CSC withdrew its representative,
The DCI (RADM Hillenkoetter USN) acknowledged with the statement that, 'You may be assured that in our internal personnel administration we will
be governed by the basic philosophy and practices of the Classification Act of 1949, the CSC allocation standards, the pay scales, the within grade
salary advancement plans, and the pay rules of the Classification Act as they may be amended from time to time, in substantially the same manner as
provided for other Agencies'. The Classification Act of 1949, which was signed by the President on 28 October specifically exempted CIA and a November
1949 decision of the Comptroller General of the United States further confirmed the DCI's authority over Agency position classification and pay
activities. The policy of following the concepts and principles of the Classification Act has never changed being restated as late as 19 March 1975
25X1Ain Position Evaluation.
On 1 December 1950, CIA Regulation established a central Office of Personnel under the newly created Deputy Director of Administration with a
Classification and Wage Division (CWD) to furnish classification, wage and salary services.
Culminating almost two years of work, a Classification approved T/O for the OSO-OPC merger was issued in Dec 1952, one which made nobody happy.
Another factor in OSO's antipathy toward OPC was that OPC was born rich while OSO remained relatively poor. That was true not only of
Office budgets but of personal pay. Since the establishment of the OSO grade and pay structure, there had been a general inflation in
such matters. In order to recruit OPC had to offer higher grades than were available in OSP for similar work. Thus the amateurs' in
25X9 OPC were, generally, better paid than the professionals in OSO.
In June 1953, the Management Staff (responsible at that time for position management). and the Classification..and Wage Div, OP began a joint effort
25X9 to reconcile T/O's positions) and ceiling ~. CWD caught most of the resulting flare-up and most of the criticism in a Dec 1973 IG
report as being inflexible and Civil Service oriented. Said the IG:
"There is no question but that a classification system is required. It is also agreed that the Civil Service Wage Scale is acceptable.
What is required is perhaps a classification system tailored exclusively to the requirements of CIA."
Approved For Release 2063O142~K:FCIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2&10Cf147~6A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1A
Director of Personnel, George Meloon, who had an extensive background in classification attempted in 15 January memo to stem the tide of
criticism while deploring the lack of understanding among Agency components of the purposes of classification:
Any proposal to revise the Agency's current classification system should receive very careful consideration in relation .to the technical
and administrative problems involved. In this connection, the Atomic Energy Commission, which because of its security requirements was
also exempted from the Classification Act of 1949, found itself in serious difficulty with the Congress when it failed to administer its
classification plan in accordance with the basic principles stated in that Act.
In October 1954,signment was issued authorizing the temporary assignment of employees to positions of higher or lower grades than
held, to meet operations requirements. The flexible T/0 concept was also introduced allowing double slotting in certain designated positions which
were not one of a kind. 'Black Duck' and 'Blue Goose' and other rare birds flew into the Agency's administrative vocabulary.
1955
25 February
Another I.G. Memo entitled Ten Ways to Improve Personnel Management in the CIA was particularly critical of classification practices repeating
the accusations of Civil Service Commission orientation. The central Office of Personnel hit bottom with this report.
7 March
Director of Personnel named a Task Force chaired by the Deputy Chief of the Position Evaluation Division (PED) to recommend a revised Personnel
System for the Agency. The revision was to be concerned with the development of an up-to-date classification and compensation system with strong
consideration of how such a system would effect the operational side of the house. It's deliberations were to consume more than two years although
piece meal adoption of some recommendations took place in the interim through normal personnel channels.
Chief, Management Staff, who was then responsible for position management as such, introduced and secured DDS approval for the Man-In-Motion
concept borrowed from industrial manpower control systems. Productive people, that is, people who were gainfully employed, would be separated on the
T/0 from those in training, in a travel status, between assignments, etc. Also proposed was flexibility for the operating officials to more positions
from one component to another to meet changing work load conditions. The DDS referred this proposal to the Director of Personnel who assigned the
subject of change in the T/0 structure to the Chief, Classification and Wage Division for study.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20031ti11127R CIAO-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
April 1955
The DDP, Frank Wisner, sent a Memo to the DCI in response to the I.G.'s ten point program for improving CIA personnel management. The Memo which
is quoted in part below dealt a death blow to position management and classification as practiced to date:
From our point of view our greatest single handicap, apart from managerial inexperience which is slowly being remedied, is the rigidity of the
slotting system. The Agency's principal concern with slotting in any single component is the maintenance of the overall ceiling; it cannot be with
the precise, permanent job description, grade, etc., of each individual slot, as might be possible in a stable situation or in an agency whose job
remains fixed from year to year. In this Agency the nature and size of the job change so rapidly that no T/0 can ever be up-to-date. Operating within
a fixed but out-of-date T/0 we are forced into compromises which overwork manpower in one place and waste it in another and altogether do not get the
job done. What we need in the Clandestine Services is flexibility within a total strength figure, so that slots can be shifted as the need changes.
Making these shifts, which arise from operational necessity, should be an operational function, not an administrative. It should be within the power
of this Office, not DD/S, Director of Personnel, or other officers, to control the distribution of his manpower within the ceilings allotted to him.
If we could shift slots immediately according to need we would not only do our operational job better; we would also improve our personnel management,
in assignments, in career development, even in initial recruitment.
July
To end the Classification and Wage stigma, the Director of Personnel changed the name to Position Evaluation Division. PED as a title was to
last three years.
May
Factor comparison job evaluation plan for supergrade positions was developed by CWD at the request of the DDS. Chief/CWD had assumed the
responsibility for maintaining records, ceiling, classification and studies on supergrade positions as directed by the DDS in 1952. Pilot project
to establish an Agency manpower control system was undertaken in the office of communications.
25X1 A November
Competitive Promotion approved. This Regulation authorized promotion above the grade of the employees position if selected competitively
from among his peers. Introduced at a time of great chaos in T/O's, it stabilized promotion policies, a 1955 study showed that 80% of CIA employees
were in grade less than two years - and was of in-estimable value in bringing some order and uniformity into the Agency personnel management for
seventeen years. The policy was, in theory at least, diametrically opposed to the principles and practices of the Classification Act by permitting
Personal Rank Assignment (PRA).
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20.3I1 1f:k lA1-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
1957
Aril
Despite many pressures for change, the Career Council at its 42nd meeting agreed that three personnel activities should remain centralized;
classification, recruitment, and personnel records.
May
25X9
Standards Branch of what was then called the Position Evaluation Division (PED) OP, was abolished and functions and personnel transferred to
the operating branches of PED. During its five year life, this Branch established the Occupational Handbook of Codes and Titles within the Civil
Service Schematic Outline, and developed standards and qualification requirements for many Agency overt positions. However, the detailed question-
naire developed for operations officers positions, which attempted to weight the various aspects of the jobs (PP, PM, FI, CA, CI, CE) with respect
to importance and degree of difficulty was not successful. There was, it seemed, even less agreement among the DDP officials than there was among
the classifiers. The standards effort was abandoned due to the impossibility of obtaining co-ordination and approvals. The standards and patterns
were used internally by PED in its evaluations.
At its 43rd Meeting the Career Council voted unanimously to implement the Agency Manpower Control System. During the previous year of the
pilot project in the Office of Communications OP/PED endeavored to turn the CSSA into a complete planning document. Under this concept, the Head
of the Career Service would, before the beginning of the fiscal year and in co-ordination with the budget process, plan the outer limits by grade
and number of positions and personnel requirements of his career service in a two way exchange with PED/OP.
A position numbering system to errit automatic slotting of personnel on revised T/O's was accomplished to facilitate computation of the CSSA,
and to cut down on the approximately lersonnel actions required in FY'56 by reason of T/O changes.
In order to cut down on time spent in reviewing individual positions, the C/PED proposed and the DDS approved the installation of standards
based on the grade attraction theory for all Agency secretarial positions. This system related the grade of the secretary to the grade and
organizational level of the supervisor, sometimes called the 'Gal Friday' system.
March
The Director of Personnel (Gordon Stewart) obtained Council approval for a new Agency Compensation Plan developed by Position Evaluation
Division, OP designed to remedy the deficiencies of the Civil Service structure. The Plan reduced all grades above GS-07 to five with extended
salary ranges in each and provision for merit increases. The White House liked it but the Plan had little or no support in the Civil Service
Commission and the Bureau of the Budget. Many of the provisions were adopted in the Salary Reform Act of 1962.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20031 1 217:ICIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
June 1958
Reflecting his classification philosophy away from individual actions toward over-all controls, D/Pers approved the name change from Position
25X1A Evaluation Division to Salary and Wage Division (SWD). C/SWD cut his T/O fron~positions.
November
Over two years after it was introduced into the Office of Communications on a pilot basis, the Agency's Manpower Control System was formally
25X1A adopted with the publication of Agency eiling and Position Authorization. Among the several aspects of
the System were the identification of positions by the Career Service designated to fill them, Staffing Complement and Development Complement, the
development of the CSSA, also a Planning Paper for the coming year which was a listing of positions by occupational code and title, service
designation, and designation of limited and flexible positions. For the preparation of the CSSA the Director of Personnel was to furnish the
component with the number of positions and organization level as designated in the Planning Paper, number of designees to the Career Service by
grade, grade distribution of development complement spaces, average attrition by grade, average promotion by grade.
February
25X1 CIA Notice stablished average grade controls for the Career Services requiring the component to lower a grade if it
wanted to raise a the result of several C/SWD memos to D/Pers about the ever increasing grade levels in proposed T/0's - and
of increasing pressure by the Bureau of the Budget. The principle followed was that no increase in average grade would be permitted without the
permission of the DD himself. The upward tendency continued however until the Bureau of the Budget got into the picture in 1964.
November
A Manpower Control Program for the Clandestine Services, 6 November 1959 famous report on the age-grade hump among CS officers,
was sponsored by the D/Pers (Stewart). The Report had more to do with people than with positions but sought to establish an optimum curve for both
positions and people. The Report furnished the rationale for the CIA Retirement and Disability Act (CIARDS) of 1964, for the mandatory age sixty
25X1A retirement policy and specifically for which were attached to the Report.
December
In the Fall of 1959, SWD/OP became involved in a first class donnybrooke over the Records Integration Staff as a result of a survey. SWD,
largely on the basis of comparison with jobs in the F.B.I., decided that the so called cable analysts were really clerical and not professional and
thus proposed that the whole place be downgraded. Chief/RID protested in the strongest terms to the Director of Personnel, Gordon Stewart, who in
his previous job as Chief, F.I. Staff, had RID as one of his major worries. SWD found itself over-ruled by its own boss, the D/Pers, and morale,
already lower than a snake's belly to borrow a phrase, sagged further.
25X9
25X1A
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20O5IO1)27R CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
1961
June
Numerous administrative obstacles, including objections by the Comptroller and the reluctance of the operators to put their plans on the line,
25XlAcaused the C/SWD to propose the elimination of the Career Service ceilings, the Career Service Staffing Authorizaiton (CSSA) and other modif-
ications to the Ag power Control System introduced so hopefully in 1958. What was left was the flexible T/O and the Career Service Grade
Authorization (CSGA) which set outer limits on number of promotions.
1962
25X1A August
agement of SuperGrade Positions/Personnel abolished the SuperGrade Review Board and transferred the co-ordination responsibility for
all positions to the Director of Personnel.
25X9 DCI advised the D/BOB of his approval of
percent increase. Positions recommended for up-grading included
the Chiefs of major branches in the DDP group, e major vision and certain overseas stations, key positions in the Office
of Communications, senior positions in the Directorate of Research. The DCI Memo drew a cold response, "This 90 percent increase in your existing
totals of supergrades comes as a distinct shock, particularly as it was unaccompanied by an supporting date or analysis." Eventually the matter was
25X9 adjudicated on the basis of not exceeding a figure of[=or FY'63, - the agreed figure - by FY'65. C/Salary and Wage Division 25X9
was ordered by the DDS to develop supporting data for a decision already made.
October
Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 signed by President Kennedy. Established higher levels for Federal Executives in consonance with industrial
executive pay practices, extended in-grade promotions, provided for merit increases.
1964
April - May - June
DCI requested by the Deputy Director of the BOB to provide information on steps being taken to hold down the number and percentage in Grades 13 and
above, and to maintain average grade. Latter rising despite the Federal Pay Reform Act of 1962. Executive Director Action Memorandum to the D/Pers
instructed latter to take steps to reduce the head room through the Agency to lower the average grade of positions to that of a year ago. Despite a letter
from the C/PPB that the C/SWD had misinterpreted the Ex-Dir memo, C/SWD went ahead with the downgrading. Henceforth upward classification would have to be
compensated by downward.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 200531~11C7R FL -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
August 1964
BOB Circular A-11 (Revised) placed a ceiling on all Agency positions in grades GS-14 and above at number filled in 1964. Further, beginning in
FY'66 allowances for personal costs were to be based on the average salary estimated in FY'65 Presidential Budget. Ultimately BOB dropped the average
salary control but kept the GS-14 and above ceiling. SWD assumed a new role as aid to management in achieving BOB objectives.
January
The DDS approved the OP proposal to augment the Agency's position classification program with Staff responsibilities over position management, a
function which had been adrift since the demise of the Management Staff in 1961. As a result of this approval the salary and wage mission was broadened
and the name changed to Position Management and Compensation Division.
25X9
A ceiling of
November
in the Executive Pay, Supergrade and Scientific Pay Positions was adopted with incumbency limited to
1966
0
25X9
A triple deputy set-up was introduced into the Office of Personnel with the Position Management and Compensation Division placed under the newly
created Deputy Director for Planning and Research (DD/Pers P & R), changed in 1968 to Deputy Director for Planning and Control. (DD/Pers/P&C)
25X9
July
Bureau of the Budget (BOB) agreed to a S.G. ceiling of 0 Agency was advised that in the future the annual review was no longer to be considered.
In the future, said BOB, S.G. position and ceiling were to included in the PPB five year budget cycle.
25X1A
July
I abolished the Project Review Committee which had reviewed the establishment of clandestine projects. The long established responsibility
of PMMCDD and its predecessors to review the proposed T/O in terms of the soundness of position structure and grades or salaries was continued as was the
review of existing projects as changes occurred.
Approved For Release 20(F31B121:ICIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20
25X9
July
While there were no spectacular events in the FY 1970 report of the Position Mana ement and Compensation Division, the ceiling reduction caused
increases in the daily work. Forty-six planning papers with a total coverage of positions were reviewed, a revision was made to the Agency's
Handbook of Occupational Titles and Codes, thirty-two surveys were undertaken, and the documentation of some 1/3 of the Agency's positions accomplished
with reference to the changes in the staffing complements (T/0's). A continuing review of the government wide study of position evaluation systems was
maintained.
