EXCECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND THE TRAINING FUNCTION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00896R000100300022-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 27, 2001
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: August 25, 1972
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2M/07/12: 4 f jAjR0001003M622-1
25 August 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Training
SUBJECT : Executive Development Program and the
Training Function
REFERENCE : (a) Memo dtd 9 Aug 72 to D/Pers from
C/Plans Staff/OP, "Training and
Personnel Development"
(b) Draft Memo dtd 11 Aug 72 to Deputy
Directors, "Personnel Development
Program"
Having reviewed the guidelines established by the Civil Service
Commission and the Office of Management and Budget for an executive
development program in the Federal Service, and studied the "Personnel
Development Program" proposed for the Agency in Reference (b), it
seems to me that we are on the right track conceptually. From the
practicable standpoint, however, I question the wisdom of inaugurating
an essentially unproven program on a crash, massive basis throughout
the Agency. To do so would ignore a number of factors crucial to the
success of any personnel development program--the diverse structure
and functions of the Agency; the changing requirements placed upon
us by the ebb and flow of international events; and today's fund of
knowledge about organizational development.
In order that these observations not be construed as opposition to
a systematic personnel development program, nor be dismissed as
founded in vague generalities, I should like to present some specific
thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal, couched
within the framework of the five guidelines established by CSC/OMB.
CLASSIFIED
U SC~(I ~. lam) G
VV AUICAIATIC,i--_ ---
Approved For Release 2001/07/ cr-89 R00010030gp
(unless imposs)bie, assert cite or event)
 Approved For Release 2GGA/07/12 : CIA-F ri b 1003MO22-1
.y 4.1
1. The necessity of high- levelor anizational commitment*,
Past efforts to implement systematic personnel development pro-
grams on any notable scale in this Agency failed precisely because
they lacked this commitment and the organizational discipline to
accompany it. This is more than a guideline. It is an absolute
requisite, not just in the first instance, but more importantly in
the longer term when initial enthusiasm and interest at all levels
can easily give way to short-term personnel requirements and
other "realities". One need only look to the history of the mid-
1960s and our experience with the Career Training Program and
the Midcareer Executive Development Program. Both received
high-level endorsements as long-term personnel development
programs, but their developmental aspects ceased almost immedi-
ately following formal training because operating components
were unable or unwilling for a variety of reasons to implement
them.
The establishment of an executive development program
as high-level policy in the Agency is an excellent beginning, but
the simple submission of an annual report by the several career
services does not by itself constitute the kind of discipline needed
to assure effective implementation. I suggest that a mechanism
other than the Executive Committee (i.e.. the Deputy Directors,
a very busy group of men indeed) is needed to monitor and assure
implementation and progress.
2. The necessity of a developmental plan: Recognizing we are
obligated to submit to the Civil Service Commission by 30 September
a report on an Agency executive development plan, I nevertheless
am concerned that the plan, accomplished in haste against a short
deadline, will not be subjected to the critical study and testing
needed before significant aspects of it are put in motion. The
planned professional development of our middle and senior level
officers certainly is a far reaching issue and false steps ;.nuld be
most costly.
To begin with, the magnitude of the approach within the
timetable suggested is overwhelming. The schedule calls for the
review by 31 December 1972 of the records of all officers in grades
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-IRMP.,81'41 b6R000100300022-1
 Approved For Release 2004/07/12: ClU>I0Q00100301f022-1
GS-11 through -17 and the compilation of plans for developmental
assignments and training for a considerable though unspecified
number of them. Such plans would not be limited to those judged
to have executive potential. but would involve the development
of officers on a broader scale. There are some -officer s
in this range, distributed among approximately 25 Career Services.
The task is enormous and certainly not capable of accomplish-
ment within the timetable proposed.
