HUMAN RESOURCE MODERNIZATION AND COMPENSATION TASK FORCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 50
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 13, 2013
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: September 3, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R0001-00220006-4
bD10 Q.3.)_LaK 1Z.)
3 September 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Intelligence
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Deputy Director, Near East and South Asian Analysis
Human Resource Modernization and Compensation
Task Force Report
1. Attached is my effort to reflect the views of NESA analysts
and managers on the sixteen key features of the Task Force Report.
2. I asked analysts from each branch in NESA to read the report
and get together and discuss their opinions and ideas on the issues
raised in the Task Force Report. Representatives of the branches then
met and drafted divisional analyst submissions. Managers from each
division also prepared submissions. In addition to my summary of
these contributions, I have attached the original commentaries.
3. Finally, D/NESA and I have prepared a brief Front Office
perspective on the Human Resource Task Force Report.
Attachments as stated
ADMINISTRAT AL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
AnuTtITemnATTIIV TiamT.nstar Trvn AUTV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
GENERAL COMMENTS
Analysts: Overall, MESA analysts expressed reservations about
most aspects of the proposed package. Most simply do not believe
implementation can be accomplished because of financial strictures
which they believe will be felt increasingly in government. They also
expressed doubts about whether the package had been fully thought out.
In the vernacular, they do not want to be guinea pigs; in academese,
they believe that the program will have unanticipated dysfunctional
consequences. Many believe the existing system is sufficiently
flexible to accommodate those portions of the proposal with which they
are impressed.
Managers: The managerial consensus is that deficiencies in the
current personnel management and compensation system can be taken care
of without creating a new and potentially worse system. The proposed
new system lacks flexibility, adds bureacratic complexities,
discourages initiative, and will create an environment of unhealthy
rivalry among competitors for pay and bonuses. The proposed benefits
program, on the other hand, is imaginative and would raise morale and
help retain careerists.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 1 - OCCUPATIONALLY DEFINED BANDS
Analysts: By and large, NESA analysts are skeptical of the market
linkage idea. Political analysts, for example, are doubtful that the
Agency can find professional occupations in the private sector that
are comparable. If economists or computer specialists were to earn
higher salaries -- because of market conditions -- than peer analysts
with other specialities, the impact on productivity and morale would
be significant, or so it was argued by some analysts. Some analysts
also believe that occupational banding would make it more difficult to
move between occupations within the Agency or to take rotations in
other fields.
Managers: NESA managers are divided in their views of banding;
some are unconvinced of its merits, although most appear to believe
that the notion is generally sound, and that the feature is a way to
recognize that different occupations call for different salary levels.
NESA managers worry about how analyst occupational groups are divided
into disciplines. To fully implement the principle of market pricing,
economists probably would have to be separated from political and
military analysts and paid more. This, in the managers' eyes, would
lead to serious morale problems if analysts with the same level of
competence/responsibility were paid different salaries. They argue
that a single occupational group for analysts is best suited to NESA,
(:) with its integrated bands, and emphasis on cross-disciplinary
analysis.
The managers endorse the removal of average grade and ceiling
constraints.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
AnUTUTCTDATTUP_TUTcpuAT net. AMTV
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
C
FEATURE 2 - INCENTIVE PAY
Analysts: Again, skepticism was the order of the day. Most
analysts think the idea has merit in principle, but do not believe
that incentive pay funds will be available given current and probably
future budget constraints. Others express doubts about how an
incentive plan would work in practice; the cyncism was expressed in
this way: "...the bonus system, where it is used -- for high level
managers -- appears to be applied subjectively and in a self-serving
manner."
Managers,: This feature got mixed reviews from NESA managers.
Some said it sounded good on paper, but doubted it would work or have
positive consequences. Those who took this line said it would be
destructive of cooperative behavior, harmful to the concept of a team,
promote hyper-competition for active, high visibility accounts,
encourage analysts to become syncophants to managers who might abuse
the system. On the other hand, those managers who support the feature
argued that it would be a significant motivating force.
Even managers favorably inclined toward the feature have many -
questions about the implementation and administration of incentive
pay: Would/should incentive awards and amounts be publicized? Are
bonuses paid out in lump sums or spread out over a year, etc.?
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 3 - PERFORMANCE PLAN
Analysts,: Most analysts see little in this proposal that is
different from the current advanced work plan used in NESA (on a
sometime basis).
Managers: Almost universal doubt whether an "automated AWP" would
be useful or used. Those managers/analysts who communicate will
continue to do so, others won't. Some managers said that too much
time, money, and effort will be wasted on irrelevant, expensive ADP
support. '
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADM' NTSTRATTUP-TUTrnuAr ntrry
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
(:) FEATURE 4 - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Analysts,: NESA analysts, generally, had no strong reactions to
this proposal. Some thought the proposed "automated" system seemed
less flexible and therefore of less value in evaluating performance.
In their view, structure does not necessarily lead to a more accurate
PAR or better communication between a branch chief and analysts.
Managers: No major problem was seen in this feature, but the NESA
managers concluded that this was just a revamped PAR and no great
improvement on the current system. Some noted that, contrary to the
report, the narrative in the current PAR is the most important part of
the document
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
npriassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ArsuYwromriATTTIC TIrrrnivat Ttcr, nuT V
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
0
FEATURE 5 - OCCUPATIONAL CAREER HANDBOOKS
Analysts,: This is seen as a useful approach (especially for
junior analysts) if the handbooks are used a guides and do not become
straitjackets. Other NESA analysts said the proposed system overrates
the value of the handbooks.
Managers,: Again, the managers in MESA gave this feature mixed
notices. Some said the objective was commendable, but that
implementation costs would be excessive. Other managers thought the
handbooks would be dust collectors or warned that analysts would focus
on getting the proper "tickets punched" and then be disappointed if
rewards were not forthcoming.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
nuiltalolattriVL-INILKNAL UJC, VNLI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 6 - INDIVIDUAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Analysts: The proposal engendered very little comment from MESA
analysts; those who did respond were generally positive, but in a
muted way.