August
The Administration (OMB) ordered a five percent reduction in Agency manpower strength in Fiscal Year '72 (1 July '71 to 30 June-t72) and a one
tenth roll back in average grade in FY'72 and '73. Studies in which PMCD/OP took a subordinate part were furnished to the Director of Personnel. These
studies established the difficulty of meeting the cutbacks without suspending promotions and separating hundreds of Employees. As a result the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) successor to the Bureau of the Budget permitted the Agency to accomplish the five percent reduction in two fiscal years.
1973
March
The program of cutbacks, the so-called Schlessinger Slash, was formally announced to the employees. In addition to normal attrition, I
employees would be declared surplus excess to Agency requirements in FY 1973. The cutback implied numerous T/O changes involving average gracLe
restrictions, which, because of the pressure of time, could not be made simultaneously.
25X1A
July
Two major personnel and manpower programs were announced. The Personnel Development Program (PDP), was a systematized approach to employee develop-
ment and succession planning. The Annual Personnel Plan (APP) covered Manpower Analysis and Personnel Management Goals for the fiscal year ahead and was
designed to give top management a model against which they could measure component performance in the specified areas of personnel management. Classifi-
cation of positions was not included.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 20(M/91QT:Elul-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1
April
aannounced the program of "New Approaches el Management." Classification was not mentioned specifically in the
sixteen poin program. iT statement of Agency personnel policy in ~id include the reference to 'adherence to Federal personnel policies 25X1
and statutory requirements applicable to Agency activities.
25X1
descriptions and were answered by pointing out that the LOI does not cover the full range of duties but establishes selected priority objectives. Job
descriptions would be continued.
announced the Letters of Instruction policy. Each employee was to be given a letter covering the requirements of his job as a means of
improving two way communication between employee and supervisor. Questions were raised concerning the relationship of LOI's to official position
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003IO1R7R Cl -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Part III. SuperGrade Administration, 1952-75
25X9
Definition: Supergrade administration includes the staff function of classifying positions, preparing recommendations for the DCI on promotions,
administering ceiling allocations and Personnel Rank Assignments, and reporting.
Early in 1952, with a supergrade ceiling of the Assistant Deputy Director for Administration (A/DDA), then Colonel White, suggested - and
the DCI approved - the basic policy of subjecting supergrade positions to all the procedures applying to standard grade positions -- including
documentation by functional statements, charts, and position descriptions to be prepared by the Director of Personnel. Also in 1952, the D/Pers was
made responsible for maintaining records on incumbencies, ceiling, and positions, and for supporting data re uir to maintain comparability with
the rest of the government. D/Pers named the Chief of the then Classification and Wage Administration, responsible to him and to the
2 5XIADDA/DDS for this effort. 0 retained this responsibility for the next twenty years even after he was made Deputy Director of Personnel for
Planning and Control in 1970.
In January 1954 the Personnel Office was moved from its position under the Deputy Director of Administration (DDA), where it had been lodged
along with the Office of Security, the Comptrollers Staff and other offices concerned with management matters, to the Office of the DCI where it
assumed a position similar to that of the Office of Training. General Cabell, the DDCI, hoped to give more personal attention than previous DDCI's
to personnel management including supergrades and felt that the move would make direct communications and supervision easier. The arrangement, to
which the powerful A/DDA Col. White was bitterly opposed, did not work. It only lasted one year after which the Office of Personnel and OTR and
Commo were all placed under the newly constituted DDS with L. K. White as the DDS.
During this period, the SuperGrade Review Board, chaired by General Cabell, introduced the concept of temporary promotions for supergrades.
As time went on, it was found that anybody who ever got a temporary promotion was never reduced so it became a meaningless exercise and was event-
ually dropped.
The Office of Personnel, specifically, the Chief, Classification and Wage Division obtained approval for the factor-comparison method of
classifying supergrade jobs, which served for almost a decade to provide a rationale for establishing supergrade positions both internally but more
important with the Bureau of the Budget.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2061b'1Y2 :'6l -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
SECRET
25X9
1962
25X9
In 1962, with a supergrade ceiling ofd with Agency strength holding at around the Omark,, there occured what the OP history called a
supergrade explosion. The Director of Persome-L , responding to strong demands from the DDS and less strong demands from the DDP and the DDI, submitted
25X9 for approval by the DCI some upergrade allocations. The positions recommended for up-grading included the Chiefs of Support of the major divisions
and certain overseas stations,, Chiefs of major branches in the DDP area divisions, key positions in the Office of Communications, senior positions
in the Directorate of Research. There were a number of forces at work which were beyond the control of the Classification and Wage Division and the D/Pers.
Col. White, the DDS, wanted to award the cadre of support officers that he had been nurturing for a decade or more. A 1962 Task Force on Personnel Manage-
ment felt that the poor morale and dissatisfaction following the 701 program and the Bay of Pigs fiasco could be offset by opening up promotion so as to
break the blockage down the line. The Clandestine Services, which had been slighted in the original allocation of supergrade positions were anxious to
bring their grades up to the level of the Foreign Service which had many FSO1 and 2 positions - - equivalent to supergrades.
The proposal caused consternation in the Bureau of the Budget which at first refused to believe that the DCI had approved it. Eventually they went
along - Robert Amory was Chief of the Intl Div, but only to a pro-rated increase over three years.
August 25X1A
The staff responsibilities of the D/Pers in supergrade administration were increased by agement of SuperGrade Personnel, dated 31
August 1962, which abolished the SuperGrade Review Board and transferred the co-ordination responsibility for all supergrade actions to the Director of
Personnel, where it has since remained.
25X1A
'One consequence of the expansion,' said in a 1971 interview for the Oral History, 'was the end of previous attempts to get the number of
positions and the ceiling the same. They have never been equalized which has lead to difficulties with the incumbents. Everyone sitting in a SG position
25XlAcan't be accommodated. Conversely,' he said in 1971, 'there are some =upergraded people holding Personal Rank Assignments in lesser or lower graded
positions. 'The cheapening of the grade structure, he said, which does not occur at supergrade level only - we have some middle grade levels, 11, 12,
13 - in the long run leads to morale problems. We must try to give our people work promotions and responsibility promotions at the same time that we give
them pay promotions and status promotions.'
25X9
25X9 In 1969, Agency executive positons were incorporated into the Planning Programming and Budget (PPB) mechanism with the Bureau of the Budget exercising
a controling role in approving supergrade ceiling latter set at Q with a scientific pay schedule (SPS) ceiling of for the Agency through FY 73. The
Director of Personnel retained his supportive role in the administration of these positions.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 200?1~11~7p 9l RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1A
The so called Schlessinger Slash reduced the agency strength by
Harry Fisher, D/Pers during this period.
in one year. The cuts were not taken proportionately as described by
There was a tendency on the part of components to take their cuts at the very lowest levels. To control this to some extent, I was backed up by
Colonel White in insisting that cuts be taken at the average grade. This did tend to require a balancing number of 12's and 13's to offset the 4's
and 5's. I must admit however that very few of the supergrade positons were cut at that time which sort of brings me to the supergrade problem. I
used to deal with that problem both with Col White and later with Bill Colby. It always bothered me that we had significantly larger number of super-
grade posions than we had ceiling for promotion from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This created a false sense of the number of supergrade
positions. There were always of the order of thirty to forty supergrade positions on the books which would never have supergrade occupants, because
the ceiling for promotion which was controlled by OMB, was at a lower figure. This meant you had unhappy GS-15's in these supergrade positions. They
did not realize that there was no ceilings available for promotion. This overage carried on, despite my objection, through Col. White's regime. His
feeling was that if you always had additional supergrade positions on the books, you could argue with OMB that you needed the ceiling to accommodate them.
Col. White and the Director took the position, and I guess legally they were right, that the Director of Personnel could establish his own grade levels and
OMB did not argue with him on that point. Therefore as a matter of Wage and Class, we could say these jobs are supergrade positions. OMB's response was,
'fine, you may do that but we say that you can only have this number of supergrade ceiling.' So we lived in this kind of fantasy for a while. Shortly
after Bill Colby came in (as Executive Director after Col. White's retirement in 1972) I was able to convince him -- as a matter of fact he was almost
shocked to find out what the situation was -- that, although it might hurt, really we would be better off abolishing all supergrade positions above the
ceiling that we had for promotion, and we did despite the wails from everybody.
December
Proposal by DDA (John F. Blake) circulated to Comptroller and Director of Personnel which would decentralize authority for supergrade position and
personnel actions to the Deputy Directors. The Comptroller as well as the Director of Personnel would be given a supportive role. The Director of
Central Intelligence would be involved only in an annual review and allocation.
1975
July
D/Pers names a study group composed of retired officers chaired by a non-personnel type to review position management and classification functions
in the Agency and make recommendations.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 STATINTL Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/04/2 r
PI -RDP81-003148000600230001-5
?
Personnel Historical Pamphlet Series
0
(Compiled as ready reference and training aid for management use)
Number
Subject: Position Management, Classification, Compensation
Salary and Wage Administration, 1949-1974
Excerpted from OP Oral History Tapes, Overview History-Personnel
Administration, 1948-1968, The Position Management and Compensation
Division History, 1946-67, Personnel Administration in a Time of
Change, 1969-1974.
By
25X1A
1 May 1975
I*
Approved For Release 2003/01/2JE 7DP8I
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/0'ITS`RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
0
0
PAGE
Definitions , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . . . . . . 4
Summary . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
.. . .......
Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954 . .
1955 .....................
1956
1957 .....................
1958 .....................
1959 .....................
1961 .....................
1962 .....................
1964
1965 .....................
1966............'........
1967 .....................
1969 .....................
1970 .............'.......
1971
1973
1974 .....................
7
8
8
8
9
9
10-11
12
13-14
15-16
17-18
19
19
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
Excerpts from Oral History Tapes . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-38
Table's of Organization, Ceilings, Controls
. . ? ? . . . . 24-27
Lawrence K. White
. . . . . . . . . . . . 29-32
Management of Super-Grade Positions,
Personal Rank Assignment . . . . . . . . . . 33-38
?
Lawrence K. White
25X1A
33-34
35-36
?36-38
Approved For Release 2003/0 CIA-RDR81-00314ROO0600230001-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/07! !~EKA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
PAGE
A
Retrospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Critical Fifties, Flexibility the
Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-42
The 1960's, BOB and Average Grade Control . . 42-44
The 1970's, Steaming as Before . . . . . . . . 44-45
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-47
Transcri , Tapes 46-47, 9 May 1975
, 91 .1
25X1 I Icurrent chief, Position Management and ompensation
iPMCD) OP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-63
1-00314R000600230001-5
 tUt
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
DEFINITIONS*
0
S
Position Management is concerned with organizational structure
alignment of functions, number of positions
at di`ferent skill levels, occupational levels
required to carry out missions, ratio of pro-
fessionals to clerical, number of supervisors
to work force, overlapping of responsibilities.
It is ordinarily a Management Staff function.
Position Classification determines how the position is to be
classified -- where it fits into the classi-
fication plan that applies to it and other
positions like it, and what its title and
pay level should be under that plan. The
position classification process must be
preceded by position management decisions.
Compensation, Salary and Wage Administration translates position
classification grade information into salary
and pay determination in relation to the current
classifications and pay levels of co-workers.
....In addition to following the principles
and practises of the government-wide Classification
Act of 1949 for salaried staff employees, the
Agency follows Army, Navy, Bureau of Engraving,
Government Printing Office hourly wage schedules
for its blue-collar type employees.
*Definitions taken from The Position Management and Compensation
Division History, 1946-67 published in December 1971, pp. 2-4.
Approved For Release 2003/ W t C -RDPB
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/~11ii,'1'A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
SUMMARY
The Classification and Wage Function in CIA, 1949 - 1974
0
Exempted from the2 provisions of the Classification Act of
1949 both by Sections 4-and--rtr(( -j of the CIA Act of 1949, P.L.
110 and by Civil Service Commission ruling of 8 August 1949 and
by the Comptroller General's decision of 14 -r-
JQ''Nobember 1949, the
CIA has throughout its administrative history conformed to the
principles and practices .of Classification Act although of two
minds regarding the wisdom of doing so. Alternatives have been
considered. These include,
CIA Compensation Plan: Several
through the years, some by the operatingscomponents sucheased
FE Division. The most comprehensive plan and the one that went
the furthest in the administrative hierarchy was introduced
by the Office of Personnel, Classification and Wage Division,
over a two-year period, 1956-1958. This Plan would have con-
solidated the GS grades above GS-7, the professional levels,
into five pay groups and provided extended salary ranges in
each group - up to a maximum of 48 percent of the base rate.
Approved unanimously by the Career Council, the Plan was
presented to the White House personnel advisor, Rocco
Siciliano who also approved. It was eventually turned down
by the Eisenhower administration due to Civil Service Commission
and Bureau of the Budget objections. Many of the features were
incorporated in the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962. The
1958 Plan was-the last attempt at basic change in Agency posi-
tion classification and compensation policies and practices.
Kee in the General Sch
d
e
ule salar and wa e s stem but modifying
it to the specific requirements of the CIA. This alternative was a favorite of Lyman Kirkpatrick, the Inspector General in
the late fifties, who repeated it constantly in his many reports
critical of the Office of Personnel, reports which reached their
peak in the 1955 report, 'Ten Ways to Improve Personnel Management
in the CIA'. The Office of Personnel,
Division. mPt the -,,,Classifir_at;nn a-4
Approved For Releas
IT'27:C
9
ILLE
A-RDP81-00314R0006002 0001-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/ tifLcA-RDP81-0.0314R000600230001 55
?
0
introduced into the Office of Communication in 1956,
extending over a period of three years. These
included the flexible T/0, Personal Rank Assignment,
Competitive Promotion, Career Service Staffing
Authorization, Staffing Complement, Development
Complement, Rotational Allowance. The reforms
represented a considerable delegation of classi-
fication authority to the components with the central
function maintained on an overview basis.
The location of the function in the central Office of
Personnel has never been seriously challenged, in fact the
Classification and Wage Division survived the abolishment
of the Management Staff in 1961 and was given the position
management function in 1965. The ceiling on supergrades and
the intervention of the BOB/OMB has strengthened Classification's
hand in the last decade. The retrenchment of the Seventies has
presented Classification now called the Position Management and
Compensation Division, with many problems as it attempted to cut
back on positions, grades and T/0's in proportion to the reduced
personnel ceilings. The major technique has been the use of
organization surveys sometimes before and sometimes after ceiling
cuts.
-6-
Approved For Release : CIA RDP81-00314R00060023 001-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Chronology - Key Program Dates,* 1949 - 1974
25X1A
25X1A
8 August 1949: From its founding to this date, the CIA
classification program was under the
nominal supervision of the CSC. The
Civil Service Commission responding to
a 30 June 1949 inquiry of the DCI stated
that "It is the official judgment of the
Civil Service Commission, based on Sections
7 and 10(b) of the CIA Act of 1949-that the l
Agency is not required, as a matter of law,
to follow the Classification Act and that
the Commission therefore, as a matter of
law, is not required to enforce that Act
within your Agency.
