COMMENT ON MAG'S COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF REVIEW OF THE FITNESS REPORT PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R000600170030-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 10, 2001
• Sequence Number: 30
• Publication Date: April 12, 1973
• Content Type: MF

V
Approved For Release 2006/09/28: CIA-RR'82-00357R000600170030-8
12 April 1973
SUBJECT Comment on MAG's Comments on the Report of Review
of the Fitness Report Program
REFERENCES : (a) Memo to xDir-Compt fr D/Pers dtd 19 Dec 72,
subj: Review of Fitness Report Program
(b) Merv to ExDir-Comet fr HAG dtd 22 Mar 73, same
subject
1. In referent (b) MAG singles out two of the recommendations in
referent (4) for special attention.
a. SAG strongly recommends action on paragraphs 7c and 8g
which identify the need for training supervisors in the use of
the .tneas Report and. recommend that the Deputy Directors act
to provide instructions and guidance so as to beat use the system
to evaluate the job performance of employees within their areas
of jurisdiction.
COMMBT : We welcome 14AG' a agreement that more and better training
in the use of Fitness Reports is a major consideration for favor-
able action. However, in so doing MAG seems to have overlooked
the interrelationship between recommendations 8g and 8i in refer-
ent (a). The latter calls for action by the Director of Trai.nin
to provide instruction In job performance evaluation for all
supervisors including both the use of the Fitness Report form
and the development of skills in conducting Job performance evalu-
ation interviews. Implementation of the recommendation in para-
graph 81 in each Directorate would be in tune with the instructions
and guidance provided by Deputy Directors concerned in following;
the recomareendation in paragraph 8g. It would be a serious mistake
to ignore the interdependence between these actions by the Deputy
Directors and the Director of Training.
b. In commenting upon the recommendation in paragraph 85
i seems to construct and destroy a straw man in stating its
disagreement with the recommendation.
COMMENT: No doubt the problem is one of semantics. The intent
of the recommendation was to encourage the employee to record
Approved For Release 2006/09/28: CIA-R?P82-00357R000600170030-8
 Approved Fo w ~^
For Release 2006/09/28: CIA RDP82-00357R000600170030-8
whatever comment he believed would contribute to the record
of Es ~ob performance. Yet, it cannot be ignored that an em-
ployee's willingness and interest in doing so will be influenced
more by the prevailing managerial climate wherein he works than
by any form or published instructions. We disagree with MAG to
the extent that }4As3 would try to spell out the areas in which
employees are expected to comment, i.e., "this statement should
summarize the progress the employee feels he has made during
the reporting period to component end personnel goals including
accomplishments, training, such assignments and efforts he may
have made to correct personal deficiencies noted in a previous
report." It would be a mistake to attempt to pre-structure em-
ployees' comments in this fashion. They should feel free to
record whatever they consider important. on the other hand we
agree that comments in all of these areas would be useful if the
managerial climate encouraged and permitted employees to record
them sincerely.
2. We do not understand the thrust of MAG' a comment with regard
to the recommendation in paragraph 8e. Taken thus out of context it
would indeed appear to be of little value. However, the intent of the
recommendation seems quite clear when viewed in context in juxtaposi-
tion to paragraph 8d. The objective of these recommendations together
was to have Fitness Reports record the beat possible evaluations of
the job performance of the rated employee. They should not be fogged
by comment on the ability of the rater. The reviewing official's
comments should be concerned with the performance of the rated employee.
The evaluation of the supervisor as a rater belongs in his Fitness
Report and not in those of his subordinates.
3. Paragraphs is and 5 in referent (b) are indeed disturbing
because they suggest that NAG has missed the nor thrust of the dis-
cussion and principal recomewadations in referent (a). Quite simply,
the message is that the evaluation of an employee's productivity and
performance in his current assignment is quite different from evalu-
ations of the employee (comparative or otherwise) for other purposes
such as promotion, selection out, etc. There is nothi in the volu-
minous literature on experience with employee evaluation system to
indicate that such diverse objectives can be pursued effectively and
simultaneously through a single evaluation system. The thrust in
referent (a) is that the Fitness Report be used to record periodic
evaluations of employees' productivity and performance in their current
assignments. It recommends that the Deputy Directors be We responsible
for provtding guidance in developing and administering systems for
appraising such (other) factors as promotability and career potential"
of the employees "under their jurisdiction." We are convinced that
there is no short cut, such as MG appears to be seeking, to cover
Approved For Release 2006/09/28: CIA-RDP82-003578000600170030-8 s
 Approved For Release 20 f092$C~A 00357R000600170030-8
these different management objectives in a single evaluation system.
in the last sentence in paragraph 5 of referent (b) KAG seems only
reluctantly to recognize the possible alternative of dealing with
evaluations of potential in systems other than the Fitness Report.
In referent (a) we tried to convey the message that the Agency has
no other viable choice.
Chief, Review f
Distribution:
Orig & 1 - Adse
2 - C/Review Staff
OP/P&C/RS :dbw (12 Apr 73)
Approved For Release 2006/09/28: CIA-R?P82-00357R000600170030-8