Managers: Little or no reaction from NESA managers was generated
by this feature. Some said it would improve manager-analyst
communication, but others agreed that they should be doing this sort
of thing anyway. The critics of the feature said it was formalistic
and unrealistic.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
---
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 7 - OCCUPATION-SPECIFIC TRAINING
Analysts,: NESA analysts concluded that the proposal does not seem
to represent any change from current practices.
Managers: Like motherhood and apple pie, who can oppose the
concept? NESA managers were skeptical about where the money and time
would come from, however. OTE was perceived as not capable of
designing appropriate courses and the necessary support that line
officers will be called upon to provide was considered excessive.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINTSTRATTVF-TMTrnmAT ncr nmTv
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 8 - IMPROVED AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING
Analysts: NESA analysts said this proposal made sense, but
questioned the availability of analysts' time and their incentive for
taking training. It was suggested that compensatory time be granted
to employees who use their own time to take Agency-specified training.
Managers: This was seen by some as more imaginative than most
proposals, but the burdens of additional training were considered
excessive.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
firwrivre.rnAmT,in
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 9 - DUAL TRACK
Analysts,: NESA analysts support the dual track proposal, although
many believe the duties, functions, and lines of authority need to be
spelled out more fully.
Managers: NESA managers continue to express reservations about
the dual track idea. The need to preserve managerial authority and
responsibility for products was emphasized.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
npriaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 10 - PROMOTION
Analysts: This aspect of the package elicited a generally
favorable response, although some analysts believe the promotion
system will likely become more conservative.
Managers: Most managers found the procedures and criteria for
promotion that are outlined to be appropriate and better than what was
described in the DI Occupational Panel's report. The critics pointed
out that the criteria for promotion seem to be mostly input to the
employee -- assignments, experiences, and training -- rather than
output -- performance, production, briefings, etc. This, according to
the critics, epitomizes a philosophy they believe that underlies many
of the proposal's features: if an employee gets certain tickets
punched, the analyst should be promoted.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
FEATURE 11 - FLEXIBLE BENEFIT PROGRAM
Analysts,: This feature received a most enthusiastic response from
NESA analysts. There were questions, however, about whether funding
for the plan would be deducted from salary (in which case the benefits
would be flexible but not beneficial) and, if not, where the money
would come from.
Managers: Views range from "enthusiastic" to "within financial
limits, makes eminently good sense..."
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 12 - LEAVE CONVERSION
Analysts: Analysts like this idea. Many said they would sell
some annual leave and some say they would consider donating to the
sick leave bank.
Managers: MESA managers are very supportive, but some raise
questions about the costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 13 - EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEPENDENT
Analysts: NESA analysts like this feature, although some believe
that the Agency should not subsidize student loans.
Managers: Responses were divided among those who expressed no
views and those who were supportive. Again, some managers raised
questions about the costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy.Approved?for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 14 - STAFFING MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Analysts: Many analysts agree that this feature would help create
headroom, but some are concerned that it could lead to an "up or out"
system in which we would lose valuable expertise. The retirement
proposals should be open to all employees and not just senior managers
and experts.
Managers: The managers said the early retirement provisions were
potentially,a major attraction for those who would be given the option
of retiring early and those who would benefit from the headroom.
16
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE...TMDIC
_ . _VA TTCV (ITT V
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
C
FEATURE 15 - SYSTEM CONTROLS
Analysts: Most analysts see this as largely a management
implementation issue. They assume we are doing most of those things
now and if not, we should be. Others argue that this is a necessary
administrative evil, but that we should be concerned that a new
bureaucracy will be created to use budget resources that already seem
inadequate to implement the proposed new system.
Managers: The report is correct to emphasize the need for
additional ADP support.
17
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
narlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FEATURE 16 - PROJECTION TOOLS
Analysts,: Most analysts are uncertain about the implications of
this feature and View it largely as an implementation matter.
Managers: They believe this Would be needed if the plan were to
go into effect. Where would the resources come from, without eating
into line resources, is the question asked by the managers.
18
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FOR OFF I ? E ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
D/NESA
Persian Gulf Division Analysts
Comments on the Proposed Pay, Personnel Management,
and Compensation System
31 July 1987
General observations: Analysts are unimpressed with most features
of the proposed system, their basic attitude being: If it ain't
broken, don't fix it. The current system is perceived as
underutilized but sufficiently flexible to accommodate most of the
perceived benefits of the new plan. They believe that the proposed
plan overstates- the benefits: analysts strongly doubt the new plan's
claim that no one would suffer and that some analysts would be be
better off. They further doubt that suggested pay benefits could be
accommodated under the proposed budget increases of 2-3 percent.
Feature 1?Occupationally Defined Bands
Analysts believe that the objectives of the reforms can be
achieved under the present system and fail to see the need for change.
Some analysts believe the banding might have merit if it could be used
to obtain higher salary scales commensurate with private sector
counterparts,
Feature 2--Incentive Pay
Analysts believe that the idea has merit in principle, but doubt
that funds would be available. They suspect that Congress will find
the incentive pay an attractive area to attack during budget hearings.
Analysts believe that incentive pay is underutilized in the present
system and are concerned that it will not be implemented fully in a
new system. Analysts recognize the benefits to management of annual
rewards. Analysts note that the incentives would depend upon who
awarded them and that the fundamental ranking system would remain the
same--with the same perceived flaws. They are concerned that the
system might encourage analysts to move to "hot accounts" and damage
the morale of those in slower accounts.
Feature 3--Performance Plan
Analysts believe advanced work plans have not worked well in past
and doubt that they would work well in the future. They regard them
of limited value except to junior employees (or employees in trouble).
Analysts find the work plans of little use, particularly in a rapidly
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
changing region like the Near East. Most analysts see little new
here. Such work plans would have to be too general to be of much
value.
Feature 4--Performance Evaluation '
The proposed "automated" systems seems less flexible and therefore
of less value in evaluating performance. Analysts believe branch
chiefs should not be restricted in commenting on subjects outside the
specified plans. More structure does not guarantee a more accurate
PAR or better communication between branch chiefs and analysts. Most
analysts are skeptical that the Directorate-wide ranking system (page
14) could be implemented when even at Office levels nuances of
performance are difficult to rank accurately.
