PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS (U)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 7, 2008
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: February 16, 1983
• Content Type: MF

ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
OD&E 0221-83
16 February 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Science and Technology
FROM: Robert J. Kohler
Director of Development and Engineering
SUBJECT: Performance Appraisals (U)
REFERENCES: A.
B. DDS$T Notice No. 303, dtd 24 Jan 1983
1. At some risk to my physical well-being, I wish to offer you
some thoughts relative to the Subject. While Refs. A and B can be
agreed to in a philosophical sense, they are not terribly helpful to
front-line supervisors. It is easy to issue regulations; it is dif-
ficult to interpret them, much less enforce them in an arena so full
of subjectivity as an employee's performance appraisal. (U)
2. It is not that I disagree with the fundamental contention
that we must evaluate our employees' performance honestly, grade
them honestly and give them completely honest feedback relative to
performance. Such philosophy is fundamental to any decent personnel
management system. There are, however, some problems with the im-
plementation of this philosophy. (U)
3. The "problem" cannot be fixed by decreeing that the majority
of Agency employees are "4's," nor is it really in the Agency's best
interest to do so. Over the years, one of the hallmarks of working
for the Agency has been the belief that we are better than the rest,
and in the main it is in fact true. One only needs to observe the
anguish the DDA endures in dealing with GSA, the DDO's dismay at the
intransigences of the State Department, and OD,E's rate of success
vs. the usual DoD performance. A large measure of the Agency's
success is directly attributable to the sense of elitism that we
feel. We should, as senior Agency managers, foster this attitude,
rather than attempt to force fit us all into some hypothetical bell
curve.
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
 ' ADMINTSTRATTVF.- TNTcRNAT. lT.QF (1ATT.Y
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114ROO0300010006-6
SUBJECT: Performance Appraisals (U)
4. The hallmark of any successful organization is its care of
its people. One of the main points of a recently published book on
successful companies (In Search of Excellence) was that very suc-
cessful companies nurture and praise their workers. They treat them
with respect and make them feel like a part of the team. Neither
Ref. A nor B are helpful in this regard and are in the direction of
employee demotivation, not motivation. (U)
5. The person who is truly exceptional knows it, and nothing
one writes in the performance appraisal is going to detract or help
that in any particular way. My concern is that this Agency is popu-
lated, in the main, by very competent and dedicated employees, who
are better for the most part than their counterparts in the rest of
the Government, and that is how they see themselves. It is im-
portant to this Agency that they see themselves this way, as our
productivity and accomplishment rests on the outstanding performance
of our people. Both References, in effect, say that CIA management
chooses not to recognize this fact, and further, that CIA management
wishes to downgrade the employees of the "highest caliber," because
the "average" employee is rated "much higher" than the "average" em-
ployee should be. This is pure hyperbole. How can an employee of
the highest caliber be rated much higher than they should be?
Agency management is sending the wrong message to its people. (U)
6. The real problem is not that we rate good people too high,
but that we rate poor performers too high, and the intended actions /"
(i.e., knock the good ones down) does not fix this problem. In man-
agement school, they teach you that one should solve the real prob-
lem, not the apparent one. If poor performance were rated fairly
and honestly, there would not be a great concern that good per-
formers were being rated "too high." What is likely to happen, how-
ever, is that poor performers will continue to be rated too high,
while good performers will be rated lower, collapsing the dif-
ferences between existing ratings and hurting, not helping, the pro-
cess of truly evaluating our employees. If Personnel wants to fix
this problem, the focus needs to be on training supervisors on the
importance of honest feedback to poor performers. (U)
7. The Agency has an additional, very practical problem. with
the current system. When the conversion was made from the old U, M,
P, S, 0 System to the numerical system, employees (and supervisors,
frankly) converted from the top down; i.e., 7 = 0, 6 = S, 5 = P, 4 =
M, and 3 = U. This perception has been solidified now, in many per-
formance appraisals. The point is, that to tell the majority of em-
ployees they are now a "4," to them, means they are marginal. Memos
and Headquarters Notices will not correct this perception on the
part of Agency employees. (U)
OD&E 0221-83
Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114ROO0300010006-6
 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
SUBJECT: Performance Appraisals (U)
8. Another problem is caused by the scale itself. Individuals'
performance simply cannot be so fine-tuned and evaluated, so as to
be gradable on a scale of 1 to 7. Can one quantitatively distin-
guish between a 6 and 7 level of performance? Or between 5 and 6?
