REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTORS
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490016-6
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
C
Document Page Count:
3
Document Creation Date:
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date:
June 2, 2008
Sequence Number:
16
Case Number:
Publication Date:
April 22, 1983
Content Type:
MEMO
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490016-6.pdf | 140.87 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B0l 152R000400490016-6
OC M83- 3 /
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Career Management Staff, DDA
FROM: William F. Donnelly
Director of Communications
SUBJECT: Review of Comparative Evaluation Descriptors
REFERENCE: Memo from Acting Chief, CMS, DDA, dated
21 March 1983, Same Subject
1. Attached you will find written responses to the
questions posed in the reference. The responses represent our
initial thoughts. We do believe it's a good time for the
Agency to rethink the evaluation categories and their use. We
are particularly concerned with Category III, and the lumping
together of employees who may have the potential to advance
with those who clearly do not. We also believe there should be
an undefined category for new employees or those new to a
position or component and for whom there has been insufficient
time to make a good judgement on their potential. Under the pre-
sent system, panels and boards force this type of employee into a
category based entirely on expectations.
2. Further input can be provided as required. We're very
interested in actively participating in the ongoing evolution of
the Agency's personnel evaluation system. Contact
Chief, OC-HRMD, for more information.
Donnelly
Attachment:
As Stated
INTELLILErJCE SOUL CES
E AND NO
AND METHODS INVOLVED
l~Jaju~ll~ N4 i RL
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B0l 152R000400490016-6
25X1
2oA i 1
25X1
^
25X1
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BOl 152R000400490016-6
F NT! A L
Res onses to Questions on Comparative Evaluation Descriptors
(Keyed to Attachment to D/OP Memo dated 14 March 1983)
A. Judgements are made on potential from a review of each
employee's level of performance, experience, education and
training. The characteristics that OC evaluation boards specifi-
cally look for in determining potential or the lack of it at a
given time are:
(1) Performance level
(2) Experience (substantive and managerial)
(3) Initiative
(4) Ability to communicate effectively
(5) Personal attributes
(6) Capacity for professional growth
(7) Willingness to meet the assignment needs of the
Career Service subgroup (Mobility)
(8) Willingness to accept greater responsibility
(9) Judgement
B. Most OC boards assign potential ratings based on pro-
jected ability for increased managerial responsibilities.
However, in the engineering and computer science fields, potential
may be assigned on increased substantive responsibilities. This
could be true in the case of an employee who is not suitable for a
management position because of lack of personal desire or the lack
of skill in this area.
C. "Fast Trackers" and prospective managers are usually
identified by their current performance level, substantive
experience, initiative, assignment mobility, oral and written com-
munication abilities, personal attributes, and interpersonal
skills.
D. Yes, we believe a separate list of factors for panel use
in determining potential would be helpful.
RM A.1
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BOl 152R000400490016-6
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BOl 152R000400490016-6
~N .DN I iaL
E. No, we believe the current categories are adequate for
identification of prospective managers and those employees
requiring remedial actions.
F. "Demonstrated potential" means that an employee has in his
or her current assignment shown the ability to assume greater
responsibilities.
G. The Category III description appears to be contradictory.
It indicates employees who are "close to realizing or have
realized their potential." Then it goes on to say, "may be
capable of performing successfully at a higher level of
responsibility..." This lumps those who may have potential with
those who clearly do not with the only commonality being "valuable
contribution." In our minds it would be better to put those who
may have potential in Category II and reserve Category III for
those who are not expected to advance further.
H. The highest and lowest (I and IV) should require specific
actions to develop the former and resolve the problems of the
latter.
1. Determining "value" is subjective and can vary con-
siderably over a period of time. Added to this it can reflect
factors outside the control of the employee and management, and
was originally intended for surplus exercises. For this reason,
we believe consideration should be given to making "value" a
separate function and kept apart from the category descriptors.
J. We suggest an undefined category be created for new
employees or those new to a particular job or component where
there has been insufficient time to determine the employee's
potential and overall value. The concern is to avoid forcing an
employee into a "regular" category'based entirely on expectations.
K. In OC, separate evaluation boards meet to consider each
occupational skill, and this is, therefore, not a problem for us.
L. Personal history as used in the evaluation process should
include all those personal attributes, work experiences and docu-
mented performance contributions that are relevant to the
employee's current position and projected development.
M. Categories should be more precise so that any vagueness
can be diminished, recognizing that any system developed will be
subjective and contain ambiguities.
CONFIDEN lI L
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BOl 152R000400490016-6