Feature 5--Occupational Career Handbooks
Analysts see the handbooks as useful for junior analysts but
believe the proposed system overrates their value
Feature 6--Individual Career Development Plan
Analysts regard some guidance, particularly, to new employees, as
a good idea, but the new system does not provide for follow-up on the
employees' progress. Career development is accommodated under the
current system.
Feature 7--Occupation--Specific Training
Analysts ask, "Don't we already have it?". If it is not available
now, the system seems to be working without it.
Feature 8--Improved Availability of Training
Analysts find this point makes sense, but question the
availability of analysts' tine and their incentive for taking
training. Could the new (or current) system make managers more
responsible for assuring that their employees had time/incentives to:
meet training goals?
Feature 9--Dual Track
In general, analysts favor the dual-track approach. (They believe
they discussed this extensively in the earlier session.) Some
analysts believe the proposed dual-track system would tend to magnify
the difference between managers and analysts when it should be trying
to reduce the gulf. The current system's underutilized provisions for
senior analysts do not bode well for a new system.
Feature 10--Promotion
There are no strong feelings about this feature.
Feature 11--Flexible Benefits Program
--7 '.-
npr.lassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
This feature receives the most enthusiastic reception. Most
analysts, however, wonder whether flexible benefits could be achieved
under the present system.
Feature 12?Leave Conversion
Analysts like the whole section. Most analysts would plan to sell
annual leave and some say they would consider donating to the sick
leave bank.
Feature 13-=Educational Assistance for Dependents
Analysts like this feature. Some analysts, however, believe that
the Agency should not subsidize student loans because the loans would
favor those employees with students. .They would prefer a program of
voluntary contributions to a loan program.
Feature 14?Staffing Management Tools
Analysts welcome the concept of early outs. Some analysts have
vague concerns over the costs of this program. Others are concerned
that the retention bonus was subject to possible abuse.
Feature 15--System Controls
Analysts see this as largely a management issue. They assume that
we were doing these things now and if not, we should be.
Feature 16--Projection Tools
Analysts make the same observations about this feature.
Suggestions:
Remove the minimum-time-in-grade requirement as an incentive to
improve performance. Some analysts believe that analysts would see
the rewards as more immediately related to performance, and would work
harder.
The new system does not guarantee greater manager awareness of
analysts' performance but gives them authority over rewards.
Many analysts regard the proposed plan as intended primarily to
heip solve DO probleds, a perception that is fostered by the extended
and exclusive examples in the back of the booklet. .Once again they
question whether DO (and DI) couldn't tailor the present system to
suit their particular needs.
6.7 ?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
31 July 1987
Division Analysts (NESA)
Response to DI Analyst Occupational Panel Report
Feature 1 - Occupationally Defined Bands
We support Agency efforts to revise position classifications and
pay to better reflect the marketplace. However, we question whether
the Agency can really find professional occupations in the private
sector that compare well with analyst positions in the CIA. Will the
Agency compare CIA analysts with relatively low-paid, untenured
college teachers, or does it look to relatively well-paid contractors of
, the tYpe that often work for DDI offices? In addition, occupations for
which there are no clear cut market linkages to the private sector--
such as intelligence analysts and operations officers?may lose out.
Feature 2 - Incentive Pay
While the plan is logical -- linking bonuses to rankings of
analysts -- we believe, as expressed in our previous report, that
incentive pay may undermine morale. In addition, many analysts-
question the benefits of bonuses. Under the current system, a
promotion leads to a permanent increase in salary. The new system, as
we understand it, allows for a smaller permanent salary increase, while
the bonus portion is subject to yearly financial vagaries and
performance evaluation.
Feature 3 -
Performance Plan
Feature 4 -
Performance Evaluation
Analysts believe it is a good idea to come up with a new PAR that
would allow for more talking between analyst and manager and less
emphasis on the written essay. To be sure, we would not want the
PAR to become too rigid in format and would want it to include space
for miscellaneous comments.
Feature 5 - Occupational Career Handbooks
This is a great idea. Some analysts, however, questioned if
anyone would seriously read and/or review this handbooks.
Feature 6 - Individual Career Development Plan
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Feature 7 - Occupation-Specific Training
Feature 8 - Improved Availability of Training
This also is an excellent idea as long as it remains largely
optional and analysts are not asked to attend a host of obligatory --
and at worst tedious -- training courses required for advancement.
Some analysts expressed serious doubts about the availability of
additional funding for training.
Feature 9 - Dual Track
We enthusiastically support the concept, although we believe that
the duties, functions, and lines of authority need to be spelled out
more fully than was the case in the report prepared by the occupational
panel.
Feature 10 - Promotion
Feature 11 - Flexible Benefits Program
We find the flexible benefits package highly attractive and
support it fully.
Feature 12 - Leave Conversion
Most analysts like this very much.
Feature 13 - Educational Assistance for Dependents
Feature 14 - Staffing Management Tools
Feature 15 and Feature 16
These appear to be necessary administrative evils, but we are
concerned that they would generate an entire new bureaucracy that
could use up budget resources that already seem inadequate to
implement the new system in the first place.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
General
Analysts in the Division basically see very little that is
unattractive in the report. However, we believe the plan will create
some financial problems unless new funds are obligated for personnel
services. The plan is designed to improve the personnel and
compensation system without adding more than 2 to 3 percent to the
Agency's personnel budget.. Yet it calls for:
-- the continuation of employee salaries at the present level in
the new banding system;
-- the continued use of step increases under another name; and
-- the provision of incentive pay to as many as 50 percent of
employees.
We doubt the new plan will work without the expenditure of much
more than a 2-3 percent increase in the budget.
In addition, many analysts opined that the current, simpler
system could be modified atleast to correct for pay differentials between
the Agency and the private sector if,
--management promoted at minimum time in grade instead of
making analysts wait, and
--management made greater use of cash awards to employees to
redress pay differentials. _
npriassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved f9r1..R.e.l2ani22111,138/29i)11 :uCitiRDP88-01192R000100220006-4
29 July 1967
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis
FROM:
uth Asia Division
SUBJECT: SO Division Analysts' Comments on Proposed Pay, Personnel
Management, and Compensation System for CIA
Feature 1 - Occupationally Defined Bands
A number of analysts are skeptical of market linkage for work done in the
DI. Political analysts are especially concerned as their's is a career.
with little comparison in the market but of considerable importance to the
functioning of the DI. Some analysts feel that four bands for analysts are
insufficient because the time span between journeyman and expert is too
long, making it more difficult to evaluate career progress. It was
suggested that 6 bands would be more beneficial for analysts. Some
0 analysts also feel that occupational banding would make it sore difficult
to move between occupations within the Agency and to take rotations in
other fields, both of which are considered a key benefit of a long-term
career with the Agency.
