REVIEW OF THE FITNESS REPORT PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 28, 2006
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: December 19, 1972
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006/1 U2Z . CIA-RDP82-003578000600170024-5
DEC 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Director-Comptroller
THROUGH . Deputy Director for Support
SUBJECT Review of the Fitness Report Program
REFERENCE . Memo for D/Pers fr ExDir-Compt dtd 7 Jun 72, subj:
Fitness Reports
1. This memorandum is in response to your request for a comprehensive
review of the Fitness Report Program in terms of current Agency needs and
the general direction of trends in performance evaluation elsewhere. As
background, we screened recent publications on performance evaluation; we
reviewed current trends and practices in performance evaluation elsewhere
in the Federal Government and in the private sector; and we solicited comment
from a variety of knowledgeable sources within the Agency.
2. The Agency is exempt from the Performance Rating Act which governs
performance evaluation in the Federal service generally and, therefore, has
been free to develop an evaluation system suited to its own needs. The
recently published History of Fitness Reporting in CIA (Appendix) records
the continuous attention which top management has given to the systematic
evaluation of the performance of Agency employees. It details about a
dozen significant changes in the system during the past twenty years. These
include a variety of approaches ranging from the early production of highly
structured records of the personality characteristics of employees to more
recent emphasis on the exchange of performance information between employees
and their supervisors as a stimulus to motivation and productivity. Such
changes in program emphasis and record format were not imposed by "personnel
experts" but evolved through the direct interest and efforts of the Agency's
most senior managers. Their deliberations led them to face most of the
problems which are inherent in designing systems of performance evaluation.
For example, whether to "show" or "not show" employees their ratings was a
recurring issue until 1962 when that argument ended with the introduction
of a requirement that the employee certify his having seen his Fitness
Report. This was recognition that the form simply could not convey its
message to employees otherwise. In spite of shifts in their interest,
senior Agency officials have never doubted the need for an Agency-wide
system to record evaluations of individual performance. The most recent
changes in the Fitness Report were developed and approved by the Deputy
Directors and the Executive Director-Comptroller in July 1969.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170 24-5
 3. Publications on performance evaluation during the last ten years
reveal little that is new except for work in the area of "organization de-
velopment," the reappearance of some experimentation with "client-centered"
procedures in several school systems, and reaffirmation of the difficulties
and potential negative influence which are inherent in performance rating
systems. The literature also highlights certain characteristics which are
typical of performance evaluation systems in general.
a. Performance rating systems usually fail to produce the
results which management anticipates when the systems are designed.
b. There is no sound evidence that those typical systems
wherein supervisors "rate" their subordinates actually contribute
appreciably toward improved performance.
e. There is considerable opinion that such systems may retard
the development and productivity of a work force. They can squelch
initiative and creativity by stressing the need for subordinates to
act and be judged in response to specific direction and control by
their supervisors. For example, research conducted in the General
Electric Company several years ago emphasized the possible negative
effect of performance interviews and the adverse influence of negative
criticism on productivity. Fortunately, researchers also conclude
that performance interviewing techniques can be taught so as to mini-
mize these adverse effects.
d. Management which is oriented toward "organization development"
focuses attention on the quality of the working climate and on the
interrelationships among members of a work group as they contribute
toward the productive efforts of the group as a whole. Open, con-
structive criticism and a sharing of feelings of frustration or dis-
pleasure are encouraged in the day-to-day interaction among group
members. Instead of telling subordinates what is expected of them
individually, the leader in such a group tries to synthesize and,
comment on the interaction of significant activities of group members
as they relate to the accomplishment of group objectives.
e. Basic considerations of purpose are also essential to the
design of a performance evaluation system.
(1) Is it intended that the system will develop official
records of individual performance for use in comparison with the
performance records of others? If so, the system is necessarily
"locked in" in terms of a need for some degree of standardization
in the timing and format of such records.
(2) Is the system supposed to contribute to the development
of individuals by "telling them where they stand" in relation to
"what is expected of them?" If so, the record must be made
I
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170024-5
 available to the individual employees concerned. This will
also tend to limit the record content to only that which the
rater is willing for the employee to see.
