COMMENTS ON THE HRTF REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 22, 2012
• Sequence Number: 2
• Content Type: MISC

Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
OIT
HUMAN
RESOURCE
PROGRAM
STAT
~~ P~ ~~
Q
r ~e.[_f,t~~~7 / ~ l `rt_ r ,..{ ~,~..~ _ ~-~1 C TL~t S. ~ !_4t,...:
~'..~ ~ u~
J " ~ ~~
a GS- ~5 ~lu~si~ r~
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
Comments on the HRTF Report
While I'm sure that the features of the HRTF Report could be implemented
in the Agency over time, I'm concerned that they are being perceived as
a panacea for more fundamental problems. The Report advocates the
introduction of a new "system". I don't believe the "system" is as
important as the uses and abuses of that system. The proposed system
will be as subject to abuses as the current system. If we're going to
expend a lot of energy let's expend it on the important things and not
on developing and learning new "mechanics".
Systems which are designed to reward employees for their performance are
by definition subjective. The difficult task for all of us is to make
sure that the system is treating employees as fairly as possible. The
HRTF proposals are not necessarily going to do a better job than today's
systems. I am particularly concerned that the HRTF Report sidesteps
one of the main issues (implementation of incentive pay) with the
following: "The proposed design is to distribute the decision for
the size of the reward to the lowest practical level. Preferably,
the decisions would be made through a ranking process by a panel on
which the employee's supervisor serves." I don't think that the HRTF stand
on this is strong enough. While there may be some exceptions which must
be made, I think it is absolutely mandatory that the panels for incentive
pay be "management panels". If these proposals are going to serve their
purpose then a great deal of latitude and control must be placed in the
hands of individual supervisors. There is a serious problem in this
area in OIT today because of the "peer panels" which were instituted a
couple of years ago. There is no way for OIT managers to give practical
input to the ranking of their employees. Consequently the findings of
the panels are becoming increasingly flawed. There is a great deal of
work that needs to be done in this area at least in this Office. If we
can't define and implement a fair panel system then there's no point
in introducing incentive pay. First things first.
I got fairly incensed by some of the Report's findings on the current
mechanisms for rewarding employees. "The private sector generally
makes much more effective use of permanent salary increases and
bonuses to reward the performance of employees than we do at CIA, even
though provisions exist within the GS structure to reward performance
of employees in much the same w~ that the rip vate sector does.
Combinations of budget and bureaucracy have made delivery of these
rewards within the GS system much less widespread and effective."
The proposed system is not going to help the budget aspect of this
problem. LET'S FIX THE BUREAUCRACY, NOT CREATE A NEW ONE. It goes
on, "For example, GS-13s through GS-15s in CIA received only one-tenth
the cash value of the awards for the same grade levels in government
agencies that use Merit Pay, and the Merit Pay system is not generous
by private-sector standards." Perhaps the Task Force should have first
examined why that is. I personally know of a case in which a G5-14
who had made a substantial contribution to the Agency was nominated
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5
for a cash award, but it met with considerable opposition and was
either substantially reduced or not awarded at all (I can't remember)
because the Office director at the time did not believe in cash awards
for GS-14's.
There are several references in the HRTF Report to the need for placing
power in the hands of managers. "Thus, these managers would have the
authority to adjust dynamically position structure and the number of
personnel in their components provided they meet predefined budget
criteria." "Under the proposed system, managers would have more flexibility
to shape their work force and reward their employees, but along with
increased authority would come increased accountability." I believe
that these are desirable objectives and in fact would improve our
ability to manage our resources, however, it is totally unclear to me why
these problems can only be addressed by introducing a new "system".
(And in fact I'm very concerned that by the time a new system gets put ,
in place these objectives will have been lost in the trees.) Why
can't we address these problems in the framework of of the GS
or modified GS system? What is really gained by managing a T/0 by
dollars instead of by points? Is there going to be any more money
to get the job done? I think not. Again why expend our energies
on new "mechanics"?
I am in total disagreement with the Report's view that automation,
and particularly of a "Performance Plan" will result in better
communications between the supervisor and the employee. I've been
through LOI's and AWP's in this Agency. They haven't failed because
there wasn't automation. In fact many components essentially did
what the Report proposes. The LOI's and AWP's became "buzzword forms"
with little significance. I think the decision that was made
earlier regarding AWP's was a good one, i.e. if either the
supervisor or employee sees a need for it, write one (and by the
way the form it takes is not important), else assume that the
communications are good and the piece of paper will not add anything.
While the cost estimates were not provided to employees, it's clear
to me that this is no free lunch and I'm not just talking about
the measurable costs. I'm really concerned about the hours of
energy that managers and employees will expend in learning and
making a new system work. I think we would be better served by
focusing in on some specific problems that we experience today,
working to address those problems within some modified version of
today's GS system, and concentrating our energies more directly
on the Agency's mission.
In summary, as a manager I asked myself the following questions:
Will the new system help me hire more employees when I'm over T/0 (or
should I say over budget)? No. Will the new system keep an Office
from taking on more work without the resources to go with it? No.
Will the new system get staff or contractors through the clearance
STAT process faster? No. Will the new system give an Office of
employees more than five slots for the Program on Creative nagemen ?
No. Will the new system reward employees more fairly? I think not.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/03/22 :CIA-RDP90G00993R000300340002-5