Feature 2 - Incentive Pay
Analysts don't believe that the incentive pay proposals can be implemented
to the benefit of most analysts given current and probably future budgetary
constraints. The report does not address who might lose and how much they
would lose under the new system. Some analysts feel this feature relies
too heavily on managers' evaluations; a poor manager or "hard marker"
could possibly harm a good analyst's career.
Feature 3 - Performance Plan
This is comparable to the advanced work plan currently in existence. Most
analysts are in favor of frequent informal meetings with their managers in
lieu of the one big annual event.
Feature 4 - Performance Evaluation
?
STAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
r.r)nv Anoroved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for.ltasiiTigi'llzi3L99/u103z:Erlif,k-iRDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Most analysts do not see much of a difference from the current system. Some
analysts are concerned that the proposed system does not leave flexibility
for daily changes in intelligence priorities. The system also does not
leave room for important intangibles such as motivation, attitude, and
professional behavior.
Feature 5 - Occupational Career Handbooks
Most analysts consider the handbooks a useful idea as long as they are used
as guides and do not become hard and fast rules. Analysts should not be
penalized for not following the rules exactly. Some expressed concern that
the bandbooks would tend to institutionalize occupations and place less of
a focus on individual and branbh needs.
Feature 6 - Individual Career Development Plan
Analysts are generally in favor of this idea.
Feature 7 - Occupation-Specific Training
.This feature doesn't seem to represent any change from current policy.
Feature 8 - Improved Availability of Training
Analysts are in favor of improved availability of training but most
expressed skepticism that much improvement would be made. Has the Task
Force thought about the security implications of take-home VCR tapes,
computer discs, etc.?
Feature 9 - Dual Track
Analysts are in favor of expanded opportunities for career advancement as
an analyst. Some analysts are concerned that dual tracks may encourage
average analysts to become average managers instead of becoming substantive
experts. Other analysts believe that the financial incentives available to
expert analysts under the proposed system would stop forcing them into
management positions When they prefer to remain and are more suited as
analysts. Analysts agree that cash incentives are important even though
the majority of people are at the Agency for reasons other than money.
Feature 10 - Promotion
All analysts are in favor of this feature. Some analysts suggest that
since there will be fewer promotions under the proposed system, there
should be more ways to recognize people publicly.
Feature 11 - Flexible Benefits Program
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL. USE ONLY
- cnniti7pri nom/ Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part-Sanitized CopyApprovedforRelease2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
_
All analysts in the division like this feature but some were concerned with
the Agency's ability to meet the additional cost.
Feature 12 - Leave Conversion
A number of analysts were in favor of this. Some analysts complained that
the description of this feature makes it sound unethical to take all leave.
Feature 13 - Educational Assistance for Dependents
Most analysts were in favor of this. Some were against it on the grounds
that,everyone would pay for it but only some would benefit.
Feature 14 - Staffing Management Tools
Many analysts agree that this feature would probably be good for creating
headroom but some are concerned that it could degenerate into an up or out
system where we would lose valuable experts. A few analysts pointed out
that it is difficult for younger analysts to consider this feature because
they do not usually project into the future regarding retirement programs.
Feature 15 - System Controls
Some analysts questioned where the checks and balances on senior managers
are in the allocation of monies in their individual offices.
Feature 16 - Projection Tools
Analysts agree that management must improve its ability to evaluate its
employee needs consistently throughout the Agency. Some analysts are
concerned that this feature would put too much power in the hands of branch
Chiefs in the area of recruiting, employee retention, and retirement,
creating a potential for abuse.
General Comments:
Although many of the comments look good on paper, analysts in this division
do not believe the system can be implemented, as intended, without a
substantial increase in cost. Where will the money for the new system come
from? A number of analysts commented that many of the proposed features
are already In existence and do not require a change in personnel system to
be implemented. Furthermore, if these features are not being used
? efficiently now, what is the incentive under the new system to make them
work? Some analysts believe there is also a greater potential for abuse
under the new system. Analysts are also concerned that the new proposals
have not be completely thought out. Descriptions of a number of the
features are sketchy and vague. Analysts are adament that they do not want
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Ccnv Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE T
. lirrrOIJAT TY CC 1117T v
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
? to be "guinea pigs." No system should be implemented until all the details
have been thought out and worked out.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Internal Use Only
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 31, 1987
DirectoriNESA
STAT
Draft Proposal on New Pay, Personnel Management
and Benefits System for CIA
The two branches of IA Division met separately to consider the
proposed system and came to somewhat different conclusions. As you-will
see. Issues Branch (which included me in its meetings) was quite
critical of the overall proposal, although it found some of its features
attractive. Applications Branch was more positive in its response. We
have decided that merging the two approaches would serve little purpose
and, therefore, are sending both of them forward.
. _
npr.lassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Unanimous disbelief that up to 50% of employees would receive
incentive pay larger than current in-steps. This suggests, first, a high
level of funding and, second, a considerable inflation in PARS. In the
coming era of Graham-Rudman and a probable decline in CIA's share of the
pie, the funding premise seems fatuous.
There are provisions for rewards in the current system which
presumably are not being creatively exploited. There is little reason to
expect that the new system would be better used. Furthermore, the bonus
system, where it is used--for high-level managers--appears to be applied
subjectively and in a self-serving manner.
Finally, it is not clear what the pay incentive system is designed
to accomplish. Most feel the result would be detrimental to morale and to
analyst-manager relations as a manager is constantly forced to apportion
limited funds, making his/her life more difficult.
Feature 3: Performance Plan
Okay. Little change, if any, from current advanced work plan.
Feature 4: Performance Evaluation
Okay. Again, however, most feel that these changes could be made
within the current system. A five-point rating scale is probably as good
as a seven-point system, but this change misses the point. The main
problem is the frequent incompatibility between the ratings given by
different components. Any ratings system will be largely subjective and
will differ from manager to manager. Stricter adherence to rating scale
definitions, whatever the system, would help.
