COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING SEVENTH MEETING 16 SEPTEMBER 1983
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
U
Document Page Count:
3
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
June 2, 2008
Sequence Number:
1
Case Number:
Publication Date:
September 16, 1983
Content Type:
REPORT
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2.pdf | 125.12 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490001-2
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490001-2
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2
^r~
?? ".
''Z7
Comparative Evaluation Descriptor Review
Working Group Meeting
Seventh Meeting
16 September 1983
Attending:
DCI Representative
DDA "
DDI "
DDO If
OP Representative
and Review Coor-
dinator
1. This was the Working Group's shortest meeting resulting primarily from
the fact that discussion tended to center on the affirmation of readily
identified positions to be taken on the two major Agenda items.
2. On the question of the exclusion of SIS officers from being placed in
a Descriptor Category the Group opted to make that recommendation to
management. The rationale for SIS exclusion was based primarily on the
opinion that while Career Services may refer to Descriptor placements these
references had no great impact on career decisions. Further, the Group
believes that in evaluating/ranking SISers for Performance Awards and
Stipends, SIS step increases and the Senior Officer Development Program the
value of additional categorization was marginal. This was further supported
by the belief that upon promotion to the SIS level officers have clearly
demonstrated significant potential and are considered to have established
themselves as senior managers. It was also believed that assignments to
higher levels within the SIS are somewhat personalized, i.e., specific skills,
personality traits may be required for one job over another and any reference
to Descriptor Category is much less important than at mid-grade and journey
levels where overall potential determinations are critical. All agreed,
however, that background for a counseling mechanism for SIS officers must be
provided, and that such exists in the AWP statements of performance standards
and PAR ratings on how established standards are accomplished. The Group
agreed to recommend elimination of the Descriptor for SISers in view of the
existence of other preferable existing devices.
3. The next item was a discussion of a similar discontinuation of
Descriptor placement for professional and technical employees GS-10/11 and
below (the issue of the cessation of mandatory panel evaluation for this group
was based on a previous misunderstanding; the Group never had such an
intention). It is the position of the Group that a recommendation be made to
also eliminate mandatory assignment of Descriptors for these employees.
Y' -t
k7aa;
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2
Rationale focused on the arguement that attempting to seriously assess
potential at that usually relatively early career stage is somewhat
meaningless. That opinion is based on the idea that often the employee is too
new and there are too few PARs on which to base judgment. The Group believes
that a prediction of the ability to advance to journey level is the first
hurdle and this is determined by performance-levels. The successful performer
is thus assessed to have the ability to reach journey level while the poor
performer does (or should) not. The achievement of journey level or just
below is the initial critical juncture for assessment of ability to advance to
positions of greater responsibility which entail managerial responsibility.
4. In summary, the Group is of the opinion that while all employees
should continue to be evaluated each year as provided by the Promotion
Precepts the system should be modified to require that only employees in
grades GS-10 through GS-15 be subject to assignment to a Descriptor Category.
No other problems requiring resolution were identified by the Group.
5. The Group expressed appreciation for receiving summaries of the Career
Service draft proposals for revision in the format provided. The undersigned
stated that if there are no serious objections to the final draft (to be
provided to members in early November) it will be forwarded to D/OP; if
problems do arise it would necessitate one additional meeting to settle the
issue(s). The undersigned thanked the members for their cooperation in
assisting OP achieve the potential revision to the current system.
STAT
~ ' `'3 P75i~a~ n ^ yEJ~pyPAE S~YYS#Iw
P. ~6~ A ~,1 ,',R 6a A l
'I f
iu l:99 775 71 ty Ny
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2