10 August 1949: The DCI** responded, "You may be assured that
in our internal personnel administration we
will be governed by the basic philosophy and
practices of the Classification Act of 1949,
the CSC allocation standards, the pay scales,
the within grade salary advancement plans,
and the pay rules of the Classification Act
as they may be amended from time to time, in
substantially the same manner as provided for
other Agencies."
28 October 1949: Classification Act of 1949, P.L. 110 signed;
act specifically exempted CIA.
10 November 1949: Comptroller General's decision confirmed DCI's
administrative authority over Agency position
classification and pay activities.
October 1949: The post of Personnel Director established with
William J. Kelly as first incumbent. A fundamental
reorganization established separate administrative
staffs including personnel branches for CIA (overt)
OSO, and OPC. Recruitment and Classification were
retained at A ency level. A single classifier,
was assigned full time to OSO.
*Excerpted from Chronology, Appendix B, Personnel Administration -
An Overview, 1948-1968 and Appendix A Chronology, CIA Position
Classification Program, 1946-67, The Position Management and
Compensation Division.
was the CSC representative in the CIA
H/Admiral K. H. Hillenkoetter, USN.
: CIA-R -
Approved For Release 2Q{O
ff-
 25X1A
1950
25X1A
1951
25X1A
1952
Approved For Release 2003/01/27'i1~,~g P81-00314R000600230001-
1 December 1950: Two months after his swearing in, It General
Walter Bedell Smith, USA issued General Order
I khich established centralized support for
all CIA operations under a newly created
Deputy Director for Administration. CIA
same date established a central
ClassificationoandlWageeDivisionn (CWD) to
furnish classification, wage and salary
administration.
14 February 1951: Personnel Director Kell
ad
i
d
y
v
se
the DDA L
that all Agency personnel programs had been
centralized.
25X1A
September 1952: First field Position classification surypy
be an with a study of the
positions. 25X1A
Fall of 1952: Position Classification Standards program started.
December 1952: Culminating almost two years of work, a Classi-
fication approved T/0 for the OSO-OPC merger was
accomplished. Some of the difficulties can be
learned from ter III, Volume IV of the late
25X1A History, General Walter Bedell
as 1rector of Centralntel igence, ct 950-
Feb` 19 in t e is orica eries:
Another factor in OSO's antipathy toward OPC
was that OPC was born rich while OSO remained
relatively poor. That was true not only of
Office budgets but of personal pay. Since the
establishment of the OSO grade and pay structure,
there had been a general, inflation in such
matters. ?In order to recruit OPC had to offer
higher grades than were available in OSP for
similar work. Thus the amateurs' in OPC were,
generally, better paid than the professionals
in OSO. That must have rankled.
-8-
roved For Release $ ~~~17 : CIA-
 Approved For Release 20 I : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
1953
0
?
June 1953: The Management Staff (responsible at that time
for position management) and the Classification 25X9
and Wage Division OP began the attempt to
rec
ncile T/0's positions) and ceiling
o
December 1953: Inspector General's Report on the Office of
Personnel recommended that a new CIA tailored
classification plan be developed. The report
was very critical of the Office of Personnel
as being inflexible and Civil Service oriented.
The I.G. made the following statement:
"There is no question but that a classifica-
tion system is required. It is also agreed
that the Civil Service Wage Scale is acceptable.
What is required is perhaps a classification
system tailored exclusively to the requirements
of CIA."
1954
15 January 1954: George E. Meloon, the Director of Personnel,
responded to the Inspector General Survey
findings on the Agency's position classifi-
cation program in this fashion:
25X9
The Agency's problem with respect to
classification has been due to a lack of
understanding among operating components
concerning the purpose of classification
and their reluctance to accept the application
of any classification system. The experience
of Government and industry alike has demonstrated
the need for systematic classification of positions.
This is a highly technical purpose which involves
consideration of occupational and qualifications
information as well as pay. Any proposal to
revise the Agency's current classification system
should receive very careful consideration in
relation to the technical and administrative
problems involved. In this connection, the
Atomic Energy Commission, which because of
its security requirements was also exempted
from the Classification Act of 1949, found
itself in serious difficulty with the Congress
when it failed to administer its classification
plan in accordance with the basic principles
stated in that Act
Approved For Release 2c EI 7J.: CIA-R P81-00314R0006002300 1-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 20fCIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
25X1A
9 October 1954: I authorized the temporary
assignments of employees to positions of higher
or lower grades than held, to meet operational
requirements. The drive to bring T/O and ceiling
together resulted in 'Black Duck' and 'Blue Goose'
and other rare birds where grade of position and
grade of incumbent were at variance. The Flexible
T/O concept was also introduced at this time which
allowed double slotting in certain designated
positions which were not one of a kind.
15 November 1954: A Su er-Grade ceiling of 2 5X9
g Q with incumbency held
to vas adopted by the DCI . 25X9
1955
? 25X1A
25 February 1955: Another I.G. Memo entitled 'Ten Ways to Improve
Personnel Management in the CIA' was particularly
critical of classification practices repeating
the accusations of Civil Service Commission
orientation. The central Office of Personnel hit
bottom with this report.
7 March 1955: Director of Personnel named a Task Force chaired
by the Deputy Chief of the Position Evaluation
Division (PED) to reccomend a revised Personnel
System for the Agency. The revision was to be
concerned with the development of an up-to-date
classification and compensation system with
strong consideration of how such a system would
effect the operational side of the house. It's
deliberations were to consume more than two years
although piece-meal adoption of some recommendations
took place in the interim. through normal personnel
channels.
28 March 1955: Chief, Management Staff,* who was then responsible
for position management as such, introduced and
secured DDS approval for the Man-In-Motion concept
borrowed from industrial manpower control systems.
Productive people, that is, people who were gain-
fully employed, would be separated on the T/O from
those in training, in a travel status, between
assignments, etc. Also proposed was flexibility
for the operating officials to move positions from.
one component to another to meet changing work load
conditions. The DDS referred this proposal to the
Director of Personnel who assigned the subject of
change in the T/O structure to the Chief, Classi-
fication and Wage Division for study.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/01 : CIA=RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
CRET
5 April 1955: The DDP, Frank Wisner, sent a Memo to the DCI
in response to the I.G.'s ten point program for
improving CIA personnel management. The Memo
which is quoted in part below dealt a death blow
to position management and classification as
practiced to date:
From our point of view our greatest single
handicap, apart from managerial inexperience
which is slowly being remedied, is the rigidity
of the slotting system. The Agency's principal
concern with slotting in any single component
is the maintenance of the overall ceiling; it
cannot be with the precise, permanent job
description, grade, etc., of each individual
slot, as might be possible in a stable situation
or in an agency whose job remains fixed from
year to year. In this Agency the nature and
size of the job change so rapidly that no T/O
can ever be up-to-date. Operating within a
fixed but out-of-date T/O we are forced into
compromises which overwork manpower in one
place and waste it in another and altogether
do not get the job done. What we need in the
Clandestine Services is flexibility within a
total strength figure, so that slots can be
shifted as the need changes. Making these
shifts, which arise from operational necessity,
should be an operational function, not an
administrative. It should be within the power
of this Office, not DD/S, Director of Personnel,
or other officers, to control the distribution
of his manpower within the ceilings allotted to
him. If we could shift slots immediately according
to need we would not only do our operational job
better; we would also improve our personnel
management, in assignments, in career development,
even in initial recruitment.
15 July 1955: To end the Classification and Wage stigma, the
Director of Personnel changed the name to Position
Evaluation Division. PED as a title was to last
three years.
Approved For Release 2001IfFfi7Lr;fCIA-RD - -5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01 /2SECf RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
2 May 1956: Factor comparison job
evaluation plan for supergrade
Positions was developed by CWD at the request of
the DDS. Chief/CWD had assumed the responsibility
for maintaining records, ceiling, classification
and studies on supergrade Positions as directed
by the DDS in 1952.*
25X1A
29 November 1956:
Competitive Promotion approved This
gu a io
iponromotif
of the empl
ion above the grade
selected aoyeesuthoriposzedti
competitively
from.:lmong his peers. Introduced at a time of
great chaos in T/0's, it stabilized
policies, a 1955 study showed that 80%o of CIA
employees were in grade less than two years -
and was of in-estimable value in bringing some
order and uniformity into the Agency personnel
management for seventeen years. The poli
was, in theory at least, diametrically o py
osd
to the principles and practices of the Classifi-
cation Act by permitting Personal Rank Assign-
ment (PRA).
1957
0
25X9
3 April 1957
Despite many pressures for change,
Council at its 42nd meeting agreed that three
personnel activities should remain centralized;
May 1957: classification, recruitment and personnel records.
Standards Branch of what was now clled . the Position
Evaluation Division (PED) was abolished and functions
and personnel transferred to the operating branches.
During its five-year life. this Branch established
the Occupational Handbook of Codes and Titles within
the Civil Service schematic outline; developed
standards and qualifications requirements for many
Agency overt Positions.
questionnaire developed for the operationslofficer
Position, which attempted to weigh the various
substantive aspects of the job,
with respect to importance anddegreePof Fdifficult
E)
was not successful.. There was no agreement among
Y
the DDP Officials, less in fact than among the
classifiers. The standards effort was abandoned,
thereafter although the experience ai in this
program played a vital role in the 1968erecommendations
of the Director of Personnel for a new Compensation Plan
*A copy of the 2 Ma for the CIA.
Y 1956 CIA Factor Comparison Job Evaluation Plan for 2
Super-Grade Positions is contained in Appendix C, p
Compensation Division Histor osition Management and 2 5
of 1959 duo +., .L_ Y. ThaPlan h-,4
.,c 1111 used - uc cwan
Approved For~2~ :I7Ra~-
 Approved For Release 200 k6I2tTCIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
25X9
?
25X1A
23 May 1957: At its 43rd meeting, the Career Council voted
unanimously to implement the new Agency Manpower
Control System. During the year of the pilot
project in Commo, OP/PED endeavored to turn
the CSSA into a complete planning document.
Under this concept the Head of the Career
Service would, before the beginning of the fiscal
year and in coordination with the budget process
plan the outer limits by grade and numbers of position
and personnel requirements of his career service in
a two-way exchange with PED/OP. A position-numbering
system to permit automatic slotting of personnel
occupying the same position on revised T/O's was
accomplished to facilitate computation of the CSSA.
It was also designed to cut down on the approximate
oIi personnel actions required in FY'56 by reason
changes.
13 June 1957: In order to cut down on time spent in reviewing
individual positions, the C/PED* proposed and the
DDS approved the installation of standards based
on the grade attraction theory for all Agency
secretarial positions. This system related the
grade of the secretarial position to the grade
and organizational level of the supervisor, some
times called the 'Gal Friday' system.
Approved For Release 200/D127': CIA-RDP8
SEG ET
 Approved For Release 2003101 - IA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
%X h T
27 March 1958: The Director of Personnel* presented to and won
Career Council approval for a new Agency Compensa-
tion Plan developed by PED. The 1958 proposal was
geared to combat the major deficiencies of the
Civil Service classification and pay plans which
were:
Too many professional grade levels requiring
fine and arbitrary distinctions between levels
of work.
?
Extremely small salary ranges for each grade
particularly at the higher grades.
N? provision for augmenting the salary of
excellent or outstanding performers without
promoting them..
The plan was therefore designed to apply to all
positions above GS-07 that is professionals in
GS-08 through GS-18. It reduced, through
consolidation, nine grade levels into five
groups, and provided extended salary ranges
in each group - up to a maximum of 48 percent
of the base rate. Two types of advancement
were provided, namely, competitive promotion
by Career Services, and merit increases (one
to three at a time) based upon performance.
(Clericals through GS-06 would continue to
receive 'automatic' step increases) Grades 1,
2 and 3 were not used in the Agency.
The Plan was approved in the Agency and discussed
personally by Stewart with Rocco Siciliano, President
Eisenhower's Personnel Advisor, on 22 April 1958.
'Despite both Agency and administration approval,
the Plan encountered serious objections in both
the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of
the Budget, the latter particularly being concerned
about grade escalation in the Federal government
and the inability of the Agencies to control
payroll costs. As a result it was eventually
abandoned although many of the features were
incorporated by President Kennedy in the govern-
ment-wide Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962.
Approved For RrQ,/1/27 : CIA- DP81-00314R0006002300 1-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01 1'RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
?
0
June 1958: Reflecting the new classification philosophy
away from individual actions toward over all
controls, the Director of Personnel** approved
the name change from Position Evaluation Division
to Salary and Wage Division. Reflecting the
reduced work loak resulting from the various
changes described, the new Chief of SWD***
cut his own T/O from positions, a 25X9
self-imposed reduction tat no other Agency
unit has copied.
14 November 1958: Over two years after it was introduced into
the Office of Communications on a pilot basis,
the Agency's Manpower Control System was formally
25X1A 25X1A
Authorization. Featured in the regulation and
handbook were the Career Service Staffing
Authorization.(CSSA), identification on the T/O
of positions in terms of the Career Service
responsible for staffing them, the Planning
Paper for the coming fiscal year which was a
listing of positions by occupational code and
title, service designation of positions, designa-
tion of limited and flexible positions. The
Career Service Ceiling was the allocation made
by the Deputy Director concerned to the Heads of
the Career Services. A delineation of the
Staffing Complement and the Development Complement
was also required, as was the identification of
positions in terms of the Career Service responsible
for staffing them. For the preparation of the Career
Service Staffing Authorization (CSSA) the Director
of Personnel was to furnish the component with a
number of positions and organizational location
inc.uded in approved Planning Papers, number of
designees to the Career Service by grade, grade
distribution of development complement space,
average attrition rates by grade, average promotion
rate by grade.
Approved For Release 20T
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/AUREI-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
1959
?
0
26 February 1959: CIA Notice (Personnel) established 25X1A
average grade controls for career services.
The Agency was responding to increasing
pressure from the Bureau of the Budget on
the so called 'grade creep'. Internally
the Salary and Wage Division was striving
to develop further overview concept and to
reduce the number of individual transactions.
Essentially the regulation required the component
to lower a grade if it wanted to raise a grade.
The Notice was the result of several memoranda
from the C/SWD to the Director of Personnel
about the ever increasing grade levels in
proposed T/0's that no-one seemed to be
25X9 worried about. The average grade in 1957
r- I
costs. s objective was to establish the
principle that the average grade would not
continue to rise without the approval of top
management. In this sense the Notice was
successful although the upward tendency did
not was not stopped until the Bureau of the
Budget got into the picture in 1964.
November 1959: A Manpower Control Probram for the Clandestine 25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
0
Services, 6 November 1959, famous report
on the age-grade hump among officers and what to
do about it, was sponsored by the Director of
Personnel on 6 November. While not strictly a
classification matter - the Report had to do
with people rather than positions - the report
introduced to the Controlled Staffing concept,
rationalized in-put, grade and age distribution,
requiring the force out of older officers to
achieve a maximum curve which would eventually
be reflected in the position structure. The
report furnished basic date for the CIA Retirement
and Disability Act (CIARDS) of 1964, for the manda-
tory age sixty retirement policy, and specifically
for the 25X1A
were adopted in February 1961 were attached to
the Report.
was Chief of the Personnel Assignment Division (PAD) OP from
1957-1959 although his first Agency stint was in classification work.