There is strong support for a strengthened career development
system--but one that is geared to the needs and objectives of the
individual, not only to those of a particular agency component.
Features 5-8:
These suggestions are all good, but should be ongoing within the
current system.
Feature 9: Dual Track
Our support for the dual track was stated in our comments on the
Occupational Panel report. We believe it would help the agency to
maintain a cadre of experienced analysts.
2
n,,,-Inecifiarl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
30 July 1987 ?
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Branch Evaluation of the Proposed Pay, Personnel
Management, and Compensation System.
Applications Branch of the Issues and Applications Division
met on 22 July to discuss the proposed Pay, Personnel
Management, and Compensation System. Following are
consensus views of the Branch on the various features of the
proposed System: ?
Feature 1--Occupationally Defined Bands. The Branch is
generally in favor of the two-track system. It is not
clear, however, how banding will take place--whether by
office or by job. Should banding take place by job
title, it is possible that employees may be evaluated
by persons who are unfamiliar with the specific work
that they do. The Branch also wonders whether the new
System will apply ranking, time-in-grade, and other
criteria throughout the Agency.
Feature 2--Incentive Pay. There appear to be no
provisions in the proposed System for the distribution
of incentives. Will most incentives go to higher level
employees. Some mechanism is needed to assure that
incentives are equitably distributed.
Feature 3--Performance Plan. While supervisors are in
the best position to develop performance plans for
their employees, these plans need to evaluated by
others in order to determine the performance of the
supervisor, to assure consistency of plans among
various supervisors, and to assure that individual
plans are not defective in some way.
The proposed System does recognize the need for plan
revision. Most analysts spend much of their time
working on tasks of an ad hoc nature. Perhaps such
allowance for such work needs to be incorporated into
performance plans. If not, an employee's plan needs to
be revised each time he is assigned a new task
requiring a "substantial" share of his time.
Feature 4--Performance Evaluation. Evaluation fairness
must be safeguarded by providing a review process. The
new System should either allow for the periodic review
of supervisor evaluations of employees as a part of the
process of evaluating supervisor performance or for
grievance procedure by which employees can have their
own evaluations reviewed by persons other than their
supervisor.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
be no penalty for early retirement, and this option
should be available to all employees, not just those at
the higher levels.
The Branch expressed several other concerns about the
proposed System.
o The System increases the role of the supervisor in
the development of the careers of his employees. Is
this wise?
Will the new System do away with cost-of-living
increases in pay?
o What impact will the proposed System have on job
security?
0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
the current PAR system needs improvement, but we find
Performance Evaluation to be too rigid to be acceptable in
evaluating DI analysts whose job requirements vary
considerably and are subject to frequent change.
6. Feature 5. Career Handbooks
Some of our managers see this proposal as the initial
step in the establishment. of career tracks similar to those
established by the military services. It would lead
employees to focus on getting the proper "tickets punched"
and would discourage creativity and spontaneity. Each
employee. has a different set of needs and strengths and
should, in our view, be allowed to make career decisions
Lased on his or her own individual situation.
7. Feature 6. Career Development Plan
This would probably improve communication between
employees and managers, but it has some of the same
shortcomings as Feature 5.
8. Feature 7. Occupation Specific Training
This is less flexible than the current system and would
stifle individual initiative in training decisions.
9. Feature 8. Improved Availability of Training
The positive aspect of this feature is that it provides
more imaginative training opportunities.
10. Feature 9. Dual Track
Some of our managers think this is a great idea.
Others are concerned about the nature of the relationships
between supervisors and their senior analysts if the senior
analysts have unrestricted freedom without regard for
division management. Some also fear an unnecessary
proliferation of senior analysts.
11. Feature 10. Promotion
This does not mean much unless the pie from which pay
is taken is enlarged.
12. Feature 11. Flexible Benefits Program
Somewhat confusing but generally a helpful proposal.
13. Feature 12. Leave Conversion
Good Idea. Concur.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
- cnniti7pci nom/ Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
14. Feature 13. Educational Assistance
Good Idea. Concur.
15. Feature 14. Staffing Management
Increases pressure on managers to reach the SIS level
early in their careers.
16. Feature 15. System Controls
Vague, but appears to be acceptable.
17.' Feature 16. Projection Tools
Unclear.
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
=1.
plans, drafting career handbooks, etc will place
additional demands on the time of line officers.
Moreover, it seems to us that a substantial
bureaucracy will need to be created to run the new
system. If there is no comparable increase in
Agency resources, this will have to come out of the
hide of line organizations.
We believe that there are a number of good features
in the plan and that they can and should be
implemented without completely restructuring the
Agency's personnel system.
3. The following are comments on the individual
features:
Feature 1 --Occupationally Defined Bands
41?11
MEI 4.?
Work levels not well defined in DI band--all
problems pointed out in comments on DI occupational
panel report apply.
Who would participate in the market pricing process?
This will either be a drain on line-officer time or
you will end up reducing the number of line-officers
in-order-to create a staff to do the work.
There is an apparent contradiction in comments
related to comparability increases. The report
states that the Agency would continue to maintain an
overall parity with other Federal agencies on the
comparability pay increases, but would use a market
survey to make higher occupation specific
adjustments. The report goes on to state all
employees at fully satisfactory level would receive
the Federal comparability increase at a minimum.
How do you give some more, the rest the same, and
still maintain parity?
On page three the report states that conversion of
our present work force to occupationally defined
bands will require minimal costs, assuming we
initially make no significant adjustments to current
occupational pay levels. If the benefits are
minimal, what is to be gained from a major redo of
the system?
Feature 2 --Incentive Pay
Sounds good on paper. An open pay range with both
permanent, annual salary increases and bonuses
appears fair and a plausible way to reward
2
neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
???
performance. Concept has not worked equitably
elsewhere in the government, however.
Concept would foster a more competitive atmosphere
instead of encouraging a team effort. You risk cut-
throat competition for a few prime accounts and
difficulty in getting people to pay attention to
less visible accounts.
Feature 3 --Performance Plan
MIN MID
Support of data base created for each occupation
, that includes key job responsibilities and
functions, representative tasks, and occupation-
specific performance expectations would require
excessive time and manpower.
