COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING OF 6 MAY 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490005-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: May 6, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490005-8
?IWIViINlfliAfIVI IN IEIHNAL I.E ONLY
Comparative Evaluation Descriptor Review
Working Group Meeting
Minutes of.Meeting of 6 May 1983
Attending:
DCI Representative
DDA
DDI "
DDS&T
OP Representative -
and Review Coor-
dinator
1. Two major items were discussed at this meeting and those attending
were in general agreement on the positions to be taken by the Working Group.
The discussion centered on the broad subjects of o .teal and whether/how
panels should evaluate cler cal employees and those professional/technical
employees below a certain grade level.
2. On the issue of potential the Group was asked about the characteristics
panels believe important when attempting to determine an employee's potential,
whether a need existed for developing additional guidelines to assist panels
on this issue and whether panels sought to differentiate between potential for
managerial and substantive responsibilities (Questions I A-D). There was
mention of some characteristics panels view as important when discussing an
individual's potential (performance, planning skills, attitudes, personality
traits, etc.); the Group came to the conclusion that the way potential is
determined appeared to be an issue that should not be centrally mandated. It
was agreed that the current system seemed to be ssat sfa o T1 aad"ressi g
potential at least in terms of how Career Services face the problem;
consequently, the record should show that it is the Group's opinion that
Career Services should be left to determine their own particular perspective
on dealing with potential.
3. The question of the application of the-evaluation system to clericals
and professional/technical employees below journey level generated more
detailed discussion (Question I K.). Most members were of the opinion that
evaluating, ranking in numerical order (as some Career Services/Sub-groups do)
and applying the descriptors to clerical employees appeared to be an
unproductive system. The realities of the grade attraction mechanism (linking
of secretary's grade to supervisor's grade), the Vacancy Notice system, the
belief that results of past evaluations were rarely being referenced and the
clerical employee's (especially senior secretaries) vague feelings about the
STAT
ESE C NL.`
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490005-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490005-8
?ADMINISTRATIYE INTERNAL J E ONL1
system led most of the Group to conclude that a substitute system should be
considered. This discussion produced the conclusion that panel evaluation of
clerical employees be made optional for all grade levels (i.e., expand the
recently established option for GS-06 and below clerical employees to all
grade levels for clericals). It was stated that managers would thus be
compelled to manage and to devote more attention to promotion, training and
employee development issues. Another perceived benefit would less expenditure
of time by panels on business that could largely be handled within the chain
of command.
4. A substitute procedure was suggested which would have the
supervisor/manager recommend for promotion and for those reassignments
offering headroom for promotion. Recommendations would be based on PAR
evaluations and personal observation of progress on the job. Questions of
constraints such as time in grade, CSGA headroom, etc. would be reviewed by
personnel and administrative staffs. Recommendations would be "approved" by
the Office Director or Sub-group head. (Coordination across jurisdictional
lines would be required for recommendation for employees serving in other than
their home office.) Under this optional. system there would be no formal
evaluation for value to the service, ranking or application of descriptors.
This option would allow for retention of a panel for more general issues such
as trial period completion or performance and disciplinary problems but panel
members would not be involved in an evaluation and promotion process.
5. The wisdom and necessity for utilizing the panel system for
professional/technical employees below the journey level was the next item
discussed. The notion of having the chain of command vice the panel recommend
for promotion was viewed as particularly advantageous when dealing with
employees of diverse backgrounds; it was thought that the branch/division
chiefs responsible for managing people working within a certain discipline
would be more knowledgeable about an individual's performance against
standards than having one or more panel members who are not fully cognizant of
the responsibilities of an employee sit in judgment of that individual. It
was envisioned that the more junior level employees could be "evaluated" in a
way similar to the alternate system proposed for clericals. The question of
the possible loss of objectivity that a panel normally provides was raised.
Although a concern, the consensus view was that supervisors/managers now often
have the opportunity to recommend action to panels; under the alternate system
they still would only be recommending (to the chain of command instead of the
panel) and thus objectivity should be maintained. It was proposed that the
Group continue to consider the recommendation of elimination of the mandatory
imposition of panel evaluation for professional technical employees GS-11 and
below. Further, it was believed that having managers evaluate (with option to
not use Descriptors) would fit well with the feeling expressed at our initial
meeting that potential probably did not become an important issue until an
employee reaches the GS-11/12 level.
6. The meeting was adjourned with the undersigned stating that we would
continue discussing the points in the Questions, Issues and Observations paper
at our next meeting and that the Agenda would pinpoint the specific items to
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490005-8