(3) Care must be taken that the overall system is not de-
signed in a way to deter employee motivation. For example,
rating systems which involve the statistical concept of "average"
automatically and continuously label much of the group population
as being "below average." "Average" and "below average" labels
are offensive and disruptive, to most healthy members of our
culture. Employees so labeled are usually unable to accept
these designations and are apt to react with resentment or an
attitude of no confidence in the validity of the evaluation
system. Although the application of such statistical terms
may seem attractive to management, their net value is doubtful
because they are destructive to the self-esteem and motivation
of a large percentage of the members of a work group.
4. Action is pending within the Government to improve supervisor-
employee communication on performance while reducing the extent of control
by the Civil Service Commission and allowing Federal agencies greater free-
dom in designing performance evaluation systems to meet their particular
needs. In March 1972 the Department of the Army issued new instructions
clarifying its "intent to require that an employee be permitted to review
his Employee Record" which includes annual performance ratings. The Depart-
ment of State is also introducing changes to free up the Foreign Service
Rating System.
a. The Performance Rating chapter of the Federal Personnel
Manual is being rewritten and retitled "Performance Review." This
new title reflects the current emphasis that performance evaluation
is an on-going process of which the preparation of performance ratings
is only a minor part. Generally the revised chapter will present
"guidelines" rather than "requirements" for performance evaluation
systems.
(1) Statutory Appeal Boards will be dropped from the new
chapter, and Appeal Boards will be formed henceforth ad hoc as
needed.
(2) The time requirements on ratings will be removed. The
present Federal System requires annual ratings for employees
below grade GS-11 and ratings each 18 months for employees
grade GS-11 and above. Under the revised chapter each agency
will be free to set its on time limits and could take the
course that "your performance evaluation remains the same as
when last reported to you until you hear differently." This
change is also consistent with the overall philosophy that
evaluation is a continuing process.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5I
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5
FWr .m~ia,?GdEu
(3) The revised chapter will still require a minimum of
three rating levels (Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, and Out-
standing); and, as now, agencies will have the option of adding
one additional rating level between Satisfactory and Outstanding.
It will also continue to require that employees be rated "with-
out any requirement that ratings conform to a predetermined
distribution and without any controls that prevent fair appraisal
oftperformance in relation to performance requirements."
(4) If forms are used in the rating process, the forms will
still have to be a part of the agency's official performance
rating record and be available for inspection by the employee
rated. It will also continue to require a 90-day prior warning
and a reasonable opportunity for an employee to demonstrate
"Satisfactory" performance before he may be rated "Unsatis-
factory."
b. Effective 25 February 1972 the Foreign Affairs Manual was
amended to require that the rated officer, after reviewing the com-
pleted report and the reviewing officer's comments, append a statement
"Certifying that the rating officer discussed the performance and the
report...with the rated officer and commenting on the extent to which
adequate goals or standards for the rated officer's performance had
been established. The rated officer may rebut the evaluation-and
comment on its contents if CJ chooses." This spring we were also
advised that responsible planning officers in the Department were
contemplating changes in the evaluation system which would have to
be worked out in coordination with the three employee organizations
which represent foreign service personnel. Action was under con-
sideration to:
(1) Add a section for "self evaluation" which would call
for employees' self appraisals and ask that they record their
"hopes and ambitions" and express their interests in training,
and how they feel about their work, their superiors, and their
career prospects.
(2) Discontinue the numerical ratings which have been found
to be of little real use in practice.
(3) Discontinue those parts of the current system which
deal with potential and invite promotion recommendations. This
has been found to stimulate excessive recommendations and to
contribute little of significant benefit to management.
(4) Work overall toward a "freer" format with fewer boxes
to restrict the rater's responses and allowing him to determine
the order and manner in which narrative comment on significant
aspects of performance are presented.
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28 :.CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5
Consideration of these issues is still underway. In July 1972 the Director
General of the Foreign Service reported,..."Disparate opinions still exist
on what the model rating form should be. The self appraisal concept was
the single most controversial feature of the proposal with the overwhelming
majority of comment being negative for a wide variety of reasons-Another
feature which elicited general comment was goal-setting. ...Reaction was
understandably mixed. Some find goal-setting impractical and unrealistic
while others consider it to have useful potential if properly applied...