Seems to be a step backward from AWPs.
Performance plan has to be tailored to the
individual. Therefore--as in many of these
features--too much time, money and effort will be
wasted on ADP support.
Feature 4 --Performance Evaluation
MN NMI
No major problems other then continued criticism of
relying on "automated" support and the problems
pointed out in the DI occupation panel report which
required a "6" ranking for promotion.
Feature 5 --Occupational Career Handbooks
MO WM,
The objective is commendable but, as in much of the
proposed system, the time and personnel requirements
for preparing and updating the handbooks would be
excessive.
Feature 6 Individual Career Development Plan
?111,. IMO
Attractive as an optional tool--to be done by and
used by an individual. Any other use or purpose
would be to formal and unrealistic.
Report states that the career development plan is
tailored to the needs of the individual employee.
How about the needs of the organization?
The development plan is to be used to plan and
prepare for an employee's next assignment. Rare are
the reassignments that can be planned for in the DI.
Most reassignments are the result of shifts in the
importance of accounts or the unforeseen movement of
individuals.
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Feature 7--Occupation-Specific Training
4.1.
Like motherhood and apple pie, the objective can't
be opposed, but where is the money and time to come
from. The necessary support that busy line officers
will be called upon to provide would be excessive.
Feature 8--Improved Availability of Training
Additional training will have to compete with many ?
other demands upon the person's time.
See no need for extended and expanded mandatory
entry-level training.
Feature 9--Dual Track
Principle is okay, but you need to preserve the
manager's authority and responsibility for products.
The relationship between experts and managers has
not been defined adequately by the DI occupational
panel.
Feature 10--Promotion
???
Not much new here.
Statement that all employees with satisfactory or
above performance evaluationwould be considered for
promotion does not fit with DI occupational report
which says you need a five to be promoted.
Feature 11--Flexible Benefits Program
Feature 12--Leave Conversion
Feature 13--Educational Assistance for Dependent's
These three features are very attractive and likely
to be widely appreciated and valued. They would
help retain people in the Agency.
Major concern is whether the Agency can support the
features financially.
Feature 14--Staffing Management Tools
MP MID Good proposals for flow-through and retention.
Feature 15--System Controls
Very ambitious and burdensome for managers.
4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
SUBJECT: Comments of Al Managers on Proposed Pay,
Personnel Management, and Compensation System.
??? ???
Would require major refocusing of managers from
substantive matters to administration.
Feature 16--Prolection Tools
Would be needed if plan is put into effect.
However, where are you going to get the resources
for these features without eating into line resourc
des?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
O continue to do so. Those who are not will tend to write
perfunctory performance plans. We also find it distressing
that the plan on which each employee is to be evaluated--
potentially the most important document an employee will be
involved with--is being sold to managers as requiring only
"a few lines" of written material.
Feature 4. Performance Evaluation
Comment: Essentially this is a revamped PAR and we have no
basic problem with it being implemented. Nonetheless we
doubt 4t will end, or even ameliorate, the communication
problems in the present system. We note that, contrary to
the report, the narrative of the current PAR is the most
important part of the document and should already address
the employee's job responsibilties.
Feature 5. Occupational Career Handbooks
Comment: We had little comment on this feature--interesting
in that the panel describes it as the "heart of the career
development improvements in the proposed system."
Essentially we believe this will be another document that
will gather dust on managers' shelves while employees will
be misled into believing that, if they acquire the
"assignments, experiences, skills, and training that best
O prepare an employee for each level," they automatically will
be promoted to that level. Moreover, assignments,
experiences, and even some training are now often determined
by the needs of the office, not the needs of the employee.
Presumably this will remain true in the future, leading to
increased tension between employees, who feel they need
these things to get ahead, and the office, which may feel it
cannot spare the employee for those assignments due to the
workload.
Feature 6. Individual Career Development
Comment: None
Feature 7. Occupational Specific Training
Comment: We doubt OTE will be able to design courses
appropriate for the DDI under this new plan, therefore we
believe each Directorate will have to have its own training
unit.
Feature 8. Improved Availability of Training
Comment: We question whether there is much unclassified
training for DDI analysts that can be taken home.
ADMINISTRATTur TiumrnmAr ?ew
nprlacsifiPci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Feature 16. Prolection Tools
Comment: We are surprised the Agency isn't using these
planning tools already.
STAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
USE ONLY
30 July 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR: D/NESA
STAT
FROM:
Division Managers
SUBJECT:
Report.of
the Human Resource Task Force
The managers in p]Division have discussed the
prelim4nary report of .the Human Resources Modernization and
, Compensation Task Force and offer the following
observations.
Feature 1: Occupationally Defined Bands
We believe the proposed banding system in a generally
sound--and necessarily flexible--way to recognize that
different occupations call for different salary levels. It
is also more rational than the GS system in that it more
clearly distinguishes between a reward for fulfilling one's
current responsibilities well and a promotion to a higher
level of responsibility.
We have some concern about how the analyst occupational
group is--or rather, is not--subdivided into disciplines.
To implement fully the Task Force's principle of market
pricing for specific occupations, economists probably would
have to be separated from political and military analysts.
On balance, however, a single occupational group for
analysts is probably better suited to NESA, with its
integrated branches, multi-author projects, and emphasis on
cross-disciplinary analysis.
We strongly endorse the removal of average grade and
ceiling constraints. The only justification for personnel
management restrictions of this sort is the effect on the
budget's bottom line, and the funding constraints that would
continue under the new system would take care of that.
Feature 2: Incentive Pay
The proposed system of incentive pay is, overall, an
excellent idea. It would be more fair, less arbitrary, and
more capable of fine-tuning than the current system of
awards. In addition, by directly affecting at least 50
percent of the work force, it could be expected to have a
significant motivating effect.
One question about implementing the incentive pay is
exactly what kind of guidelines (or quotas) career panels
FOR OFFI SE ONLY
im,Inecifiori in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Z UR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
would observe in making their decisions. Rigid monetary
limits in doling out incentive pay might inaccurately assume
that excellence is evenly distributed across offices. But
looser guidelines might mean that different career panels
would apply different standards, as well as making the total
cost uncertain.