More basically, however, I question whether or not such
detailed personnel planning is desirable, let alone possible, in
our Agency. There are numerous variables and contingencies in
the intelligence profession which would drastically change the
best conceived developmental plans. I believe we could, in a
more liberal time frame, devise individual developmental plans,
as proposed, but I think a lot of the effort would be wasted as
unexpected crises, demands for new skills, and new organizational
programs occur. In my opinion the proposal is too ambitious,
complex, and detailed to become a viable program.
It is also untested and unproven. It is being recommended
that the Agency put all its effort into this single approach. If it
is not the right approach, it is a mistake on a gigantic scale and
we would still be faced with developing an alternative. I believe
we ought to begin more modestly with several pilot projects in
various components and only after better knowledge about possible
techniques is achieved by those required to implement the develop-
mental programs, i. e., members of Career Service Boards and
unit supervisors.
One of the matters which really bothers me about this pro-
posal is the problem of identifying officers with executive potential.
The proposal calls upon the Career Services to do this, but does
not suggest how it might be done. This entire effort presumably
is being undertaken to introduce a "change" element into the picture,
to enable Federal agencies to improve their capabilities for se-
lecting and developing their executive personnel. The program
would rely heavily on management training, and properly so, but
it does not come to grips with the question of identifying officers
25X9
ulk17 1 L
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP81-00896R000100300022-1
 Approved For Release 20/07/12: CIA- KIIOUXIA
RW 0.10030ft22-1
who would be the best subjects for such training. We have already
made the point in an earlier memorandum on this question that
to give management training to a large body of officers on the
premise that somewhere among them we will hit the future mana-
gers is a waste of both personnel and training assets.
I strongly suggest that further work is needed on the matter
of identifying officers with executive potential, specifying at what
stage(s) of their careers this should be done and by what possible
methods. I am proposing, later in this paper, some modification
of our own training in the management field to take account of this
need within the organization. Here I would only suggest that we
capitalize on the experiences of some other organizations in this
respect, among them the Internal Revenue Service, the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, and the Department of Labor.
I also believe that the Psychological Services Staff of the Office
of Medical Services is examining this question of whether or not
you can, in fact, spot personnel with high promise as managers.
3. Stress mobili in develo went pro .rams: The question
of rotating personnel among the Directorates is complicated and
not susceptible to treatment here. I would point out, however,
that OTR's forthcoming "Profile of Courses" includes the core
program, which is designed to expand the students' knowledge of
Agency responsibilities, problems, and processes, and the general
training category directed specifically at training personnel in
skills for Agencywide application. As such, they provide a train-
ing dimension to an officer rotation program.
4. Use training resources: In general, I believe that our
'Profile of ursees"is highly compatible with a systematic pro-
gram for professional development, relating not only to middle
and senior level officers, but to junior officers as well. The
Profile has been described fully in earlier memoranda on the
subject of training and personnel development and I think needs
no further elaboration here.
I would propose, however, some modications in our training
to dovetail more closely with executive development. First of
all, insertion into the Intelligence and World Affairs Course of
Approved For Release 2001/0748) l > Jk0896R000100300022-1
 CO FIDE II U
Approved For Release 20Vt/07/12 : CIA-R?P81-00896R00010030 022-1
introductory material related to information science and the man-
agement of one$ s own work flow is a proper beginning. The
Managerial Grid as a sequel within the first three to five years
of employment is also sound. At the next step, however, I suggest
a modification in the core program having to do with the Funda-
mentals of Supervision and Management. This would require a
more precise statement of the student body for whom the course
is intended. At the moment, it is designed for "supervisors and
prospective supervisors at all levels of the Agency". A member
of the Management Training Faculty has suggested. wisely I think,
that all first-line supervisors be required to take the course either
shortly before or shortly after being appointed to such position.
This, of course, would require all the organizational discipline
the Agency can muster to assure compliance. At the moment,
the course enrollment includes personnel at various levels and
differing responsibilities. While such a "mix" has proved stimu-
lating to participants, its contribution to organizational development
in any systematic sense is questionable.