Approved For ReleffA111 01/27 1- CIA-RDP81-
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/019 RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1A
Fall, 1959: RID Survey., In the Fall of 1959 SWD/OP became
embroiled in a first class donnybrooke over the
Records Integration Division Survey. The Survey
itself was not unusual. Many others of a similar
nature were conducted without controversy. But
R.I.D. according to the PMCD historian* was a
special source of anguish to management and when
classification, largely on the basis of comparison
with similar jobs in the F.B.I., came up with the
conclusion that the entire place was over classi-
fied and that the so called cable analysts were
really clerical rather than professional the C/RID,
the Director of Personnel Gordon Stewart who had
R.I.D. as one of his major worries as Chief, FI
Staff, really took exception to the findings.
Salary and Wage Division found itslef overruled
on this one by the Director of Personnel and
eventually set the jobs up as professional; the
proposed down-gradings were never carried out.
Approved For Release 2003/014B= CIA-RDP81-00 -
SECRET
25
 Approved For Release 2003/OM iliL-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5 .
?
May 1961:
The CIA Management Staff was abolished leaving
the position management function, which had
never been very vigorously exercised, adrift.
Administrative obstacles, including the
Comptroller, plus reluctance of the operators
to put their plans on the line, caused the
C/SWD proposed the elimination of the Career
Service Ceilings, the Career Service Staffing
authorization and other modifications to the
Agency Manpower Control System introduced so
hopefully in 1958. What was left was the
flexible T/O and a Career Service Grade
Authorization (CSGA) which set outer limits
on number of promotions.
25X9
i
25X9
25X9
25X9
0
1962
25 August 1962: DCI advised the D/BOB of his approval of
Agency super-grade positions, a 90 percent
increase. Positions recommended for up-grading
included the Chiefs of major branches in the
DDP group, the Chiefs of Support of the major
division and certain overseas stations, key
positions in the Office of Communications,
senior positions in the Directorate of
Research. The DCI Memo drew a cold response,
"This 90 percent increase in your existing
totals of supergrades comes as a distinct 2 5X9
shock, particularly as it was unaccompanied
by any supporting date or analysis." Eventually
the matter was adjudicated on the basis of not
exceeding a fi ure of
I- the agree figure - by FY '65.
C/Salary and Wage Division was ordered by the
DDS to develop supporting data for a decision
already made.
31 August 1962: Management of SuperGrade Personnel,'
abolish a he Supergrade Review Board and trans-
ferred the co-ordination responsibility for all
supergrade positions to the Director of Personnel.
Approved For Release 2003/01dR CIA-RDP81
SECRET
25X1
 SEG ET
?
?
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
11 October 1962: Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 signed by
President Kennedy. Established higher salary
levels for Federal Executives in consonance
with industrial executive pay practices.
1964
14 April 1964: The DCI received a letter from Mr. Elmer Staats,
Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget
which requested prompt answer as to steps being
taken to hold down the number and percentage in
grades 13 and above and to maintain average grade.
The almost continuous rise in the average grade
of Federal employees raises serious questions
about the adequacy of existing agency management
controls. While there are circumstances where
changes in the complexity of the work and work
processes justify an increase in the average
,grade, it is questionable whether those changes
account for annual regularity of the increases
in grade in most agencies. For several years
the annual budget instructions (BOB Circular No.
A-11) have been extremely restrictive on the pro-
vision of funds for the prospective upgrading of
positions. The Chief, SWD, concerns had been
taken up by higher authority.
19 May 1964: Executive Director Action Memorandum to the DDS
insturcted the Director of Personnel to take the
necessary action to reduce the headroom throughout
the Agency a sufficient amount to lower the average
position grade to at least that of a year ago. D/Pers
tells C/SWD to do so.
18 June 1964: John Clarke, Chief, Programming, Planning and Budget
Staff advised the Director of Personnel that the
Chief, Salary and Wage Division had misinterpreted
the Executive Director's Action Memorandum A-378
and that the Agency-wide classification survey
was wreaking havoc within. the Agency. Chief, PPBS
felt that a component by component review was not
necessary that Chief, SWD should just take the excess
headroom wherever he found it - a somewhat impractical
approach. D/Pers disregarded the C/PPB memo and advised
the Executive Director that the Agency average grade had
been reduced and that henceforth upward classification
would have to be compensated by downward.
Approved For Release 200 tult IA=RDP81-00
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01 1V . -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
24 August 1964: BOB Circular A-1l (revised) placed a ceiling on
all Agency positions in grades GS-14 and above
at number filled in 1964. Beginning with FY'66,
allowances for personnel costs were to be based
on the average salary estimated for FY'65 in the
President's budget. Ultimately BOB dropped the
average salary control but kept the GS-14 and
above ceiling. More important the Bureau of
the Budget was to figure strongly in Agency
management from 1964 onward, and Salary and
Wage Division assumed a new role as an aid to
management in achieving the BOB objectives.
23 January 1965: DDS approved the OP proposal to augment the Agency's
position classification program with staff responsi-
bility over position management, a function which
had been adrift since the demise of the Management
Staff in 1961. As a result of this approval the
salary and wage mission was broadened and the name
changed to Position Management and Compensation
Division.
23 November 1965: A ceiling of =positions in the Executive Pay,
Supergrade and Scientific Pay Positions was
adopted with incumbency limited to In
February 1967 positions were increase to
25X9
25X9
25X9
1966
26 March 1966: A triple Deputy set-up was introduced with the
Position Management and Compensation Division
placed under the newly created Deputy Director
for Planning and Research (DD/Pers P and R)
(Changed in 1968 to De uty Director for Planning
and Control DD/Pers/PC)
July 1967: Bureau of the Budget ~B) agreed to a SuperGrade
position ceiling of Agency advised that
annual review would no longer be considered. In
the future, said BOB, S.G. position and ceiling
were to ''e included in the PPBP five-year budget
cycle.
Approved For Release 2003/01/ u : CIA-RDP81
FEUP-T
25X9
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01AWoil 04 TRDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
1969
0
0
1 August 1969: bolished the Project Review
25X1A Committee which had reviewed the establish-
ment of clandestine projects. The long
established responsibility of PMCD and its
predecessors to review the proposed T/0
in terms of the soundness of position
structure and grades or salaries was con-
tinued as was the review of existing pro-
jects as changes occurred.*
1970.
29 July 1970: While there were no spectacular events in
the FY 1970 report of the Position Management
and Compensation Division, the ceiling reductions
caused increases in the daily work. Forty-six
planning papers with a total coverage of
25X9 positions were reviewed, a revision was
ma e o the Agency's Handbook of Occupational
Titles and Codes, thirty-two surveys were
undertaken, and the documentation of some 1/3
of the Agency's positions accomplished with
reference to the changes in the staffing
complements (T/0's). A continuing review of
the government wide study of position evaluation.
systems was maintained.
1971
15 August 1971: The Administration (OMB) Qrdered a five percent
reduction in Agency manpower strength in Fiscal
Year '72 (1 July '71 to 30 June '72) and a one
tenth roll back in average grade in FY'72 and
'73. Studies in which PMCD/OP took a subordinate
part were furnished to the Director of Personnel.
These studies established the difficulty of
meeting the cutbacks without suspending promotions
and separating hundreds of Employees. As a result
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) successor
to the Bureau of the Budget permitted the Agency
to accomplish the five percent reduction and the
average grade roll back in two fiscal years.
Approved For Release 2003J01 f272 IA-RDP81-0
SECHET
25
 Approved For Release 200 Ef IA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
0
0
1973
26 March 1973: The program of cutbacks, the so-called
Schlessinger Slash, was formally announced
to the employees. In addition to normal
attrition, some Demployees would be
declared surplus excess to Agency require-
ments in 1973 FY 1973. The cutback was
accor:ipanied by numerous T/O changes involving
average grade restrictions.
1 July 1973: Two major personnel and manpower programs were
announced. The Personnel Development Program
(PDP), was a systematized approach to employee
development and succession planning. The Annual
Personnel Plan (APP) covered Manpower Analysis
and Personnel Management Goals for the fiscal
year ahead and was designed to give top manage-
ment a model against which they could measure
component performance in the specified areas of
personnel management. Classification of positions
was not included.
25X1A 1974
1 April 1974: Employee Bulletin Dannounced the program
of "New Approaches to Personnel Management."
Classification was not mentioned specifically
in the sixteen point program. The new statement
of Agency personnel policy in did include
the reference to 'adherence to Federal personnel
policies and statutory requirements applicable
to Agency activities'.
25X1A 23 April 1974:
0
announced the Letters of Instruction
policy. Each employee was to be given a letter
covering the requirements of his job as a means
of improving two way communication between employee
and supervisor. Questions were raised concerning
the relationship of LOI's to official position
'descriptions and were answered by pointing out that
the LOI does not cover the full range of duties but
establishes selected priority objectives. Job
descriptions would be continued.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27'?.'tA-RDP81-00 r- 114MUUUOUU,&JUUU_1 -
25
25X1
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 ?
?
0
Approved For Release e,17 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
EXCERPTS
from
OP Oral History Project
. 25-32
I. Tables of Organization, Ceilings, Controls . . . . . . . . . .
25X1A I on Manning Table in lieu of T/O . . . . . . . . . 25
25X1A ~n Changes to T/O and classification procedures. . 25-26
on the Manpower Control System . 26
on Career Service Ceilings . . . . . . . . . . 27
on CSGA (Career Service Grade Auth) . . . . . .
25X1A on position management as practices by . 27-28
bd Wheelon, the DDS&T . . . . . . . . . .
L. K. White on T/O and Manpower Controls . . . . . . . . 28-29
25X1A on Classification's major problems . . . . . 29-30
oon ordon Stewart's Influence on Class. and Wage ? 30
on Classification's low point . . . . . . . . . . 31-32
on Career Service Ceilings . . . . . . . . . . . .
on What's left of the Manpower Control System . . 32
on Surveys, Field and Otherwise . . . . . . . . . 32
II. Management of SuperGrade positions, Personal Rank Assignment . . . 33-38
L. K. White on the Agency SuperGrade History . . . . . . 33
on s. . Temporary Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . 34
on Personal Rank Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . 34
25X1A on Difficulties of S.G. Ceilings and P.R.A., 35-36
on -T. . Expansions of the early Sixties . . . ?
H.B. Fisher on the All Chiefs and N& Indians Syndrome . 36-37
on ersonal Rank Assignments in 1973 38
Approved For Release 20 SIUr CIA-RDP8
 ?
Approved For Release 2003sE4IA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
I. Tables of Organization, Ceilings, Control
25X1A Deputy Director of Personnel, August 1955 - March 1958
Re: Manning Table in Lieu of T/O
(Speaking of the 1955-57 period when 0 was conducting what he
called a 'holding operation' after the downfall of George Meloon and
pending the disposition of the AD/Pers job held by Harrison G. Reynolds,
25X1A a seriously ill man. 0 had this to say:)
The Office of Personnel assisted others in the Agency in laying
the groundwork for personnel policies and procedures adopted
later by the Agency. These included training and promotion
policies, flexible T/0, a policy on payment of overtime, on
marriage to aliens and so forth. One proposal by the OP which
was not adopted by the Career Council was to abolish all posi-
tions as such in favor of a manning table which would have
authorized a specific number of positions at each grade level.
25X1A
25X1A
Excerpted from the OP Oral History Project, Tape 11, recorded 2 April 1971.
Chief, Position Evaluation Division, PED/OP 1955-1957
(In classification work with the Agency from 1949 on, was appointed 25X1A
Chief, PED in September 1955, remaining in that post for two years. He
later became Chief, Personnel Assignment Div/OP where he conducted major
studies of Agency manpower problems particularly the age-grade hump which
led to the 701 program and the CIA Retirement and Disability Act, and then
Chief, Clandestine Services Personnel Staff (CSPS). The excerpts are from
Tape 16 made 21 May 1971.
Re: Changes to T/O and to classification procedures
As Chief, PED, I together with initiated several changes 25X1A
?
in the manner in which position structure was recorded and controlled.
During this period the concept of the flexible position was introduced
The purpose was to permit operating offices to meet their workload
requirements without having to go through the bureaucratic process
of establishing new positions or moving positions from one organi-
zation to another. Also introduced at this time was the concept
of Personal Rank Assignment permitting an individual to be assigned
to a position of lower grade when it was necessary to meet special
requirements or to use his service without change of grade. The
system was comparable to one long followed by the Foreign Service.
Several of these procedures were at variance with the Civil Service
Class Act requirements. The Agency had at times considered making
a break from the Civil Service procedures but no formal action was
ever taken in this regard. There was a ruling that if the Agency
followed the salary scales of the Classification Act it was obliged
to follow other CSC procedures although I recall exemption from-the
Approved For Release 2003/01/27: CIA-RDPq
SECRET -25-
25X1
 6 gy
Approved For Release 2003/ 1 TA-.RDP81-00314ROO0600230001-5
Excerpts, from OP Oral History; I. Tables of Organization, Ceiling, Controls
(Cont'd)
Sheay, Tape 16, Re: Changes to T/O and to classification procedures (Cont'd)
Veteran's Preference Act. We also developed a workable pay system
better adapted to the Agency's needs than the General Schedule of
the Classification Act. The schedule provided for fewer grades
with broader pay ranges and suggested the use of merit step
increases, a provision which was later adopted by the government
as a whole.
Re: Manpower Control System
The develo ment of the Manpower Control system now covered in
25X1A actually started in 1955 and was developed during
the subsequent five year,. The system provided for the identi-
fication of all T/O positions according to the career service
responsible for staffing the position. It provided for a
staffing complement for each organization unit which included
all the work load positions. These are productive positions
filled by people on the desk or on duty. It also provided
for a development complement which was the non-work load comple-
ment. In it were placed individuals who were not contributing
to the actual work load of the component on a day to day basis.
These individuals might be in training for a new assignment
or be between assignments or on extended annual sick or maternity
leave, or they might be detailed outside the. Agency. The purpose
of the development complement was to provide a better cost
accounting system, a personnel accounting system, to give a
better picture of the actual number of people required to do
the day to day work of the organization as compared with the
overhead, the non-productive people who were carried on the
payroll but were not actually at work. The staffing complement
included two categories of positions. The fixed position could
be occupied by only a single occupant or a fixed number, for
example, only one chief was approved for a unit. The unit might
have three branch chief positions and these were limited to
three incumbencies. The flexible positions were those in which
the number of incumbents might vary on a day.to day basis
according to the work load requirements. By having a position
designated as flexible, if the work load increased in a unit,
a new person could be assigned to the flexible position without
changing the staffing complement. This system of fixed and
flexible positions has continued to the current time and has
proved to be a practical means of managing a table or organization.