Regardless of whether the guidelines are tight or
loose, career panels will need not just some of the wisdom
of a Solomon but also some of the budgetary virtuosity of a
David Stockman to do a good job of apportioning incentive
pay. Consider how a panel would look at the distribution of
incentive pay among different grade levels % One approach
would be to allot portions of the kitty to each grade
according to a fixed formula that considered the number of
analysts in each grade and their average current salary.
This would simplify the task, but it might be unfair in an
office as small as NESA, where in any given year the career
panel might be able to discern that the dozen or so analysts
in grade X formed a generally stronger group than the dozen
or so analysts in grade Y. The problem would be mitigated
somewhat once the current GS system was replaced by the
banding system (with fewer grade levels and thus,
presumably, a larger number of analysts at each level), but
it would still exist. If the panel did not apportion Money
among levels according to a fixed formula, it would, in
part, be ranking employees not only against others in the
same grade but also against those in other grades, because
every dollar spent for incentive pay for employees in one
grade would mean less for those in a different grade. Would
a career panel try to do-this all at once, in one annual
binge of rankings and marathon panel meetings? Or would it
continue to consider different grades at different times
thoughout the year, which could mean it would be committing
incentive pay piecemeal, before determining all of the
people who will be deserving of such pay?
A related uncertainty is how the incentive pay for
managers who sit on career panels would be kept separate
from the money that they allot to other employees in their
office. If it were not separated, there might be a conflict
of interest (i.e., using less of the kitty for lower grades
would leave more of it for the managers). Would there be a
separate directorate-wide kitty for everyone at a level
equivalent to the current GS-15 (or even GS-14)? The report
does not specify.
The report does not indicate whether information about
incentive pay awards would be available to all employees in
the office. NESA's current practice is that promotions and
awards are publicized, but in the private sector it is
probably more common for the size of bonuses to be
unpublicized. We do not have A well-formed view on this
question. Making the information freely available might
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
npriaccifiari in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
increase the motivating power of incentive pay, clarify what
kinds of performance are most appreciated, and help to limit
rumors and misinformation. But it might also induce career
panels to distribute incentive pay more broadly than actual
performance would dictate.
The report also does not specify whether bonuses would
be paid in a lump sum or spread out over a year. We
recommend the former, to make it clear that the payment is a
bonus, not a salary increase, and does not carry over into
the next year.
We want to stress that we endorse the.. idea of pay-for-
performance and of incentive pay specifically. The
uncertainties we have mentioned above are not reasons to
avoid incentive pay but instead areas where the report is
unclear and where perhaps further details need to be thought
out before the new system is implemented.
Feature 3: Performance Plan
We doubt whether an "automated AWP" would be very
useful, but the supervisor would have discretion whether or
not to use it anyway.
Feature 4: Performance Evaluation
We don't see how going from seven to five rating levels
on the PAR would improve anything. The report does not
specify how the PAR would be used with any greater effect or
consistency in decisions onpay and promotions than is the
case today. The report is better than the D/ occupational
panel's report, however, in not proposing that promotions be
rigidly tied to PAR ratings.
Feature 5: Occupational Career Handbooks
Sounds fine.
Feature 6: Individual Career Development Plan
Sounds fine, but supervisors and employees ought to be
doing this sort of thing already.
Feature 7: Occupation-Specific Training
No comment.
Feature 8: Improved Availability of Training
No comment.
Feature 9: Dual Track
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
in Dari - R.fliti7d Com/ Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The reservations we expressed earlier--in our comments
On the DI occupational panel's report--about experts and
managers and how they would relate to each other also apply
to the current report. We favor the existence of separate
tracks but emphasize the need to think out carefully where
senior experts fit into office hierarchies. The proposed
Manager-Expert Incentive Program appears to be a worthwhile
way to recognize and reward major contributors below the SIS
level.
Feature 10: Promotion
The procedures and criteria for promotion that are
outlined here sound appropriate, and are better than what
was described in the DI occupational panel's report.
Feature 11: Flexible Benefits Proaram
Greater flexibility in selecting benefits, within
financial limits, makes eminently good sense and is a long-
overdue recognition of the extent to which needs of
employees vary greatly because of different personal and
family circumstances.
Feature 12: Leave Conversion
As a further implementation of the principle of making
benefits flexible, the proposals for use of leave are sound.
Feature 13: Educational Assistance for Dependents
No comment.
Feature 14: Staffina Manaaement Tools
The early retirement provisions are potentially a major
attraction both for those who would be given the optfon of
retiring early and those who would benefit from the headroom
thereby opened up. We note, however, that the recommended
provisions for early retirement and retention bonuses are
based on DCI discretion, and so exactly how these provisions
would be implemented, and how beneficial they would prove to
be, are difficult to predict.
Feature 15: System Controls
The report is correct to emphasize the need for
additional ADP support. As noted above, the deliberations
of career panels in awarding incentive pay are particularly
likely to require number-crunching assistance.
Feature 16: Prolection Tools
No comment.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYrIcfr4 .
in Part - Sanitized CM/ Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
vx OFFICIAL USE ONLY
General Comments
In general, we like the proposed new compensation
system. It would almost certainly be more attractive than
the present one to the sorts of high-performing current and
potential employees we most need to recruit and retain, and
it would more systematically motivate and reward good
performers. Most of our doubts and concerns, as described
above, involve the details of implementation.
Our one general concern is that some of what is
proposed sounds expensive. /n particular, an incentive pay
system that provides fully satisfactory performers with at
least what they would receive under the GS system and
provides half of the work force with even more would seem to
involve a substantial increase in perdlonnel costs. The
budgetary question is not a subject of the report, of
course. We just note that the report does not really prove
the case that the Agency is not competing well enough with
the private sector in hiring and retaining good people in
many occupations, as opposed to a few occupations, such as
computer specialists.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
- - -;E:--i
- Qmnifi7Pri r.onv Aooroved for Release 2013/09./13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4 STAT
Comments on Proposed Pay, Personnel_Mamagement__________
Compensation System
First I would not dismiss the entire study out of hand.
There are some very revolutionaryikideas put forth, some
more worthy of acceptance, some less so. Many,many of the
proposals obviously need more study and more form. All need
better costing studies. I believe a more honest approach is
required, particularly if "Incentive" pay is approved. All
people will not benefit, and the sooner that point is ?
maderithe better. Too much is promised, for too many people.