Next, because the Personnel Development Program seems
to be concentrating so heavily on officers at the level of GS-13
and above, I recommend we consider offering the Midcareer Course
to GS-13s only, eliminating both -12s and 14e. Please note that I
am not recommending enrollment be limited to GS-13s designated
for executive development. It should include highly-regarded
officers who are not necessarily potential executives. By limit-
ing enrollment to GS-13s, I believe we can practice greater pre-
cision and discipline in our own contribution to personnel develop-
ment at what is being identified as a key crossover grade In the
program.
Further, I suggest that we seriously consider establishing
a course for branch chiefs, nominees and recent appointees, which
would provide training on as close an applied basis as possible.
The Managerial Grid should be a minimum prepequisite for enroll-
ment in the course. Course content should be developed following
intensive study of the generic responsibilities and training needs
of branch chiefs throughout the Agency, but certainly would include
situational problems and case studies. The grade levels of
`A
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 :- '' -`$96R000100300022-1
 Approved For Release 20A4/07/12 : CIA-R 0030122-1
0
enrolled officers probably would be GS-15, in the case of the
Clandestine Service, and GS-14 for the rest of the Agency. Again,
organizational discipline would be needed to assure that such
officers actually receive this training. The course, I believe,
should be separate from the Midcareer Course.
At the moment, OTR has a management training program
for senior officers (GS-15/18) enrolled in the Senior Seminar.
This is a group of 25-30 officers annually. Under development is
a Leadership Conference for very senior officers to be designated
by the Executive Director-Comptroller. There is, however, a
large body of officers, grades GS-14/17 roughly, who are either
occupying or headed for managerial positions who will not have
access to either of these programs for a considerable period of
time, if at all. The group includes, for example, most of the
more than 1, 000 graduates of the Midcareer Course and a still
larger number of their peers who have not taken that course.
Here,. I think, is a real training gap we ought to try to
close if we can develop the resources. There are specific courses
which officers in this, as well as other categories, can take,
including the new Information Science series and the Budget
Process. ess. But it would seem they also require a program empha-
sizing the whole range of management theory and techniques that
junior and middle level officers, identified as potential executives,
will be receiving on a more systematic basis throughout their
careers. I would not see a program for these senior officers
as a continuing effort necessarily because, with the evolution
of time and experience the officers selected and trained in the
branch chief's program, the need would gradually be eliminated.
The management training program appropriate for these officers
should be similar to the Leadership Conference now being planned
for "our most senior officers", although less high-powered.
The necessity of an evaluation program: No proposal has
been submitted as yet in response to this guideline, but Mr. Colby
of course has already recommended that, at the very least, there
be a post-training audit to determine if there is a correlation
between training and an officer's performance on-the-job and
his advancement. There are many aspects of a personnel develop-
ment program which would have to be evaluated, in addition to the
Approved For Release 2001/07/1 l - I R$1 pQ9 96R000100300022-1
 Approved For Release 2004/07/12 : Cl
0010030M22-1
training aspects, including the means for identifying officers with
executive potential; the degree to which developmental plans have
actually been implemented; and, above all, whether this approach
or some alternative(s) would be more effective.
Finally, despite all our earlier recommendations, there is not with-
in the proposal any raising of the problem of increasing the effectiveness
of the component training officer as part of this entire process. I con-
tinue to believe that his being selected on an enlightened basis, taking
account of his thorough knowledge of functional expertise and training
opportunities, is critically important. His participation in the personnel
planning and development function is equally important.
When one comes right down to it, the proposal calls upon the career
services to initiate a broad program of personnel planning and develop-
ment without providing to them very much practical assistance in the
way of managerial techniques and tools to do the job. I think that a
great deal more careful thought--and a willingness to proceed in stages
with more modest objectives--are dictated.
25X1A
Special Assistant
for
Curriculum Development
L ` Ss? t~ F '1 3 } P'
Approved For Release 2001/07/.ii~C4iAP81+896R000100300022-1