I think not. The result is that when there is a doubt, the super-
visor will give a higher, rather than a lower, score. This, by the
way, is exactly what the supervisor should do. Nothing helps output
more than employees who are well motivated, and motivation comes in
part from praise and being recognized for work well done. Further,
does this Agency hurt when true "4's" (if one can define that) are
called "5's?" Or when the "5's" are called "6's?" The answer is
no. When this Agency hurts is when true "2's" and "3's" are called
"4's" and "5's." Neither Reference solves that problem, and, as I
have said, that is the crux of the issue. It would help con-
siderably if the Agency scaled its rating system back to one with
far fewer levels of performance, allowing much clearer judgement as
to the true performance of its employees. This, by the way, is the
normal process in industry. (U)
9. Our employees are what this Agency is. We are nothing with-
out them. They deserve care, feeding, motivation and any kind of
reward we can give them. Unfortunately, comes across the STAT
wrong way; i.e,:
a. "In an effort to halt this upward escalation of
ratings;" in other words, "You are all overrated; you are
not as good as you are being told or think."
b. Upward escalation of ratings "works to the detri-
ment of the Agency and all of us." This sure isn't clear.
How is the Agency hurting? I certainly don't feel hurt.
When we are hurt is when poor performers are overrated, not
when good ones are.
c. "This results in unrealistic evaluations and un-
realistic expectations, and has the harmful effect of di-
luting all the rating levels, rendering them meaningless."
What hyperbole. Does rating a person performing at level 5
as a "6" produce an unrealistic evaluation that is rendered
meaningless? Of course not. I truly believe that most of
the people in the Agency rated at level 7 are in fact very
good. I doubt that there are many people who deserve a 4
who are rated a 7.
(U)
OD&E 0221-83
Page 3
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
 ADMINISTRATIVE-IN'1'Ef(NAL UJL ul,lI i
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114ROO0300010006-6
W
SUBJECT: Performance Appraisals (U)
10. We have gotten carried away with the numerosis of the rat-
ing process and have apparently concluded that it is the fundamental
cornerstone of our personnel management system. This is a very un-
fortunate set of circumstances and does not bode well for effective
management of CIA employees. (U)
STAT
ODFIE 0221-83
Page 4
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114ROO0300010006-6
 UNCLAS51 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6 0 SECRET
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Performance Appraisals (U)
STA
FROM: NO. D/ODEE ODeE 0221-83
DATE
16 February 1983
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
2.
10.
12.
--
--
-
DC1
EXEC
13.
- -
--
REG
14.
15.
J FAT
FORM 610 USE PREVIOUS SECRET CONFIDENTIAL u k INTERNAL UNCLASSIFIED
3-62 EDITIONS M i x Ix USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-O1114R000300010006-6
 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL'-SLIP
TO:
Name, office symbol, room number,
building, Agency/Post)
Initials
Date
MAIN
3
-t-v~.-
-~
MAR I
N3
ion
ct
File
Note and Return
pproval
For Clearance
Per Conversation
s Re guested
I
For Correction
Prepare Reply
irculate
For Your Information
See Me
ment
m
Investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justify
REMARKS
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
5041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Press bed by GSA
FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I DATE n 7 MAY, 'i9BZ
'TO: Director of Personnel
ROOM NO. BUILDING
REMARKS:
FROM: DDCI
ROOM NO.
BUILDING
EXTENSION
FR REPLA 36-8
1 FEB 55 241 WH HC MAY BE USED.
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
Central Intelligence Agency
Office of the Deputy Director for Science & Technology
STAT
I thought you would be
interested in reading the
attached.
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
 Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6
140V 2Y`t~
Central Intelligence Agency
3 March 1983
NOTE FOR THE DDCI
DCI
This, from one of our brightest guys, says,
much better, what I have been trying to say
about fostering esprit by reducing as much
internal self-imposed frustration as possible.
One specific is the PAR. Bob's point concerning
the recent explanation for a shift in rating
philosophy is worth noting.
STAT
Approved For Release 2008/02/07: CIA-RDP89-01114R000300010006-6