COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING THIRD MEETING 25 MAY 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490004-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 25, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490004-9
7-....,!lH1. 1f1&,.3U(UfiL, U- .r- LI
Comparative Evaluation Descriptor Review
Working Group Meeting
Third Meeting
25 May 1983
Attending:
DCI Representative -
DDA
DDI
DDO
DDS&T " -
OP Representative -
and Review Coor-
dinator
1. The meeting began with an attempt to identify those words and phrases
in the Descriptors that are most troublesome. The aim was to gain a consensus
prior to eliminating or finding a substitute for the problem situation.
Rather than words or phrases Category III was reidentified as a major
obstacle. One member stated that the word category was a problem in itself,
i.e., there are numerous other areas in which the word is used: occupational
category,, functional category in DDO, Categories A, B and C for overseas pay
eligibility, etc. While admittedly confusing no one had a substitute word;
;.one could later be recommended if offered and agreed upon. The belief that
Category III was too vague was expressed and that while this may cause a
problem for most managers and panel members it was stated that some actually
prefer the ambiguity as it provides for greater flexibility. The issue of
performance/potential and the weight given each was again mentioned
particularly with regard to the fact that the first three categories emphasize
potential and the fourth places emphasis on performance problems. The opinion
was expressed about panel members and management knowing pretty much who and
what they are dealing with in a Category I or II assignee but that not being
so with a Category III employee. It appears that presently three types of
employees may be placed in Category III: a) employees who barely survived
placement in Category IV, b) those doing a good job and possibly having growth
potential and c) those about whom some uncertainty has been expressed. The
last point caused the undersigned to mention question I J., i.e., (Do we need
a formal "limbo" category which would have panels defer categorical judgment
until recently promoted/hired employees have established a track record at the
current grade or officially advise panels of availability of that option?).
Various members explained how their Career Services respond to situations for
which a legitimate reason exists for such deferrals and each appeared to be
satisfactorily meeting their needs. It was therefore decided to not recommend
the establishment of a formal mechanism but to continue to allow Career
Services to decide this issue individually.
STAT
tiNMAEVE
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490004-9
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490004-9
1111 C 1 AL UI UNLY
2. In returning to the issue of the problems of Category III the
membership discussed the need to have wording for this category appear more
positive so that the benefits normally provided by counseling are not
negated. While it was agreed that Category III needed to be changed no
agreement was reached on the methodology, i.e., expansion to five cate12ories,
the simple rewording or other alternatives.
3. At this point the question of the use and meaning of the categories was
raised along with the question of whether or not there was need for the
categorical descriptor system presently employed. For most of the remainder
of the meeting there was debate on the utility and various applications of the
current system. Much of the discussion centered around categorizing for
potential and the need for doing so (instead of numerical ranking). While
there was a feeling that the employee benefitted through having a uniform base
for counseling, disagreement was expressed on the issue of the system's
benefit to management. One member stated that a summary statement prepared by
a panel covering such factors as potential, performance, career development,
etc. would be more useful than the current system. After considerable
discussion the undersigned stated that the Working Group's charter was to
simplify and improve the current descriptors as t__efi suV -db--nducted?in`1981
on the Precepts for Boards and Panels affirmed the value of the c nb ysem
while noting some dissatisfaction with the wording of the descriptors. While
this is the primary goal the members were also free to make other suggestions
on related issues for consideration by the Director of Personnel, PMAB, and
EXCOMM. (There also had been an-earlier understanding within the Group that
termination of the current. system could come about only through replacement by
another uniform mechanism or system since there is presently no requirement to
`numerically rank employees and some components choose not to do so. The 1981
survey results [reviewed by PMAB], which include arguments for system
stability, also point toward change without replacement.)
4. Some members indicated that they were unfamiliar with the 1981 survey,
i.e., who were interviewed, opinions expressed, etc; the undersigned stated
that he would provide additional details and would be back to each member
individually regarding the survey and the next course of action. The meeting
concluded with one member remarking that if retention of the current system
was a must the reduction of the four categories to three might be a good
option.
STAT
2
A f 1J1QTRF TIUr I UTC J H n in nui V
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490004-9