While each of the proposals are attractive to varying
degrees implementation of such a total system would have far
reaching impacts. For example
- supervisors would have to spend far more time managin
How would this impact on DI managers who have to develop
maintain considerable substantive expertise?
- Several of the proposals would depend on greater
staffing for the Office of Personnel and greater exercise of
control on their part. Is that desirable??
- While merit pay is much like motherhood and god, it
would impact on teamwork and morale. Many believe the DI is
already too competitive.
Feature 1 - Occupationally Defined Bands
- Critizes GS system but presents little evidence to
backup its remarks.
Doing away with FWD and creating our own distinct
position descriptions are highly desirable. Allowing
management to use personnel services funding to constrain
the work force is an important step forward.
- The concept of "market pricing" is glossed over. What
organizations in the private sector do we survey to
determine how much DI analysts should be paid? Even if this
could be accoaplished where will the funds come from to meet
these new pay obligations?
- Is there enough commonality in the work of DI analysts
that would allow those individuals to be placed in a single
band? What of people in staff positions?
- Assuming banding can be accomplished, rather than
create a new pay scale the Agency could retain the GS
system.
STAT
narlaccifiPri in Part - Sanitized Coov Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Feature 2 - Incentive Pay
- A noble idea but I fail to see how everybody can
benefit. The draft claims up to 50% of the employees will
received incentive bonuses. Where will the funds come from?
If the panel is suggesting that underperformers get less or
nothing and above average achievers receive sizable bonus
then the cost will be considerable less. Those losing
money,the underperformers will be far from satisfied. ,
- Performance appraisals are already one of management's
most. difficult assignments. Attaching monetary awards to the
system will only add to the difficulty.
- "All employees at an acceptable level of performance
would receive at least the equivalent of the current
in-steps." Very hard to believe.
- Will mean few promotions and more time in level.
Feature 3 - Performance Plan
- A few years ago when the Agency was deep in Management
by Objectives, managers had to do Letters of Instructions
(LOIs). These were to spell out measurable objectives
employees were suppose to achieve if their performance was
deemed satisfactory. LOIs did not work then and I doubt if
0 the new "Performance Plans" will work. Our work is such that
it can nor be quantified.
Feature 4 - Performance Evaluation
- The Office of Personnel can not keep track of new
applicants. How can we expect them to develop and maintain a
complex data base.
- It is probably time to change the current PAR system.
Feature 5 - Occupational Career Handbook
- Doable but I doubt that it will have the impact the
panel gives it. Many employees are constantly seeking road
maps to success. I have yet to see one.
Feature 6 - Individual Career Development Plan
- A desirable item but I doubt that it will succeed to the
point the panel believes it will.
? CONFIDENTIAL
Dari - R.fliti7d Com/ Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Feature 7 - Occupation-Specific Training
- No comment
Feature 8 - Improved Availability of Training
- No comment.
Feature 9 =Dual Track
- I have no problem with this concept but I don't believe
it is the final answer. Problems exist in defining the role
of management vis-a-vis senior analyst/expert. Duties for
each need to be clarified. If the decision to create senior
analysts is left to the Office Director then it might work.
Feature 10 - promotion
- Too much importance attached to Career Handbooks. I
doubt if any publication can adequately spell out the
details required for promotion to a higher grade. If intent
is to create "ticket punched" mentality than I am opposed.
Feature 11 - Flexible Benefits Program
- Sounds attractive but again one wonders about the cost
for such a program and where the funds will come from.
Feature 12 - Leave Conversion
NC
Feature 13 - Educational Assistance for Dependents
- Sounds quite attractive but obviously cost are great.
Feature 14 - Staffing Management Tools
- Again this package sounds reasonable until one begins
looking at the cost for such proposals. One also wonders how
the troops will view this proposal especially when SISers
and managers/experts will be receiving sizable bonuses
throughout their careers. I an very skeptical of the need
for this proposal. I see no justification for retention or
early out bonuses.
CONFIDENTIAL
npnlassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
wririve.NTIAL
Feature 15 - Systems Controls
- The Office of Personnel remains in the dark ages when
it comes to ADP. If there is one office in the Agency that
cries out for automated systems it is 0/P. SW they have yet
to develop a reliable system. I have absolutely no faith in
their development of a system that will assist managers in
budgeting and controlling a personnel compensation system.
Feature 16 - Projection Tools
- Again I would have to admit that I do not believe that
the 0/Personnel has neither the resources or the imagination
to develop these tools.
CONFIDENTIAL
rioarf - Raniti7ed CODV Approved for Release 2013/09/13 : CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTEFtNAL USE ONLY
VIEWS OF D/NESA AND DD/NESA
The effort to increase compensation and other rewards for Agency
employees is a laudable endeavor. We are not convinced, however, that
to secure the benefits of those few features of the proposed pay,
personnel management, and compensation plan which are almost
universally supported that we need the complete restructuring of the
present system.
We believe that the proposed personnel systei would fundamentally
alter our management structure and philosophy in ways that would by
dysfunctional. NESA managers and, we trust, others in the Directorate
of Intelligence are and need to be involved with substance. The new
system would mandate that they spend most of their time on
administrative issues.
Our impression is that to make the system work a large resources
investment would have to be made. Market surveys, building and
maintaining data bases, more training, preparing career development
plans, and drafting career handbooks will require new staffs and/or
additional demands on the time of line officers. We believe these
demands will be especially great in the development and maintenance of
sophisticated ADP programs and staffing to manage the system. We
O already are awash in this Directorate with irrelevant and seemingly
always growing staffs and constant demands to furnish productive
analysts to do tasks which many of us believe need not be done. If
there is no comparable increase in-Agency resources to do all the
things called for in the new proposals, this will come out of the hide
of the line organizations--whose people do the essential missions of
this Agency.
We would also question the actual utility of the so-called new,
easy, and automated management tools. Past experience has shown that
such good sounding concepts have little value in practice and quickly
become exercises in rote and irrelevancy.
-19
ADMINISTRATIVE-INTERNAL USE MN
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/09/13: CIA-RDP88-01192R000100220006-4