COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES OF MEETING OF 20 APRIL 1983

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490006-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: April 20, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/06/02 CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490006-7
Comparative Evaluation Descriptor Review
Working Group Meeting
Minutes of Meeting of 20 April 1983
Attending:
DDA Representative -
DDI -
DDO -
DDS&T
OP Representative -
and Review Coor-
dinator
STAT
1. The undersigned began by relating the events leading to the formation
of the Working Group the first of which was the 1981 Office of Personnel
survey on the effectiveness of the then recently established Precepts for
Boards and Panels. This led to a question regarding the impetus for change,
i.e., which Agency components were seeking the changes and why were they being
sought. The response centered around the dissatisfaction on the part of a
number of organizations with Category III and for some a problem with a
perceived over emphasis on potential at the expense of performance. At this
point, and frequently throughout the meeting, discussion of how the system is
employed in the various Career Services took place.
2. The possibility of recommending the termination of the current
Descriptor System was mentioned but all agreed that it would have to be
replaced with another uniform system particularly singe-some-Career Services/
Sub-groups. choose _not _ to use a numerical ranking system. On a question
regarding the present system's value and-benefits Ehe response included some
information on the history and evolution of the various mechanisms which led
to its adoption. There was also mention of the fact that the Descriptors u,,,~-
provide background for -counseling and serve as a common base.
~Some members, c
expressed the opinion that the counseling often becomes a problem for managers
and employees on those occasions when the employee believes he or she should
have been in Category I or II and reacts negatively to being placed in
Category III.
3. The undersigned called the members attention to the options for
potential change of the presently used system which are listed in the
background material provided. The possible use of each was explained briefly;
one member suggested the Group explore the possibility of establishing a seven
category system with inclusion in a category related to an employee's PAR
rating.
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490006-7
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490006-7
~~pp pp9 ' 1 N
4. The desirability of having Descriptors which may be interpreted
narrowly and strictly versus a system giving greater flexibility was
discussed. While there was no consensus it was agreed that the latter was an
issue needing to be addressed. A comment was made about the possibility of
excluding the SIS level officers _fr_om the currently employed 6r-envisioned
system an ere Zs areement to review that issue. The SIS comment led to
the question of the necessity for Boards and Panels spending so much time
attempting to determine potential for junior graded employees (those below
journey level). There was a feeling that those finding were also not very
important to the employee until he or she reaches about the GS-12 level. The
undersigned mentioned that tle`background material contained anyitm which
suggested separate systems for clericals, professional/technical employees
through grades GS-11 and for GS-12 and above employees which emphasizes
potential.
5. The last substantive issue covered concerned Category III, the
employees intended to be included in it and how it might be improved. There
was considerable emphasis on the point of how very possible it is for Boards
and Panels to logically select employees thought to have potential as well as
those thought to have little or no potential and place both in the same
grouping. For those Career Services/Sub-groups not using a numerical system
in conjunction with the Descriptors the problem is compounded. Tt was
concluded that Category III is designed to describe too much an too wide a
variety of employee;-it thus contains too much verbiage One member opined
that there should be a category which describes an empl yee simply by using
the first sentence of the present Category III. There was general agreement
that the Working Group had a task which needed review. It was believed that'
initially there would be a question of need for substantial changes; if that
appeared to be unnecessary the group would probably recommend that some fine
tuning be applied to the existing descriptors.
6. In preparation for the next meeting the undersigned suggested each
member review the Questions, Issues and Options paper developed by OP/P&PS so
that we might discuss and possibly resolve some of the issues in that
outline. Also, attendees were asked to determine if, in their Career Service,
a feeling existed that the solicitation of additional comments from components
would be appropriate; the DDA and DDS&T representatives had earlier stated
that they had asked for comments in connection with the Working Group's review.
STAT
P, 7 7 -2
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490006-7