REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTORS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: March 14, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490023-8
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL IP
TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, -
ilding, Agency/Post)
60
L ut Director for Administration
Initials
Date
1A MAR
Y ,te63
2 7D24 Hea tern
3.
ction
File
Note and Return
proval
For Clearance
Per Conversation
l
s Requested
For Correction
Prepare Reply
irculate
For Your Information
See Me
mment
Investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justify
STAT
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post)
James N. Glerm
Director of Personnel
5N1-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Pnscribed_ by GSA
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
A~1 amllar 1aT1 JIVE INTE}IIAL USE E.Y
14 MAR 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Operations
Deputy Director for Science and Technology
Chairman, E Career Service
FROM: James N. Glerum
Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Review of Comparative Evaluation Descriptors
5/peps
13 6 4 5-5-
1. During our review of the effectiveness of the Uniform Precepts for
Boards and Panels in 1981, we learned that Career Service Boards and Panels
were having some problems with the evaluation category descriptors. At the
Personnel Management Advisory Board meeting where the report of our study
was reviewed, that group recommended that we undertake a more in-depth study
of the descriptors with a view towards correcting the problems if possible.
2. My staff is now ready to begin this project and has prepared a paper
on the subject which is attached for your information. Because of the
importance of this element of our personnel management system and its impact
on all employees, we believe it necessary to obtain the ideas of all the
Career Services. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would select an
officer to represent your Career Service to serve on a working group to be
convened to assist us in reviewing the descriptors and in formulating
options for management's consideration. I suggest that your representative
be an individual who has had some experience with the current system as a
board or panel member so that we may benefit from that experience. We would
appreciate your response by 25 March 1982.
/s/ Jom'r.s K G enur,
LY
r g'e #1Y 1 i
itYF
fe]",G4~ ap Srf :r-ttt:i. ril
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
AAN1STRATIyE INTERNAL USE RLY
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR STUDY
INTRODUCTION
1. The current comparative evaluation descriptors (Categories I, II,
III, IV) evolved from a series of events dating as far back as 1954. That
year, following the establishment of (then 23) Career Services, the
comparative evaluation concept and process were introduced in the Agency,
primarily for the purposes of comparing the relative capabilities of one
professional employee with another, and for ranking all professional
employees for their value to the Agency. Until 1973, the Career Services
accomplished this task by whatever mechanism best suited their needs
although most used some sort of board and panel system. Since 1973, in the
interest of uniformity and equity, several refinements to the process have
been made:
a. a requirement that boards and panels include promotion
consideration as part of the evaluation process in 1978;
b. extension of the formal evaluation process to GS-08 and above
secretarial employees in 1978, and later to all employees in
1980;
c. establishment of a category descriptor system in 1975, which
was revised in 1980;
d. standardization of evaluation precepts and promotion criteria
in the Uniform Precepts system in 1980;
e. voluntary exclusion of clerical employees GS-06 and below from
the formal panel system in 1982.
2. The predecessor of the current four-category comparative evaluation
descriptor system had five categories identified as High Potential (HP), May
Develop High Potential (MD), Valuable Contribution (VC), Limited Potential
(LP), and Substandard (SS). From 1975 until 1980, Career Services formally
ranked and evaluated their personnel for value to the Agency, potential to
advance, and promotion. With the implementation of the Uniform Precepts for
Boards and Panels in 1980, the descriptors were redefined and reduced to
four.
AfMuICTRATiur WTrOMA1 11QC fMI V
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
lISTRATIVE INTERNAL USEONLY
3. In reviewing the value and effectiveness of the Uniform Precepts in
1981, it became clear that the Career Services were having some problems
with the revised system, particularly with Category III because of the
definition which includes both employees who may have potential and those
who may not. As a result of that review, the Personnel Management Board
recommended that the descriptors be studied again with a view towards
resolving the problems that seem to exist.
DISCUSSION
1. The comparative evaluation descriptors were designed with the
intention of assisting Agency management in determining the value of an
employee to the Agency at a given time, with later expansion to include
promotion consideration. The determination of value, and now eligibility
for promotion, includes a review of an employee's performance, growth of
skills and experiences, demonstrated potential, evidence of capability,
degree of flexibility for other assignments and consideration of the
individual's personal elections. From those determinations flow decisions
about assignments, internal and external training, counseling, promotion,
career guidance, and adverse action. With regard to the latter action,
Category IV has replaced the former low three-percent ranking as the primary
mechanism in determining the need for some adverse action.
2. Given the broad use of the descriptors, they have become a critical
element of our personnel management system and now have a wide-ranging
effect on employees and their careers. Therefore, it is now equally
critical that the descriptors be defined as clearly as possible so as to
serve both employees and management fairly.
ACTION PLAN
1. In view of the importance of this element of our personnel
management system Agency-wide, we believe it necessary to enlist the
participation of the Career Services in our review of the descriptors.
Following is our proposed course of action:
A. Enlist the participation of the Career Services through a
request from D/OP.
B. Provide the selected representatives with copies of the study
proposal and the attached listing of questions and possible
options for redefining the categories.
