COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING FOURTH MEETING 22 JUNE 1983
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490003-0
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
U
Document Page Count:
2
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
June 2, 2008
Sequence Number:
3
Case Number:
Publication Date:
June 22, 1983
Content Type:
REPORT
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490003-0.pdf | 101.87 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490003-0
46 "U'111111011WIYE 1111MIALliSt UNLY
Comparative Evaluation Descriptor Review
Working Group Meeting
Fourth Meeting
Attending:
DDA Representative -
DDI
DDO
DDS&T
OP Representative -
and Review Coor-
dinator
1. The members were reminded of our next two scheduled meetings set for
29 June and 13 July; each will be at 1 p.m. with room to be announced. The
Agenda for this meeting had called for addressing the major question of the
utility of the current system and perhaps reviewing the related issues of
performance/potential balance, the desirability of precise/flexible wording
and the appropriate number of categories. The major issue was, for the most
part, settled through use of"a pro and con format and a methodology for
deciding the number of categories was determined.
2. The meeting began with the undersigned asking for a continuation of
the discussion of the current system's assets and liabilities through use of a
pro-con summary format. The major points expressed were:
? serves as a useful counseling mechanism
? assists in refining numerical rankings by putting them into
perspective (e.g., an employee not ranked near the top can see
prospect of continued advancement if placed in Category II)
? serves as a good device for deciding who gets or needs certain types
of training
? helps focus on need for managerial action - either positive or remedial
? is a relatively simple system understandable to both management and
the employee
? a good system which can be enhanced through use of narrative comments
for each employee
STAT
: ~NIST iiT1VF I TP M.' ! 1Icr n 9 v
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490003-0
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490003-0
U INISTRATIVE INTER USE ONLY
? Category III reidentified as the major problem because its narrative
(and current application) allows the inclusion of too great a variety
of employee - those with potential, those who probably do not have
potential and the employee who would be better placed in Category IV
? need for more positive wording in Category III (whether part of four or
five-tier system).
3. During the discussion some important related points were made:
? any revised system should better define degrees of potential (e.g.,
Category III, in a?five-tier system, should describe average potential)
part of problem with current system lies with Board/Panel members and
management not. properly exercising their responsibility. There are
good and valid reasons to be placed in Categories III or IV but failure
to make tough decisions often has employees placed one level higher
than they should
? the final report on this issue should contain a remark about the
importance of management meeting its responsibilities and that the
revised system will not work any better without same.
4. The representatives were asked to prepare by 13 July draft rewordings
or revisions of -the'current system which may range from changes of words and
sentences in the four-tier system to more significant revisions which could
also involve change in the number of categories. This draft would then also
serve as the representative's vote for the suggested number of categories
which now appears to be split among a three, four or five-tier system; there
is no current support for six (or more) categories.
STAT
111TI"f1 i U 1 ttrr n$H wr
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490003-0