Re: Career Service Ceilings
About 1958 it was proposed that the personnel ceiling would be
allocated not to organizations but to career services and would
be managed by the Career Service. Thus a T/O for an area division
in the CS might include a ceiling for CS positions which would be
administered by the DDP. It would also include a ceiling for
support positions, logistics, finance, which would be controlled
by the Head of the Career Service of the parent office involved.
This system was not actually adopted due to a number of complica-
tions that arose in attempting to work out procedures that would
approved For Release 2003/01/27: CIA-RDP81
SECRET -26-
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01I EC ?JRDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1
25X1A
25X1A
Excerpts from Oral History; I. Tables of Organization, Ceiling, Controls
(Cont'd)
0
Tape No. 16, (Cont'd)
Re: Career Service Grade Authorization, CSGA
Since promotion and recruitment are controlled by the Career
Service a means of control called the Career Service Grade
Authorization was established. The CSGA consisted of a tabu-
lation by grade of all positions designated to a career service
regardless of the T/O on which they are located. This means
that the Personnel CSGA, for example, included all the positions
by grade located in the central office and located in other
components of the-Agency. By making this tabulation the Personnel
Career Service could compare the number of positions by grade
with the authorization at each grade level and know the promotion
headroom. Likewise the CSGA would show those grades in which
there were shortages and provide a guideline to be used for
recruitment actions. The CSGA continues in existence to the
current time and has provided a reliable method of controlling
promotions. It is consistent with the Personal Rank Assignment
procedures in that when headroom exists in the CSGA an individual
may be promoted to the grade in which the headroom exists even
though his own position may be of lower grade. This has been
an essential part of our competitive promotion system.
0
excerpts are taken from Tape No. 16, recorded 21 May 1971
1 1, Career Management Officer, DDS&T, 1963
25X1A I uis speaking in terms of the job held in 1963. He
a er a various positions in Placement, also was Chief of
Personnel, Saigon 1967-68, Deputy Director of Personnel,
Planning and Control (DD/Pers/P&C), Deputy Director of
Personnel and is currently Chief, Clandestine Service Personnel
Office. The excerpt is from Tape 17 made 14 June 1971.)
The kind of management that Wheelon (DDS&T) followed was
typified by certain reductions that DDS&T had to make in
overall ceiling allocations. In order to live within
these reductions and to strengthen some of the units at
the expense of others that we though to be over-staffed,
Wheelon asked Office Heads to surrender slots. When the
Office Heads were s'ow in coming forth with slots that
Approved For Release 2003/01/27-:3h4-RDP81-
$ECE~
 ?
25X1A
r~?
Approved For Release 2003/0 rt1A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Excerpts from Oral History, I. Table of Organization, Ceilings, Controls
(Cont'd)
Tape 17 (Cont'd)
Wheelon could use elsewhere'he held sessions with each
Office Head and went over staffing complements position
by position and the need for each position. These sessions
went to eight thirty or nine o'clock at night and did not
stop until he had covered every position. At the conclusion
Wheelon would then make up his own mind which positions he
was going to take and allocate in terms of ceiling elsewhere
in accordance with Directorate needs.
25X9
Lawrence K. White, Executive Director-Comptroller, 1965-1972
(DDS for ten years from 1955-1965, Col White made these remarks
during his 26 July 1971 Interview, Tape 18 at a time when he was
Executive Director-Comptroller of the Agency)
Re: Tables of Organization and Manpower Controls
The Agency grew so fast that people really made out their
own T/0's and put down what they wanted. There was not
very much external pressure and no real authority within 25X9
the Agency to control manpower. I can remember that at
one time when I was the A/DDA we had
people in the budget and only 25X9
on board. General Smith the a e time,
w en e
heard that we had people in the budget,
said that when you get half that many stop recruitin .
At that point in time it was decided to go to 25X9
thousand. Then the Korean business came along an we
25X1A went on up. It was the old gement staff, which was
I I ally under u and Hillenkoetter with
as the head of it, that was supposed to decide
25X1A how many people we needed and the Personnel Office did not
have very much to say about that. Their job was to decide
on the grade allocations based on the number of people and
the way they were going to be organized. So, for many
years the Management Staff would recommend the organizational
structure and strength and the Personnel Office would make
recommendations on the classifications. Although the process
was not too effective, we rocked along this way up to the
McCone administration (1962) .......When I became Executive
Director in July 1965--this was about the time that Planning,
Programming and Budgeting took on its sex appeal in the
government, systems analysis came along--I changed the name
of the group. to the Office of Programming, Planning and
Budgeting (PPB) and they were the people who moved in on
manpower control. Having said all this, the real manpower
control comes from only one place and that is the Director
and from the President. Since Mr. Helms became the Director
Approved For Release 2003/Slu RDP81 100314R000600230001-5
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/0'ML: -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X9
25X9
.25X1A
Excerpts from OP Oral History, I. Tables of Organizations, Ceiling, Controls
(Cont'd)
Lawrence K. White, Tape 18, Re: Tables of Organization and Manpower Controls
Cont'd
we have reduced.the size of this Agency by 0 people while taking2 5X9
on new jobs which require people to do. To put it
another way we are man years leaner right now
than we were in 1966 when Mr. Helms became Director and frankly
I don't think we are any worse off, in fact we are probably
better off. PPB or the Comptroller or whoever can move in on
manpower if he has the Director's support. This is probably
getting ahead of your history but each Deputy Director received
last Friday (23 July 1971) a memorandum signed by the Director
expressing some disappointment that despite his admonitions for
the past several years they still continue to ask for new
personnel on the order of two, three, four hundred a year and
put them on notice that as long as he is Director we are not
going to get any bigger. This is what you need to control
manpower. I can't control it, PPB can't control it, the Director
of Personnel can't control it, the Management Staff, nobody can
unless the Director puts his foot down and says this is what I
want done.
I, Deputy Director of Personnel, Planning and Control, DD/Pers/PC
1968-1971
(Chief of Classification through its various titles from 1958-1968,
25X1A
Many times the T/0's greatly exceeded the number of people on board
or the allocated ceiling which the unit could have. This situation
served the operators well because it gave extreme flexibility. If
they could not promote the individual in one slot they tried another.
There was really no trouble and the T/O was no constriction whatsoever.
However, in about 1954 - you can get the exact dates in the PMCD
history - the Agency wanted to bring ceiling and number of positions
together. We worked pretty hard on this. It caused quite a bit of
consternation because it would alleviate most of the flexibility
that people then had, and it would probably make T/O's more meaning-
ful. As a consequence two papers were staffed up at this and underages.
The two papers were the 'Black Duck' and the 'Blue Goose'. These
allowed people to be assigned or promoted within a limit or one percent,
spent seventeen years in the work. His name will be forever associated
with the vicissitudes of that function in the Agency. The excerpts are
taken from Tape 5, recorded 12 January 1971.)
Re: Classification's major problem
Approved For Release 2003/01/27: CIA-RDP8
2RET -29-
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Excerpts, from OP Oral History, I. Tables of Organization, Ceilings, Controls
(Cont'd)
]Tape 5, Re: Classification's major problems (Cont'd)
as I remember, over the T/O grades. These two papers - also
covered in the PMCD History - were an attempt to eliminate the'
rigidity, which became an increasing problem. Everybody at
the operating levels in the DDP felt that they were caught,
everybody felt that they should be slotted in the job about
two grades above them so that they would have headroom. To
(be in grade long enough to) get a periodic step increase
was regarded as a black eye and a blot on the career. This
situation caused many requests for increases in the grade
structure. Trying to hold the general level resulted in
a lot of conflicts. The disputes culminated in the I.G.'s
famous Ten Points on what was wrong with Personnel issued
in 1955.
work dating back to 1957 had been done by the administration. If
this was prior to the Pay Reform Act of 1962 in which a lot of
and hoped that CIA could do something with it. As you may recall
at the White House was briefed on it. He was very enthusiastic
even Rocco Siciliano, President Eisenhower's personnel advisor
Council was briefed, the Deputy Director's were briefed- and
industry salary administration; less grades, wider pay ranges
on a Pay Plan which would encompass many of the items of
Mr. Stewart's attention when he came on board. CWD worked
General Schedule salary scale and probably brought it to
still resented the fact that we were tied to the Civil Service
rather than individual actions. Many people in the Agency
name was changed to the administration or gross administration
this reason, to get away from action by action basis, the
could be dropped down to compensate for the increase. For
had decreased in value, or were not needed, and therefore
jobs for the operators when they could point to jobs that
make T/0's a two way street. If they wanted to raise some
component was obliged to maintain its average grade, to
came through with the average grade controls whereby the
drastic could be taken care of alright. To that extent we
service within bounds individual actions unless they were
in the CSSA. Mr. Stewart felt that if you kept the overall
was going to do that year and to be controlled by that planning
the Career Service Head to plan in detail exactly what he
manpower requirements. It also required the Office Heads or
a Planning Paper, planning out each year each Career Service's
which we finished that year (1957). This (the MPC) required
was why he was a big sponsor of the Manpower Control System
too concerned with each individual action that happened. This
overall or gross controls of each career service and not be
main objective from a classification standpoint was to maintain
In 1957 Gordon Stewart took over as Director of Personnel. His
Re: Gordon Stewart's Influence on Classification
finally can tl
Aaarove c~uah r i
or e e se /4F2f?AB
 25X1A
Arcbvec~ For ReI seI204.3/b0~1/27 : ~I~--gRpP$z1a0o314F0QA%030%1rit5
Excerpts from ra istor , a es o r ni n, a rots (Cont'd)
Tape 5, (Cont'd)
Re: Classification's Low Point
Point 1:
Make "Service" the. slogan of the Personnel Office, and
see that every individual in that office understands
and acts accordingly. The Personnel Office should
be advised that its mission is to do what CIA wants
done in the Personnel field even though it does not
coincide with Civil Service practices.
was aimed primarily at the Classification and Wage Division, particularly
the business of doing what CIA wants not what the Civil Service wants....
and while it has never been written anyplace it was well-known at the
time that CWD was criticized severly in turning down job requests and
for writing nastymemoranda. 1955 was the year that the title Classification
and Wage Division was changed to the Position Evaluation Division which,
in the words of Harrison G. Reynolds, would take away the taint of the
Civil Service Commission. In any event in the aftermath of the I.G.'s
Report, the Office of Personnel and Classification and Wage Division
reached a low point. For a long time after that we trod very carefully
trying not to make the operators unhappy, never daring to mention the
name of the Civil Service Commission and pretty much giving people what
they wanted. One of the causes was in 1r. Wisner's reply to the I.G.
on the Ten Points. After Wisner had replied to all points he made a
statement which said that his single greatest difficulty was the
rigidity of slotting. Aside from his management problem which was
improving, the rigidity of the T/O was restricting him and hampering
his operations as much as anything. Wisner's response was probably
the reason why we went into the flexible T /O and man ower control
experiment which culminated in 1958 in Ceiling 25X1A
and Position Authorization
Re: Career Service Ceilings
25X9
0
Career Service ceilings were doomed before they started. Probably
the two principal reasons were that top management could not conceive
in a working situation of a career service ceiling. Ceiling to them
meant how many people each Office had. In addition to that, we budgeted
on an organization basis. Mr. Saunders, 0 and the whole budget
staff were bitterly opposed to the career service ceiling and paid 25X1A
practically no attention to it. It has been said that the DDP was
opposed to it. However, it was really the aforementioned reasons.
There was no particular opposition from the DDP, in fact they worked
well with us, charted out abou and listed them as DDS jobs,
and they were put on the DDS 1/u.
Approved For Release 200 tOff IA-RDP81 J00314R000600230001-5 25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/0 1 RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
Excerpt form OP Oral History, I. Management of Supergrade Positions, Personal
Rank Assignment
Lawrence K. White, Executive Director-Comptroller, 1965-1972
Col White, at once both the nemesis and the savior of classification
down through the years looked at CWD and particularly 25X1A
on matters regarding supergrade positions. These excerpts are taken
from Tape 18, recorded 26 July 1971)
Re: Supergrade Position Management
The Agency Supergrade History has been an uphill climb. When
asking for more supergrades we tried to compare ourselves with
other agencies. Statistics indicated that the Agency was low
in percentage of supergrades as compared to State, AEC or the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (successor to the Bureau
of the Budget, BOB). Our philosophy has been that there should
be some parity and whereas grades, as a practical matter the
OMB, formerly BOB, has been the organization which says this
is how many you can have because they control the budget. The
expansion (1962) from was proposed 25X1A
after such a study (comparability) had been made. Our argument
was that we were not being treated as well as other agencies
although this argument did not seem to make much of an impression.
. Furthermore, we were a new organization and up to now (1962)
we had not argued very hard with this lack of comparability
because we had a lot of younger people who were coming along.
Now, they were bumping their heads against the ceiling and
if we were to attract and keep our people we had to be able
to offer them as much as anybody else in the government.
In addition, we argued, our people by and large were carrying
much heavier burdens. -- The Chief of Station for example, to
this day might be a GS-15 at a station where the AID Director
is an 18. -- We were getting the dirty end of the stick.
That was the philosophy! For years as the DDS I carried the
Supergrade load with a lot of support from the.Office of Personnel
but I had to carry it. I kept the statistics in my own office and
did all the negotiating with the Bureau of the Budget for the
whole Agency. It was something that Allen Dulles wanted me to
do and to keep under my personal control. As a matter of fact I
think my statistics up to 1962-1963 were better than those of the
Office of Personnel. Ar some point about then I did turn all
my files over to Emmett (Echols, Director of Personnel) to be kept
in the Office of Personnel.
0
Approved For Release 2003/01?x27--: CIA-RDP81-0 314R000600230001-5 25X1
SECRET
 Approved For Release 20039IIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Excerpts from OP Oral History, II. Management of Supergrade Positions, Personal
Rank Assignment (Cont'd)
2 5X1A Deputy Director of Personnel, Planning and Control, DD/Pers/PC
1968-1971
25X1A
retained the Supergrade Position and Incumbency assignment after
assuming the post of DD/Pers/PC having held the assignment for his ten
years as Chief of Classification. The excerpts are taken from Tape 5,
recorded 12 January 1975.)
Re: Difficulties of Supergrade Ceilings and Personal Rank Assignments
The establishment and administration of the supergrade ceiling can
cause many difficulties. There are for example, some Osupergrade 25X9
people PRA'd (People of supergrade rank in lesser or non supergrade
positions) which seems to indicate that the right people were not
promoted or that the positions were not allocated correctly, or that
there are simply too many supergrade positions not only in the DDP
but throughout the Agency. We do not have corresponding stature
of job responsibilities to go along with the increased stature in
pay and other accounterments of office. I believe this situation
to be harmful to the Agency in the long run. We must try very
hard to give our people work promotions and responsibility
promotions at the same time that we give them pay promotions and
status promotions.
