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: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490001-2.pdf125.12 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