-. 4 n T ?gyp I?;7"c.z! ~!
;~
MEN'
Approved For Release :2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
ISHIM iA 11% I I LI 1 AL U J1iLT
C. Convene the group for as many meetings as necessary to resolve
the problems already known or that we discover as a result of
the group discussions.
D. Prepare a paper reporting the consensus of the group for review
by D/OP, with possible review by the Personnel Management
Advisory Board, and the Executive Committee if a policy change
is recommended.
AMADNI4TRfl1VF INTFRNMI H U R NI Y
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
A lINISTRAT1VE I NTERNAL USE $LY
QUESTIONS, ISSUES AND OPTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED
IN PLAN TO STUDY EVALUATION DESCRIPTORS
I. Questions
A. What are the characteristics Panels identify to separate those
having or lacking potential?
B. Are Panels attempting to describe potential for managerial
responsibilities, advanced substantive responsibility or both?
C. What characteristics distinguish fast trackers and prospective
managers from their peers?
D. With regard to questions B and C: should we develop, separate from
precept factors, a list of questions/guidelines/factors for panel
use toward assisting them decide more systematically those having or
lacking managerial potential, i.e., questions centering on
creativity, communication skills, stress management, planning and
organizing skills, etc.?
E. Do we need a category which, in title or content, specifically
identifies prospective managers? or in title that remedial action is
required?
F. What is "demonstrated potential?"
G. What words and phrases in current categories cause greatest
difficulty?
H. Should there be more emphasis on career actions or options to be
followed for those placed in a particular category?
I. How should value to service vs. potential be addressed in
descriptors?
J. Do we need a formal "limbo" category which would have panels defer
categorical judgments until recently promoted/hired employees have
established a track record at current grade or officially advise
panels of availability of that option?
K. Should we have separate descriptor systems for various grade levels,
i.e., a) clerical, b) professional/technical GS-11 and below, and c)
one which gives greater emphasis to management potential for GS-12's
and above.
L. What is meant by personal history?
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
MJM JSThATI'VE INTER UAL USE MY
M. Should categories contain flexible wording for granting more leeway
in assigning to a category or more precise wording for same.
II. Observations, Issues, and Discussion Points
A. Remove reference to problems and categories III and IV are too
similar.
B. Placement in category III is viewed as being negative.
C. In practice, panels place in category III promotable and
non-promotable officers and those having and lacking potential.
D. There seems to be inadequate consideration for employees with
limited experience. Lack of experience may be the sole reason for
placement in next lower category.
E. Categories address a mixture of performance and potential; some
view this as essential while others see it as a problem.
F. Perhaps a five (or greater) tier system would be better for telling
employees more about degrees of potential.
G. We need to identify a system that eliminates the temptation to
refer to an employee as a "high category III or low II."
H. Perhaps wording of category III is to negative for a category meant
to describe those who are providing a "valuable service."
I. First sentence of category III..."tend to show"...appears too
vague. "Indicate" could be an improvement.
J. We should attempt to eliminate all overlapping information between
categories.
K. Some existing problems in application apparently stem from the fact
that few guidelines were issued in connection with introduction of
system.
L. The test for whether or not a category tells us something:
a) what are we describing?
b) on what is it based?
c) what does it lead us to conclude about potential?
d) what career actions are appropriate? (Assuming the above is
valid and complete any revised system should respond with such a
flow of information)
.2 5?+..
A :: fcw IN
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
 Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8
A &I
M. Presently there is no category which addresses a situation of
someone having no potential; categories III and IV call for
inclusion of those who may have potential.
III. Preliminary Options
A. 3-Tier System
1. a combination of current Category I and perhaps some from
category II.
2. rema-nder of - Category II and all Category III.
3. low or no potential/problem cases.
B. 4-Tier System (Refines current system by changing some words)
1. same as current Category I.
2. includes current Category II and those in current Category III
who "may be capable of performing successfully at higher
levels."
3. those who apparently have peaked out but who have no real
performance problems.
4. does not address potential; these are people who require
remedial attention.
C. 5-Tier System (Basically a reversion to former HP, MD system with
careful look at wording. Indicated by numbering system and would
better define middle category)
D. 6-Tier System (would be numbered - titles below are meant only to
help establish degrees for purpose of illustration)*
1. Absolute Fast Track - no TIC restrictions (very limited use).
2. Apparent Fast Track - some further assessment of officers
needed (some from current Category I and some from Category
II).
3. Developing Track - solid performer with apparent room for L Meant to be
growth at slower pace. categories
for vast
4. Valuable Contribution - near peak but no performance problem) majority of
employees
5. Management Attention - some problems which indicate probable
lack of potential; also for those with no real problem but who
clearly have zero potential (counseling required).
6. Management Action - no potential due to: poor performance,
real problems, surplus for cause (Remedial Action Needed).
*Promotion would normally go to those in first 3 categories.
g ns f?.~f!pTr 11 711!7? !! I QP":Wr nV1 if
Approved For Release 2008/06/02 : CIA-RDP85B01152R000400490023-8