This cheapening of the grade structure does not occur at the
supergrade level alone. In fact, at the middle grades 11, 12, 13
there are some serious deficiences. In the long run, this leads
to morale problems. Many of the Career Service Heads and the
operators feel that if we can make more promotions people would be
happier. However, we won't have high morale or have people happy
and challenged unless they have a good job communsurate with their
ability and are paid accordingly.
Supergrade Expansion of the early Sixties: The most frequent reason
given for the expansion was the poor comparison between DDP positions
overseas and the State Department which had many FSO 1 and 2 grades
comparable to our supergrades. The complaint in the field stations
was that our people were better and did a better job but were not
paid as well as State. However, the chief reason for the explosion 25X1A
in 1960-61 in supergrade ceiling was the DDS. Colonel Whi felt he
had developed an extremely good support corp - people like
25X1A and others - who had been in grade a long time and he had
no way of awarding them. So at this time the DDS determined that a
25X1A sizeable increase in support supergrades should take lace. The
expansion was so great that went to (Chief 25X1A
25X1A of Admin for DDP) and (Same for DDI and told them
to put in some more supergrade positions so that the situation would
25X9 be equalized. As a result, the supergrade ceiling of =went to a 25X9
? proposed position structure of
Approved For Release 2003
1gIA-RDP81-003 4R000600230001-5 25X1
-SE
 Approved For Release 2003 IIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
? Excerpts from OP Oral History, II. Management of Supergrade Positions, Personal
Rank Assignment (Cont'd)
25X1A " Tape 5 (Cont'd)
The increase came shortly after Emmett Echols became Director of
Personnel. Emmett-shared the view point of the DDS and supported
the increase in support supergrades. Echols was not inclined to
question the motives or the determinations of the Deputies as was
his predecessor, Gordon Stewart. Stewart took a very hard look at
supergrade proposals and worked very closely with the then
Classification and Wage Division. This was only one example of
the differences which showed in many other ways. The chief
difference was that Stewart was an operator and felt himself to
be the equal of the area Division Chiefs and well-known to the
Deputies whereas Echols was a support officer who looked up to
the operators.
The actual justification of the large increase in supergrades
turned out to be no problem. Bob Amory, the former DCI, was
then working in BOB, (JJW Note: Amory was Chief of the International
Division of BOB at this time), discussed the changes with the
Deputies and their justification of the expansion, and as the
increases were phased over a period of three years, the expansion
was accepted by the BOB. One consequence was the end of previous
? attempts tp get the number of positions and the ceiling the same.
They never have been equalized even today, the discrepancy being
in favor of the positions. This causes some difficulty with the
incumbents. Everyone sitting in a supergrade job cannot be
accommodated at one time.
Harry B. Fisher, Director of Personnel 1971-73
Fisher 25X1 A
25X1
In the latter spot he caught the full brunt of the so-called
Schlessinger Slash. The excerpts are taken from Tape 41 recorded
15 August 1974 about a year after his retirement.)
Re: The All Chiefs and No Indians Syndrome
There was a tendency on the part of components to take their cuts
at the very lowest levels. To control this to some extent, I was
backed up by Colonel White in insisting that cuts be taken at the
average grade. This did tend to require a balancing number of
12's and 13's to offset the 4's and 5's. I must admit however
that very few of the super-grade positions were cut at that time
0
Approved For Release 2003g g2; -ff~IA-RDP 1-00314R000600230001-5 25X1
 VFc :T
Excerpts from,c ~u`
old ~'b81~*asiI200i~r1mC1A-IQD"Ogrt4Ma&WDMM,1-fie rs ona 1
Rank Assignment (Cont'd)
Fisher, Tape 41, Re: The All Chiefs and No Indians Syndrome (Cont'di
which sort of brings me to the super-grade problem. I used
to deal with that problem both with Col. White and later with
Bill Colby. It always bothered me that we had significantly
larger number of super-grade positions than we had ceiling for
promotion from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This
created a false sense of the number of super-grade positions.
There were always of the order of thirty to forty super-grade
positions on the books which would never have supergrade
occupants, because the ceiling for promotion which was con-
trolled by OMB, was at a lower figure. This meant you had
unhappy GS-15's in these super-grade positions. They did not
realize that there was no ceilings available for promotion.
This overage carried on, despite my objection, through Col. White's
regime. His feeling was that if you always had additional
super-grade positions on the books, you could argue with OMB
that you needed the ceiling to accomodate them. Col. White and
the Director took the position, and I guess legally they were
right, that the Director of Personnel could establish his own
grade levels and OMB did not argue with him on that point.
Therefore as a matter of Wage and Class, we could say these
jobs are super-grade positions. OMB's response was, 'fine,
you may do that but we say that you can only have this number
of super-grade ceiling.' So we lived in this kind of fantasy for
a while. Shortly after Bill Colby came in (as Executive Director
after Col. White's retirement in 1972) I was able to convince him as a matter of fact he was almost shocked to find out what the
situation was -- that, although it might hurt, really we would be
better off abolishing all super-grade positions above the ceiling
that we had for promotion, and this we did despite the wails from
everybody. Even the Office of Personnel had to take a reduction
of two supergrade positions which had never been filled by supergrades.
In the early years, and I could tell from previous correspondence,
it had been routine each year to go forward to the OMB with the
request for additional supergrade ceiling, always based on the fact
that we had now, by wage and classification action, increased the number
of supergrade positions. The arguments were rather trite ones,
increased sophistication, higher technology required. OMB normally
came through with a few more super-grade positions. However, when the
tide turned and the size of the Agency began coming down, such a
request appeared a little ridiculous, certainly to me and to Col. White,
although never to the operating components who always felt they needed
more super-grade positions than they had. The time had passed when we
could say that although we are reducing five hundred this year, and
five hundred next year we need more super-grade positions. Rather, the
consideration became one of eliminating these forty odd positions for
which we did not have the ceiling. Mr. Colby was even wondering in 1973
whether we should further reduce the number of supergrades which number
remained stable despite the overall reductions in ceiling, thereby making
the supergrades an increasing larger percentage of the total strength of
the Agency.
Approved For Release 2003/01427= CIA-RDP81- 0314R000600230001-5 25
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/01/!7?.DP81-00314R000600230001-5
Excerpts from OP Oral History, II. Management of Supergrade Positions, Personal
Rank Assignment (Cont'd)
Fisher, Tape 41, Cont'd
Re: Personal Rank Assignments in 1973
There was an effort to reduce the number of Personal Rank
Assignments (grade-of incumbent higher than grade of job).
We reached the point where we in Personnel monitored PRA's,
whether they were supergrade or even at the GS-14 and 15
level. In 1972 I believe it was, Colby agreed with me that
we would sign papers to each component when someone was in
a supergrade positions in excess of two years on a personal
rank assignment. DDP certainly had a better reason for
putting people in personal rank assignments. There might
be a small country which warranted a GS-15 during normal
times. There would be a flare-up there whereby suddenly a
great more expertise was required and the DDP would want
to whip a supergrade out there to take that job during the
period of the crisis. We did not want to revise the total
structure every time so you did have people in personal rank
assignments. But a real effort was being made, and with
some degree of success, at calling the components to task
on personal rank assignment. DDP, although warranted in
some cases, was also using many soft positions in
and other parts of Europe to assign someone who was a G -
to a GS-15 job. They might give you a reasonable argument
for the first two years but when they tried to extend the
man for another two years, you knew they were sort of
waiting out retirement for this fellow and getting him out
of the way. We were really beginning to clamp down pretty
tight on that and forcing movement of those people out of
the PRA positions.
-38-
-RDP81-00
Approved For Release 2003/ SNUT XUA
25X1A
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003 9. lA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
RETROSPECT
The Critical Fifties, Flexibility the Criterion
The classification and wage policy which the Agency has followed
for twenty-five years was subject to its greatest stress in early and
middle 1950's. In January 1953, immediately after a classification
approved T/O was issued for the OSO-OPC merger, a task that took two
years, the Classification and Wage Division (CWD), OP and the Management
Staff began, as ordered by DCI Walter Bedell Smith, the attempt to
25X9 reconcile T/0's I and the ceiling Suddenly,
25X9
the T/0, which up to that point had been-an inocuous planning document
with plenty of room for maneuver, became restrictive. The freedom of
? action enjoyed by operating officials to move and promote people, was
severly curtailed, or threatened to be curtailed. CWD was only one
party to this attempt but it placed the grades on the positions, issued
the T/0's and kept the records. The storm of criticism was aimed
primarily at CWD as being inflexible and Civil Service oriented. In
December 1953, Inspector General Kirkpartick's Report of the Office of
Personnel recommended that a new classification plan be developed.
'There is no question,' said the I.G. 'but that a classification plan
is required. It is also agreed that the Civil Service wage scale is
acceptable. What is required is perhaps a classification system tailored
exclusively to the requirements of the CIA.' Earlier in the month (Dec 1953)
25X1A Chief of Administration for the DD/P, always a severe
critic of the Office of Personnel, showed somewhat greater insight as to
? the real difficulty:
Approved For Release 2003MU -RDP81-0
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/Q A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
There is a considerable amount of restiveness in the
organization (DDP) against the supposed limitation
placed on us in the handling of people by the Office
of Personnel. However, it must be remembered that
the DCI has committed himself to adhere as closely as
possible to the. principles of the several Classification
Acts. Accordingly the Director of Personnel as the DCI's
delegated representative for the exercise of personnel
authority must conduct himself within the limits of
this framework.
25X1A
0
further stated in his 2 December 1953 memorandum to the
I.G. that in his opinion the Classification and Wage Division rendered.
greater service and satisfaction than any other unit in the Office of
Personnel, adding that his remarks were addressed to the degree of
satisfaction received from the Division itself and should not be
interpreted as indicating satisfaction with the classification system
per se.
CWD responded to the serious challenge some ten months later when
25X1A ssignment was issued on 9 Oct 54. This regulation permitted
the temporary assignment of employees to positions of higher or lower
grade than held in order to meet operational requirements. Terms such
as 'Black Duck' and 'Blue Goose' entered the Agency's administrative
vocabulary. The flexible T/O concept was also introduced to allow
double slotting in certain designated positions which were not one of
a kind.
In July 1955, to end the Classification and Wage stigma, the Director
of Personnel, Harrison G. Reynolds, changed the name to Position Evaluation
Division (PED). Top management again demonstrated its reluctance to delegate
the function, which was its only source of information and control of Agency
position and salary matters to the operating officials and it remained an
Office of Personnel responsibility. However, a senior DDP official,
-40-
Approved For Release 2003
-SE 1dIA=RDP81-00 25
 Approved For Release 20T: CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Gordon Stewart was named as Director of Personnel in 1957. Under
his leadership, PED introduced a series of actions designed to
loosen the central controls over position classification while
avoiding the extremity of throwing the baby away with the bath.
The Manpower Control System, first introduced experimentally in
the Office of Communications in 1956, comprised four aspects, the
flexible T/O previously described, the Career Service Staffing
Authorization which gave the Career Service an authorization of
promotion spaces, based on the organizational T/0's, the Development-
Staffing Complement which made provision for slotting temporarily
'unproductive employees without regard to grade', and Rotational
10 Allowance. The system was formally adopted with the publication of
25X1A
0
on 14 November 1958. Stewart accompanied the new policy of central
control and decentralized execution by changing the name of the
Position Evaluation Division to the Salary and Wage Division.
Among other developments of the Stewart regime of the late fifties,
the Career Council at its 42nd meeting on 3 April 1957 agreed unanimously
that, despite the rise of the Career Services, three personnel activities
should remain centralized; classification, recruitment, and personnel
records. Thus encouraged, the Position Evaluation Division introduced
and won DDS support for the installation of standards based on the grade
attraction theory for all Agency secretarial positions and, at the other
-41- 25X1
Approved For Release 2003/01I EIBDP81-0031
 Approved For Release 200S &6EJCIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
end of the grade spectrum, won high level support for its factor
analysis method for evaluating Super-Grade positions. In March 1958,
the Director of Personnel presented ans won Career Council approval for
a new Agency Compensation Plan developed by the Position Evaluation
Division. Designed to remedy the deficiencies of the Civil Service
o-?
schedules, the Plan reduced all positions above GS to five groups
A
with extended salary ranges in each group. The White-House liked it
but the Plan found little support in the Civil Service Commission
and the Bureau of the Budget, PED's stock went up, and many of the
provisions were later adopted by the government at large in the
Salary Reform Act of 1962. By all odds, however, it was the entry
in 1959 of the Bureau of the Budget into Agency administrative affairs
? that solidified the position of the Salary and Wage Division of the
Office of Personnel. Average grade control, super-grade ceiling, ceiling
on GS 14 and up, all the familiar paraphanelia of government administration,
were introduced at the behest of BOB. SWD became top management's major
source of information on positions and the major means of compliance with
BOB's desires on position management and salary control.*
The 1960's BOB and Average Grade Control
The Management Staff was abolished in May 1961 leaving the position
management function adrift, to be picked up fours years later by the Salary
and Wage Division at which time (1965) its name was changed to Position
25X9
0
Approved For Release 2003 ~A-RDP81-003
25X1
 Approved For Release 20 r CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
25X1A
Management and Compensation Division (PMCD). The disappearance of the
Management Staff made little difference in the work of the Salary and
Wage Division. Previously SWD had most of the task anyway, it put the
grades on the positions, kept the records, issued the T/0's and caught
the heat. The change did mean that now top management* could turn to
one source of information on both positions and T/0's changes. In
August 1962, 0 Management of Supergrade Positions, abolished
the Supergrade Review Board and transferred the responsibility for
co-ordination of all supergrade positions to the Director of Personnel
and his representative the Chief, Salary and Wage Division, formalizing
a 'de facto' relationship of several years standing, and giving
classification one of its thorniest problems. The Regulation followed
immediately on what was termed an explosion in supergrade positions,
a ninety percent increase to
that drew strong criticism from BOB
25X9
which exacted a promise from the CIA to spread the increases over three
years.
Another disapointment to the BOB, one which reacted on the Agency's
classification function, concerned the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962.
At first BOB thought that the Act, by increasing federal executive salaries
to a level comparable with industry and by offering greater salary spread
within grades, would stop the increase in average grade and in higher
grades. It did not and on April 1964, by memorandum to the Director of
Central Intelligence the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget
requested prompt answer on steps being taken to slow down grade creep and
*The term top management as used here refers mostly to one Lawrence K. White,
Colonel, USA (Ret) who as DDS from 1955-1965 and Executive Director-Comptroller
25X1A 1965-1972 was both best friend and severest critic of Class' on. He and
I Approvdl Bag Rdmas6f2=/6f/2X1 a - ~ 10~0~ ' MY-al 25X
relationship that was as rong d stormy.
