COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING FIFTH MEETING 29 JUNE 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490002-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 23, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490002-1
?AUMIN inAI1Yt IMMtH1AL ;t W L1
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW
WORKING GROUP MEETING
Fifth Meeting
29 June 1983
Attending:
DCI--Representative -
DDA -
DDO
OP Representative -
and Review
Coordinator
1. The first agenda item discussed was the question of whether there
should be an attempt to achieve a precise or flexible narrative within any
rewritten category. The initial opinion expressed a vote for a precise set of
words which, it was believed, would lead to better placement of the evaluated
employee. The next representative, while not disagreeing that precision
should be the goal, raised the question of whether very precise wording would
lead to "legalism" or legalistic approaches to counselling. Another member
suggested that precise wording should be the goal and that such wording would
tie in well with an evaluation system which was supplemented with a written
narrative describing each employee's performance and potential. It was
further suggested that this would also tie in with a three tier system and
actually argue for a three tier system. The point was made that there are
usually two different reasons for an employee being described as having no
potential; the first could be described as significant poor performance,
particularly over a longer period of time, while on the other hand it could
also involve the strong performer who may not have managerial potential or who
could be a specialist incapable or undesirous of advancing to something else.
Other members saw these points as arguing for at least four categories so that
those lacking potential could be separated out; the good performer lacking
potential being placed in one category with the poor performer in the bottom
category. This led to good exchange among all members with additional points
being expressed for the need to provide appropriate gradations of potential
and for perhaps a system which would rate an employee on performance and
potential and not necessarily on the same level. Regarding the latter (using
a five-tier system) an employee could be rated in the top category on
performance -- 6 and 7 PAR ratings -- but in the next to last category for
potential because, e.g., the employee was a GS-14 with limited managerial
experience/potential in a sub-group with only managerial type positions at
GS-15 and above.
AD INISTRATI 'E a TEF-NA1 USE ONLY
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490002-1
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490002-1
ADMINISTRATIVE IHTERNAI. E ONLY
2. All of the above points led the members to conclude that the
categories would be better if the narrative was precise. It was stated that
the goal in having such a system was that of defining the employee or getting
to know the employee better. The point was made that the primary reason for
utilizing such a system was the identification to management the best
employees it had to undertake the type tasks requiring the greatest abilities
and potential. The last point led to a remark regarding the benefit of simply
making that recommendation to management, i.e., identify only the best for
fastest advancement and do not categorize anyone else. This was referred to
as a two-tier system; however, the poorest performers in the larger group
point to a need for their distinction and, in effect, a third group.
3. On the question of an appropriate balance between performance and
potential there was reference again to the need for distinction between the
two and perhaps a need for separate ratings. The members were reminded that
their draft narratives could suggest such distinction. Regarding the issue of
need for more emphasis on career actions to be suggested it was concluded that
this issue was related to the question on precision and that the degree of
detail on career actions would differ depending on category; draft narratives
could reflect members thoughts on this issue.
4. For the question on a uniform flow of information in each category it
was decided to simply "keep this in mind" when drafting narrative changes. On
the issue of whether it would be better to focus on the problem performers in
the last category, while ignoring potential, due to performance deficiencies
being the main problem, the members decided in the affirmative.
5. The members were reminded that the suggested draft narratives were due
by 13 July; if finished earlier they could be forwarded to OP/P&PS or brought
to the meeting scheduled for 13 July.
STAT
t ~i dyrjg ~j ` q~ 2
a r 4~ Y 0: ?r!~
(~,ii 4011NI ~ / , a Per R ~ c ! li
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490002-1