These responses mirror with great consistency the reaction we have received
here in our soundings in the Department and underline the complete lack of
consensus on the issue. Clearly we have much more work to do to develop
an acceptable form." It is difficult to foresee the outcome of these de-
liberations which involve the viewpoints and political interests of several
organized groups.
5. Information concerning practices in the private sector was obtained
through our referral by the Civil Service Commission to a researcher who is
conducting a current study of these practices for another agency. Tab C,
I through VII, describes performance appraisal systems in use by those indus-
trial concerns which responded to his request for information. In summary:
a. The performance appraisal systems in all seven companies
are essentially results-oriented. That is, they are concerned
primarily with the productive effect of job performance as opposed
to the assessment of personality characteristics of the individuals
concerned. In all cases the appraisal systems are designed to
include the supervisor's opinion concerning the employee's strengths
and weaknesses. Most systems also invite comments on training or
experience which would enhance the employee's qualifications and
career development.
b. Four of the seven companies use a single format to record
performance appraisals throughout their organization. Three of the
companies use different formats in their various components. For
example, there is no "company-approved" system or format for such
appraisals at General Electric where each of the company's operating
components develop their own appraisal procedures and instruments.
c. The appraisal formats range from the very simple to the very
complex and the frequency of the preparation of formal evaluations
varies from six months to two years.
d. All seven companies use a narrative appraisal instrument.
Six companies supplement these narrative appraisals with evaluations
based upon some rating scale. Generally both the narrative cement
and the ratings are job-related and cover only such personality
factors as are related directly to the individual's performance in
his present job. For instance, Texas Instruments specifies that
supervisors may evaluate such factors as "technical competence,
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5 ,
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170024-5
coTnmrri_tment to organizational objectives, ability to motivate people,
acceptance and responsiveness to decisions..." when they are job-
related.
e. The employees concerned see their recorded performance ap-
praisals in four of the systems described (General Electric, IBM,
Texas Instruments, and Western Electric). Employees are not shown
their appraisals in the other three systems which in each case
supplement the performance appraisal with additional evaluations
of such factors as potential and promotability.
6. Within the Agency we gathered a wide range of comments and sug-
gestions reflecting a variety of experience with the Fitness Report Program.
It includes reports from the MAG and JAP groups, the viewpoints expressed
by the members of two panels of experienced career personnel officers, the
consensus of attendees at performance evaluation seminars as reported by
the OTR officer who conducts them, a report of the results of deliberations
by the Clandestine Service Personnel Management Committee, a current pro-
posal by the Executive Director of NPIC, and some pertinent comments of
individual employees and retirees which came to our attention in the course
of this review. Pertinent background documents are attached as Tabs A
through E. As one would expect, there is no unanimity among these expres-
sions; however, there is a significant consensus in certain important areas
of opinion.
a. The Agency has a considerable investment in the Fitness
Report system and there is no evidence of general concern or dis-
satisfaction with the present Fitness Report Form per se, although
minor refinements were suggested which were designed to improve
communications and to increase employees' participation in the
evaluation process.
b. There is general agreement on the advantage of using one
format to record performance evaluations throughout the Agency.
c. There is little opinion that a form can be designed which
would serve the Agency's purpose more effectively than the current
Fitness Report. -
d. I:n general, adverse criticisms are directed toward various
shortcomings in the areas of career planning, career counseling,
and career development and not toward the Fitness Report as a
mechanism for performance evaluation.
e. There is considerable opinion that use of the current Fit-
ness Report can be adapted as necessary to suit differences in the
requirements for performance evaluation in various parts of the
Agency.
f. A clear majority feel that the Agency rating system should
be focused on performance evaluation and not upon appraisals of
L
Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170024-5 I
 Approved For Release 2006/11/28: CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170024-5
pn?tential. In this connection it is recognized that the several
-areer services use a variety of evaluative techniques to suit other
,nagement objectives which involve competitive comparisons of
cinployees' potential. The results of such appraisals are generally
n