 Approved For Release 200 DCIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
25X1A
25X9
to hold down the number and percentage in Grades 13 and above. CIA's
increase in both categories was modest as a result of the steps taken
after the 1959 intervention, namely the issuance of Personnel Notice
administered by SWD. Average grade
CIA's good record as a result of establishing its own controls, BOB
issued its annual circular No. A-11 which placed a ceiling on Agency
positions in GS-14 and up at the number actually filled in FY 1964
and imposed average salary controls based on average.salary estimated
in the President's 1965 budget.
The balance of the sixties, particularly from 1967 on, were taken
? up by T/O expansion for the VietNam War the task one of reviewing T/0's
conducting surveys, and making job audits. The introduction of the
triple Deputy concept in 1966 interposed a level between the Chief, PMCD
and the Director of Personnel. Since the long time Chief of Classification,
25X1A
became Deputy Director of Personnel for Planning and Control
(DD/Pers/PC) the change did not affect the class.ification function.
The 1970's, Steaming as Before
The expansion of the late sixties was followed by the retrenchment
of the Seventies and Classification's main problem became the avoidance
of the 'All Chiefs and No Indians' syndrome. The many innovations of
this period, the Personnel Approaches Study Group, the Annual Personnel
Plan, the Personnel Development Plan, were largely the work of the Plans
Staff. PMCD's tasks and emphasis were described by the present Chief,
PMCD in the 9 May 75 Oral History Interview:
25X1
tt -64tr
Approved For Release 2003/
-RDP81-00314 000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/0 RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
i
About 1970 we in PMCD initiated a regular schedule survey
program under which we attemptdd to survey all components
of the Agency on a three- ear cycle. It was a period of
25X9 ceiling reduction from and (we thought)
the survey program would help substantially in maintaining
an effective organization. . .by review either before or
after ceiling cuts.. .The primary problems we have had
is the tendency of all components to maintain as many as
possible to their higher level and supergrade positions.
In a period of declining strength the Agency should
require fewer super-grades - Mr. Colby has indicated
this a number of times - but in every review we have
made, every component has always been looking for
more supergrades. .. .The only way that escalation
can be controlled is by an interest on the part of
top management and the various management levels, in
holding down grades, in attempting to maintain reasonable
levels, in having a logical approach to what jobs are
worth...When Mr. Brownman became Deputy Director of
Management and Support (DDM&S) (in 1973) he thought
at first that it would be a lot better if the components
established their own grades. They would show more
judgement... but after he had been in the job for a while
his view changed, (he realized) that turning the components
loose would be like putting the fox in the hen house....
There is continuing pressure from all components for
higher grades and more upper level grades. We (PMCD)
have seen no indication that this is ever going to
change.
25X1
-45-
Approved For Release 2003/0
rRDP8l -0031 -
ERE
 Approved For Release 2003/E{IA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
Classification,
The antithetical nature of personnel administration - service on
one hand and control on-the other - is nowhere better illustrated than
in the classification and wage function. Through the various phases
in the Agency's administrative development - the wide open expansion
of the fifties, the stabilized conditions of the early sixties, the
VietNam expansion of the late sixties, the retrenchment of the seventies -
Classification has endured as a central function of the Office of Personnel.
The question is why? What does this particular aspect of personnel admin-
istration have in its favor to cause it to survive through thick and thin
despite its reputation as one of the most unpopular and controversial of
the central personnel administration functions?
Historically, there is no single answer to the questions other than
the general one that classification is something that we must have for
our sins. A succession of very able and even imaginative Chiefs of
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
CONCLUSIONS
had something to do with it. The support in clutch situations
of the administrative stalwarts,
as Chi.ef of DDP Admin in
the critical Fifties, Lawrence K. White as DDA/DDS and Executive
Director-Comptroller undoubtedly carried the day in the periodic decisions
made by the high command on the hapless function. Then there was the faculty
for meeting challenges rather than collapsing in the face of criticism.
The series of changes starting with the flexible T/0, then the Staffing
Complement, the development Complement, Career Service Staffing Authorization,
Career Service Grade Authorization, Rotational Allowances would come under
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 ? IA-RDP81-003114R000600230001-5
6ULI
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003cIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
this heading. They were ingenious methods of achieving the objective
of maintaining some degree of central control while extending maximum
flexibility for the operating official. The rather sour reception which
the Agency Compensation Plan of 1958 - developed by Classification in
accordance with what it thought were the Agency's desires to abandon
the General Schedule, - received from the Civil Service Commission,
the Congress and the Bureau of the Budget, had it's effect. In the
final analysis, it was the entry of the Bureau of the Budget into
Agency administrative affairs, starting in 1959 but really felt in
1964, which brought with it average grade controls, super-grade ceilings,
GS-14 and up ceilings, that finally clinched the issue. Classification
as such was elevated to an essential tool of top management in the
administering of Agency position classification and compensation matters.
The advantages of belonging to the Federal government at large were
dramatically demonstrated at the time of the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962 which substantially raised federal executive pay and broadened
in grade ranges of the General Schedule positions including those in CIA.
-47-
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA=RDP81-00 14R000600230001-5 25
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-Rb
?
s
OP ORAL HISTORY PROJECT
Tape 46 - Interview, Chief
Position Management and Compensation
Division, OP with
Part 1, 9 May 1975, Chamber of Commerce
Building, Arlington, VA.
Subject: Position Management, Compensation,
Salary and Wage Administration,
1953 - 1968
25X1A
(Onlyl remarks recorded. Questions
represent summation of discussions between
recorded remarks.)
Index Counter
What about yours (.itcb.t job, Fned. What was it
and whence was it?
.. 11 L ie , yency in the Covert
Branch of the Classification and Wage Division
(CWD).? Initially I had the Soviet Division as
(as a classifier) and then Western Europe. This
was for a period of approximately two years
starting in 1953. Then there was some kind of a
reorganization. Three branches were established,
Covert, Overt, and Standards. At that time, in
1955, I became the Chief of the Standards Branch.
The Standards Branch lasted until May of 1957 when
two branches were substituted for the former three
branches. Standards Branch was knocked out. There
was an Overt Branch and a Covert Branch with a
standards representative established in each. I
harnme nnn .a.??
rte
! _
C
h
ie
Over?L Branch under
25X1A
0 as Chief.
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
What did the Standard4 8nanch do?
0
020 We were concerned with establishing Agency-wide
standards for as many jobs as possible. We followed
numerous approaches in developing these standards.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27
81-00 14R000600230001-5
25X
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
0
We used charts to a^considerable extent, factor
evaluation break-down, and something similar to
what is now being used by the Civil Service
Commission developed by the Oliver Task Force
several years ago. In other words a factor
evaluation, bench mark point rating system. We
used these for administrative officer, personnel,
budget jobs, and various others. Some of our
standards were primarily comparison standards,
standard job sheets which we used to evaluate jobs.
The difficulty in those days was getting standards
co-ordinated. It was the personnel policy to have
standards co-ordinated before they could be issued
and this was very difficult to do. Eventually,
we used the standards unofficially without formal
issuance. We probably issued some twenty-five or
thirty standards over the period of two years that
I was head of the Branch. As to the DDP jobs, I
believe there were operations officers, agent hand-
lers standards. There may have been a few others.
0
Who did you won( bon in these day4?
045 During the period between '53 and '55, when I was
in Branch of CWD, I was under 0 25X1A
25X1A ho was then Chief. In the Standards
was initially under who 25X1A
25X1A was the Division Chief 1952-1955 . When he went
out, in 1955, became Chief of the Division.
25X1A Between 1955 an was the Branch Chief under
After the Standards Branch was abolished
in 1957 :~ became the Deputy Chief of the Overt Branch.
That was for about a year, at.the end of that time
25X1A there were some switches in the Division personnel.
We had a new Chief of the Overt (Intelligence and
Support) Branch and the Clandestine
Services Branch
25X1A Deputy Chief of the Division under 11 1 25X1A
This assignment was for a period from 1958 to, I
think it was 1967, not 1968. I then became the
Division Chief.
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/01/275 P81-00314
 Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : F81-00314R000600230001-5
These w?-&e a tot o6,,innovat.ions in the sate
6i6t .eA, ea'tey sixties - F ex.ib1e T/0, Can.een.
Sen.v.ice S-ta66ing Authon..izatJon, Sta66ing
Comptement, Devetopmen.t Comp.2emen.t, Caneen
Sen.v.ice Ceiti tgs, Rotau.ionae Allowance -
how did these gn.ab you?
050 During the period after the establishment of the
so-called flexible T/O system, our primary problem
was establishing jobs on staffing complements under
the new system, and evaluating positions according
to their difficulties and responsibilities. The
flexible T/O provided for the movement of people.
back and forth in the different areas without the
formal establishment of a job. It provided for
underslotting and oversiotting to make it easier
to assign and reassign people. But our primary
objective of trying to evaluate positions properly
continued during this period. We attempted to
conduct surveys to the extent possible. Since
it wasn't practical then, and has never been
practical to attempt to cover an organization by
individual position evaluation, periodic surveys
were conducted to provide for changes in organi-
zation, realignment of positions, changes in
position structure. These surveys continued
throughout the 58 - 68 period.
What do you see as the major pnob1em4 o4 c.2aaz..-
W.iea..ion n.esutt.ing 4n.om the bevena.e .innovations?
075 The greatest difficulty during this period and since
has been that, while operating officials are willing
to accept upgradings, and in some cases the same
grade, they are reluctant to accept any down gradings
The result was a continuing escalation of grades over
a period of many years which continues to the present.
I can say that in some cases we (classification) have
won but in most cases we have not. One of the
objectives (of the innovations) was to secure maximum
of flexibility with a certain degree of control over
the grade structure. To some extent this objective
was achieved. We were able to prevent grade levels
from getting completely out of hand. Part of this
result we can attribute eventually to the establish-
ment of upper level ceilings and supergrade ceilings.
25
Approved For Release 2003/01/27: CIA=RP1-O314R0006
;1
 Approved For Release 2003/01/2 : 9fHDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
Another major problem we had during this period
(58-68) in the administration of the CSGA, Career
Service Grade Authorization, was that it tended
to encourage a rate of promotion which was not
justifiable by the level of positions established.
Frequently, staff members reached a grade level
at a time when positions were not available at
that grade level so that they were overslotted.
This situation caused a lot of pressure from
operating officials to upgrade the jobs, and
thus has caused a lot of the grade escalation
over these years, which continues to the present.
What about the va,%ioub pnopo4atz son new eompen-
eat-ion bydtems? Did you play any parc.t in these?
Now come they neven got anywhene?
100 During the '58 - '68 period there-were numerous
requests and proposals to establish a different
compensation system for the Agency most of them
intended to follow the Foreign Service systems.
One proposal, I believe submitted by FE Division,
would have converted all positions to the Foreign
Service. We (Classification) made a detailed study
of the Foreign Service class levels, benefits, etc.,
but could not figure out any logical basis for con-
verting. There were other proposals developed.
Generally their tendency was to get away from the
GS system but the advantages were never apparent
and we were never able to sell any changes. I
believe the reason why the Agency continued to
follow the Classification Act system was the obvious
advantage of having a pay system that changed auto-
matically during periods of increase in federal
pay. The choice open to the Agency was to attempt
to adopt the Foreign Service system of the State
Department or follow the GS system or some combina-
tion. The practicality of following a combination
system was not very great, requiring a lot of co-
ordination. The State Dept has had a lot of trouble
in administering the two systems.... After review of
these proposals there was never any strong pressure
for converting over. Policy level officials in
considering whether there were any real advantages,
what the consequences would be, in the end always
decided that it would be better to stay with the GS
system.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA- DU314
00600230001-5
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01 / &:QI DP81-00314R000600230001-5
9
When did the Bureau^ o6 the Budget 6-.n.6z 6tatt
to move in on Agency gn.ade #eve.Cs and what con-
.tnoZb d.Ld they impo4e?
?
0
130 Sometime in 1959, the Bureau of the Budget
indicated that some controls should be established
over pay levels in the Agency. Consideration
was first given to an average salary control
which would probably have been better if it had
been practicable but the difficulty of controling
average salary was considerable. We had no way
of predicting it because of the changes that
resulted from periodic step increases, promotion
rates, etc. Since the budget statistics included
average grade information, BOB was in favor of an
average grade control. BOB had no particular system
in mind. They just argued that the average grade
should not continue to rise. So at that time I
worked on a proposal, actually developed a proposal
that would introduce average grade control. What
it consisted of was the concept that any increases
in grade levels of positions should be at around
the same level. This was to deter operating
officials from raising a 14 to a 15 and downgrading
a 6 to a 5 in order to compensate. Our idea (in
Classification) was that if a 14 was raised to a
15 then it should be compensated fairly close to
that level, possible a 13 to a 12. The proposal
was difficult to sell to operating officials. Over
the years there has been a considerable tendency
to down grade the lower level jobs to compensate
for upgrading the higher level jobs. On the whole,
though, this action (average grade control) has
resulted in a considerable degree of control, since
we included a provision that any increases in
average grade had to be fully justified by the
operating official and approved by the Director of
Central Intelligence. Within the last year the
Director has delegated this authority for approving
average grade increases to the Director of Personnel
subject to the concurrence of the Comptroller.
Approved For Release qp-481-003
no*
Appnognognonni-xi
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01/ IDP81-00314R000600230001-5
Do you have any idea what an increase o6 say a
tenth o6 a point in average grade means in terms
o6 money, that is, in payrott costs?
165 Speculating on this after a little fast calculation,
an increase of a tenth of a grade for this Agency,
25X9 would produce a salary cost increase of somewhere
t ousan dollars a year. 1111S was calculated by
figuring that a tenth of a grade consists of one
ositions in a hundred, or
, based on an Agency tota1
25X9
25X9
ich would be
multiplied by the normal increase with is a east
two steps, approximately which
25X9 comes to 25X9
Next .ee.t'z discuss the business o6 organizatLona.e
t-i.t.eez. There have been 4evera.e o6 them jor Ua4zi-
6icat4.on throughout the years. What do you have to
say about titte changes?
180 The original organization title of the present
Position Management and Compensation Division (PMCD)
was Classification and Wage Division (CWD). This
was subsequently changed to Position Evaluation
Division (PED)* then to Salary and Wage Division (SWD)
The abolishment of the Management Staff in 1961 left
a hiatus in the management function of the Agency,
obviously a necessary function. Since the present
PMCD was the only organization that had current
organizational information about the Agency and was
in a'position to make changes in organization and did
so....the logical place for the management function
was in.PMCD. So in 1965 the title was changed to
Position Management and Compensation Division (PMCD)
for Salary and Wage Division (SWD). PMCD was never
formally given the management function. It was how-
ever accepted and performed as a normal function be-
cause it was necessary that it be done and PMCD did
it. You can say that PMCD has a 'de facto' management
function and not a 'de jure' one.
EGRET
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CIA-RDP81-00314R000
 Approved For Release 2003/01 /2 "` ibP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
What about the vcvi aas groups that are not
undetc the GS schedule, such as the wage board
people?
0
?
200 Since the beginning of the Agency there have
been numerous different types of employees
for which we (Classification) had to administer
pay systems. These are typical of the government
in general but it also includes some which are not
typical. The normal Wage Board jobs are included
in this lot. We (CIA) have four systems. One is
the regular wage board system which includes
mechanics and logistics employees for the most
part, electricians and that sort. There is the
Interdepartmental Lithographic Wage Board (ILWB)
system which applies to a certain type of printing
employee, and is administered by the ILWB in the
Washington DC area. ILWB is comprised of many of
the major agencies. ILWB establishes rates and
levels for positions. The third system that we
have is the Government Printing Office system.
We applied the GPO system in the Agency because
originally one of the printing plants was a GP
plant. It was actually in the GPO but under DCI
Dulles, it was decided that the plant should come
under CIA. It was then decided that it would be
better to continue the GP system. Subsequently
some other systems in the Agency were converted to
the GP system so that we continue to follow this
system which is based on Government Printing Office
changes and wage surveys.
These surveys are done differently for all different
types of wage systems. The Lithographic Board system
surveys the local areas for printing jobs, the GPO
system surveys twenty-five area localities throughout
the country and computes an average for rates which
apply to GPO employees. The regular Wage Board system
follows the locality rate, is called the Federal Wage
Board system, and is administered by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). The CSC designates a lead Agency
which conducts wage board surveys of pay rates for
particular localities. Other Agencies which follow
this system adopt the rate which are developed by
the lead Agency. The fourth system which we have is
the so-called GA (Graphic Arts) system which runs
paralell to that used in the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing and is based on rates developed primarily by
the American Bank Note Company. These are the Wage
Board systems which we use in this country.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : CI
//
4000600230001-5
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/01 k(RDP81 -0031 4R000600230001 -5
?
STATSPEC
In addition, we have a number of systems whic
annly in tha
STATSPEC
unaer teaerai law, local employees in foreign
countries must be paid rates which are comparable
to those of private industry or government in the
area or (must be) based on a rate which applies to
that particular region. In many cases we follow
the rates developed for the Foreign Service local
system by the Foreign Service post. In other cases
we have followed systems used by the Air Force or
Army or systems that we developed ourselves to apply
to certain jobs that we have which are different 25X1
to other Agencies. These are for the most part what
0
serving in
a country other than their own e.g. a native of
25X1A ho works on for the CIA is a third 25X1A
coup ry national. ese rates have been applied
for many years and these employees have many of
the rights and benefits of that GS employees have
including a retirement system which we developed
over the years. The Foreign Service local and
national systems since it is unique and there are
changes going on all the time requires one employee
25X1A to be trained in the techni ues and problems involved.
At this time we have primarily and Don
25X1 working on it. we c ntrate all the wage
jobs under this one employee since they are 25X1
i n a . sense related and they don comprise a large
group of employees and it is n.ot all that active
but it is peculiar to itself.
And now we come to 4upengnade positions. What is
the Ctaezi6.i..eation note on the S.G.'z and how did
it come about?
300 Sometime in 1956 interest was expressed by senior
officials in developing some sort of a logical
system for evaluating supergrade positions. We
(CWD) did a considerable amount of research in
other Agencies to find out what practical systems
i
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : REX81-003
25X1
 i.?
I:C~~ET
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : C A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
0
were in use. Atomic Energy Commission used a
system of point rating, factor evaluation, and
bench mark positions, and, after a considerable
amount'of exp' rimenting, we developed a factor
rating benchmark point system. We ranked the
jobs initially by factors and them separately
to arrive at a point total which by use of a
conversion table we converted to a GS grades,
16, 17, or 18. We applied this a couple of
times between then and 1962. In 1962 the
Supergrade Review Board was abolished and the
Director of Personnel received the complete
function. Between 1962 and the present, we
have evaluated supergrade jobs periodically
following this factor rating point system
essentially as established, with various
modifications over the years. The most
recent evaluation was completed last year
(1974).
0
33-End of Tape 46. Interview Continued on
Tape 47.
0
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 :A-U81-00
25
 Approved For Release 2003/O MCP i -RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
OP ORAL HISTORY PROJECT
0
0
Tape 47 - Interview (Cont'd) Chief, 25X1A
Position Mana ement ompensation, (PMCD),
25X1A OP with Part II, 9 May 1975,
Chamber o ommerce Bldg, Arlington, VA
Subject: Position Management, Compensation,
Salary and Wage Administration, 1968-1974
25X1A (Only remarks recorded. Questions
represent summation of discussions between
recorded remarks.)'
Index Counter
You were .a.2h..ing about the adm.in,i4tna..ion o6.
Supengnade pozi;.ionz at on Tape 46, Fned,
on maybe you were {.in.izhed with that and
wanted to ta!iz about Zunveyz?
000 About 1970 in PMCD, we initiated a regular
schedule survey program under which we attempt-
ed to survey all components of the Agency on
a three year cycle basis. We estimated three
years as a reasonable period since positions
normally change over a period of time and three
years was a reasonable compromise which gave
25X9 us reasonably current cov rage. It was a period
of ceiling reduction from laproxi-
mately and the survey program helped substantially
in maintaining an effective-organization. We
believe it is possible to review organizations
either before or after ceiling cuts and point out
where logical cuts (in positions) can be made and
still maintain the efficiency of the organization.
Ce.iting teduc ions must have given you quite a
T/O pnob.eem?
010 The primary problem we have had in connection
with ceiling reductions in the Agency is the
tendency of all components to maintain as many
as possible of their higher level, upper level
and suppe
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : Cl T00
25X1
 Approved For Release 2003/0 RDP81-003148000600230001-5
i-
and supergrade positions. In a period of
declining Agency, strength Mr. Colby has
indicated a number of times that the Agency
should require fewer super-grades. But in
every review we have made every component
has-always been looking for more supergrades.
With the rigid ceiling controls no components
have succeeded in getting more except at the
expense of other components or unused ceiling
-but- there is apparently this strong interest
in getting more. In the same way with upper
level positions, GS-14 and above- there is
continuing pressure for increase. The function
of PMCD is primarily a matter of finding out .
what positions are worth. It is always possible
to increase the average grade legitimately. The
only way that the escalation can be controlled
is by an interest on the part of top management,
and on the part of management of the various
organizations in the Agency, in holding the
grades down; in attempting to maintain reason-
able levels; in having a logical approach to
what jobs are worth. But this has never been
apparent. In all the years that we (PMCD)
have operated in this Agency there has never
been any indication that senior officials
have any interest in holding grades at a
reasonable level. This (state of mind) appears
in practically all the top components. When
Mr. Brownman became DD(M&S) Deputy Director
Management and Support, the first thing he said
was that he thought it would be a lot better
for components to establish their own grades.
They would show more judgment in establishing
grades on their own but after he had been in
the job for a while his view was different.
Turning the components loose would be like
putting the fox in the hen house; they (the
components) would use absolutely no discretion
in up-grading positions. There is continuing
pressure from all components for higher grades
and more upper levels. We (PMCD) have seen no
indication that this is ever going to change.
You wanted to lay 4ome mote about avetcage gtcade
conttcotz?
040 Average grade increases under the regulations
originally were approved by the Director of
Central Intelligence on recommendations from
PMCD through the Director of Personnel. PMCD's
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : r25
 71r Approved For Release 2003/ ~ A-RDP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
0
i
evaluation showed that in many cases the
average grade increases were justifiable
based on the organization. No average grade
increases proposals have thus far ever been
denied to my knowledge based on policy in
the Agency that greater control should be
exercised by operating components in holding
grade levels down.
How about .upergrade reductions?
050 In November 1972, the Director, no, he wasn't
Director then, the Executive Director-Comptroller,
Mr. Colby, in a memorandum to all components
indicated that all supergrade positions would
be reduced to ceiling. This was accomplished
in the following months for all components
except the Director's Office. The Director
25X1A indicated to who was the
Administrative Officer, that he should designate
positions to be cut back in order to cut the
1 ) ( ' T ' - Tn to its authorized ceiling but
25X1A I I was never able to identify
positions to be reduced so the DCI's Office
is the only one that has never been cut down
to ceiling. This includes all the independent
offices like the General Counsel, the I.G.
Staff, and the Comptroller's Office, etc.
What Ls #eit oU the do-ca.C2ed Manpower Contro.L
System that was begun 4o hope6uf..Cy in 1958?
070 The Position Management and Manpower Control
System which includes the so-called flexible
T/O, Staffing Complement, D.evelopment Comple-
ment, Career Service Grade Authorization, and
other various parts is still in existence.
The Development Complement does not have the
same emphasis that it had originally. The
Staffing Complement generally includes posi-
tions which are intended to cover total staff.
Little ceiling is normally allotted to the
Development Complement itself. The argument
of operating officials generally is that they
have a certain organization which is necessary
for them to perform their functions. Over a
period of time a number of these positions are
going to be vacant, but, they could not be
eliminated in order to transfer ceiling to the
Development Complement.
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : C,e -00314
25X
 Approved For Release 2003/01/E-DP81-00314R000600230001-5
?
The CSGA is used^to control promotions. It
is done by Career Service. The CSGA has all
the established positions shown as a ceiling
against which promotions can be made. It
shows heacr:.-oom by different levels based on
number of`positions in the Career Service
minus the employees at the different grade
levels slotted against these positions. As
far as the flexible T/0 is concerned, this
system continues. Employees can be slotted
to flexible positions without regard to the
total. No changes in the Staffing Complement
are necessary. In surveys of organizations
we attempt to determine what the planned
incumbency is for positions at different
grade levels. At that time changes are made
so that organization (T/0's) established
will closely fit the actual incumbency.
What pant did C2azz i6 ica-.Lon, PMCV that .iz..
p.2a y in the b ev enat pens o nne.2 pZanb o6 the
Sevent.ie.6?
0
40
090 The various programs developed in the Seventies,
the Annual Personnel Plan, the Personnel Develop-
ment Plan, and various others were developed
primarily by the Plans Staff, DD/Pers/PC, since
these plans were over-all personnel in nature
dealing primarily with employees.
What di6jenencez do you zee in the CIA and
others 6edena2 agenc.iea as nega4d.6 yours 6.ietd?
100 The personnel system which.has been followed in
the Agency for many years differs from systems
elsewhere in the government primarily in the
relationship between jobs and people. In this
Agency the grade of the position and the grade
of the individual very often have no close re-
lation, the individual can be underslotted or
overslotted, whereas in other Agencies employees
have to be in the same grade as their position
except for details up to 120 days. The problem
that has resulted from this situation in this
Agency is that the tendency has always been
to consider the employee as controling the
position level. There is not much respect
for the idea that an employee should be
performing a position ata particular grade
level before he gets the grade. He can be
promoted against the CSGA without regard to the
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : S - 1-00314 000600230001-5 25
 Approved For Release 2003/01/2
P81-00314R000600230001-5
Ruft
0
grade of his position and the responsibility.
The Career Service is presumably eventually
to find him a position at the new grade level.
How about some genenat nema)Lkz about the
adequacy o5 the contnotz in the Agency?
Wouk.d you welcome an outttide authonity
to 6t&engthen yours hand?
115 With regard to whether the controls existing
in the Agency are adequate to maintain reason-
able grade levels, I think this is something
that has been considered for many years. The
Agency was under the control of the Civil Service
Commission, (CSC), this was before 1949, probably
at the time of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG).
The Civil Service Commission itself decided to
exclude the Agency from its control, because
information on pos?it?ions was so highly classified
that in some cases Agency officials were not
willing to release it. This made it difficult
for CSC personnel to determine what jobs were
worth. One problem with the lack of outside
control is that it is difficult and illogical
for one to be judge and jury in his own cause,
which is what we have in this Agency. The
Director of Personnel or the Director of Central
Intelligence has the final word on what happens
with positions. In many cases position determina-
tions are over-ruled higher up by fiat. We have
all recognized this. It is recognized even in
the Office of the Director of Personnel. If you
had an external control of some sort, this might
substantiate initial determinations about grade
levels. Of course what might happen now with
any such,.-external controls put on the Agency
might be substantial down-grading. The Bureau
of the Budget of course exercises an external
control over average grade and directly over
supergrade ceiling. But this has little direct
effect on upgrading of positions because average
grade really does not control upgrading of posi-
tions. It is not a one for one thing. You can
increase a 13 to a 14 and reduce a 9 to an 8.
Your average grade comes out the same. External
controls exist in most other places in the govern-
ment and the reason is that it is difficult for
people to evaluate things themselves. There is
a tendency toward abuse of some sort, an abuse
of discretion, whether you want to call it this
or not. It is obvious in this Agency. There is
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : C may-00314R 00600230001-5
25
 Approved For Release 2003/01/2 P81-003148000600230001-5
S
little direct control over the grading system
by an objective authority. Our system, which
we try to operate in PMCD, is pretty much of
a recommending proposition. Down-grading is
resisted and up-grading is of course accepted.
We are in a position of being able to up-grade
or maintain the same levels sometimes but we
encounter strong resistance to any down-grading.
The overall result is upward escalation, no re-
view from outside which would show what we are
doing is right. Sometimes we don't even know
what is right ourselves. Things in some cases
have gotten so far off that we are inclined
when we cut something back to only cut back
one grade although if we did an objective
evaluation by comparison to outside sometimes
it might be two or three grades.
I J you had yawn choice, whe/.e do you think
the Cfazz-.ficatLon gunct..on 4hou2d be?
167 As to whether the classification function
should be in the Office of Personnel or at
some other organizational level such as the
Director's Office this question has arisen
in many Agencies. In most cases the classi-
fication function is in the Office of Personnel.
There have been agencies which had it as part
of a Management Office in the Director's Office
or at a level comparable to the Comptroller's
Office. This has been based on the idea that
it is a function which applies to all components,
of the Agency and should be able to exercise
completely objective controls uninfluenced by
the Director of Personnel or any other senior
official, operating official or other. I would
not want to propose any such thing as that myself
without a more detailed review. I think that
in the case of CIA since it is an Agency which
is not under any control from the outside there
would certainly be advantages to having the
function on a level comparable to the Comptroller
function. But it certainly is related to Personnel
in other ways. It is possible that the Office of
Personnel itself should be on a level with the
Comptroller's Office and not under a Deputy
Director for Administration as we have here. This
is also a system which has been tried in other
Approved For Release 2003/01/27 : A;-q#,;ll-OOJ14RO006002--40001--Ii
25
 'a
Approved For Release 2003/01/2 P81-00314R000600230001-5
0
Agencies but I am not in a position to say
what are the advantages and what are the
disadvantages. I would not want to say
anything without a more thorough review.
The whole point I think is, that regardless
of where a classification function is located
it is going to be subject to pressure, pressure
which is not much greater from the DDA office
than from the other areas of the Agency. The
real question is whether it is practical for
classification to operate without external
controls.
202 End of Tape 47
0
Approved For Release 2003/01 SEbfl fRDP81-003 4R000600230001-5
25