SIMPLIFICATION OF THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2012
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: August 15, 1988
• Content Type: MEMO

Y
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
~pq
AUG 15
FROM: Royal E. Elne::dorf
Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
REFERENCE: Memo for DA, D_, DO, DS&T fm ExDir, dtd 29 June 1988,
Same Subject
At your request, a Task Force comprised of senior officers of each
Directorate was formed to consider in more detail the irrplementation issues
connected with the plan to de---:~tralize position classification. We believe
that the attached implementation plan takes into account the specific concerns
raised by the reference, and agree that none of the issues should deter us
from proceedinc to decentralize. The Task Force is satisfied that the
proposals for a simplified, decentralized position classification system,
grade point distribution, and an Agency-unique factor evaluation system are
viable ones and, with judiciocs management, will provide managers with new
tools necessary to assume greater accountability for their personnel
resources. Undoubtedly, there will be some growing pains with the new system
as managers adjust to their roles in this area. However, the phased nature of
the proposal, with decentralization being gradually introduced as generic
position descriptions are comrleted and coordinated, will give managers time
to adjust to the new processes, and the processes time to be adjusted for
managers. In this regard, we propose that quarterly conferences be convened
wherein members of the Office of Personnel (OP) will provide progress reports
on the effort to Agency managers. The specific areas of concern are addressed
below.
a. How will decisions about the appropriate grade of support or other
positions be handled?
Support jobs will be traded by the component manager because he/she is
most aware of that component's support requirements. As with the current
process, however, any charge to positions not carrying the component's
career service designation, such as Directorate of Administration
positions in the Directorate of Operations, must have the concurrence of
the cognizant career service. Another, more informal and very practical
control exists today on the grade. for support positions, since the support
career services often try to provide an incumbent whose grade is equal to
that of the position being filled. Thus, components that lower the grades
of support positions run the risk of having people in them that cannot do
the job.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
Component managers are not now pressuring the office of Personnel to
downgrade support jobs. Quite the contrary, component managers routinely
pressure OP to upgrade support positions in order to "get the best person
for the job." We would expect this to continue rather than abate, and do
not foresee sudden new pressures to single out and downgrade support
positions. Well-coordinated and documented generic standards will provide
sufficient checks on the grades of support positions in components.
b. How can we be sure that major inequities won't be generated?
The issues of equity and control have been the most controversial in
the early definition of the decentralized classification processes.
Concern has been expressed that some managers will have too great an
incentive to take the short-term view and solve immediate staffing,
morale, and other pay-related issues through liberal job grading
practices, while other managers will suffer in comparison by taking a
longer, more corporate perspective on their staffing problems. This short
view/long view dichotomy could threaten the current balance in the
classification process, throwing out equitable classification and
resulting in GS-09s and GS-12s doing the same job in different corponents.
While this is an understandable concern, we do not believe it has
sufficient weight to cause a deferral of the new system. In our view,
isolated instances of grade disparity exist now and are likely to continue
under the new system. There are likely to be disparities in the new
system, just as there are in the old. What is different is that manacers
will have the flexibilities and the tools to correct disparities. To
illustrate, experience shows that "inequitable" job classification, to the
extent it can be determined to exist at all in a rank-in-person system, is
likely to be most prevalent in two general areas: occupations that cross
Directorate lines, and new or rapidly changing occupations (for example,
the widest range of grades for similar work has arisen over the last few
years among Wang Administrator positions, and other computer support
jobs). This disparity exists because the Office of Personnel has been
unevenly responsive to pressure from managers to put jobs on the books at
higher grade levels-doing so in some cases, not doing so in
others-because an agreed upon and up-to-date internal standard or
benchmark for grading these positions did not exist, and because'each
manacer was able to take his/her case to the Office of Personnel in
isolation.
Under the decentralized scheme, the chances of this kind of disparity
could be reduced since managers, often from across the Agency, would be
involved directly in developing the classification standard for any new
occupation prior to applying it. This process would result in more
general agreement on, and acceptance of, the Agency's definition of work
2
ADMINISTRATIVE' - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
 1 ~e~..T ?m
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07 CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030009-5
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
at each grade level for these occupations. Managers would not be coming
to the Office of Personnel one job at a time, but would have the process
and the tools to assess each occupation as a whole. Therefore, the
potential for grade disparities in cross-Agency or newer occupations may
be significantly reduced by decentralizing as planned. With respect to
Directorate-specific or well established occupations, few problems of
equity are expected to occur. In occupations such as case officer,
analyst, and project management engineer, grades and duties are generally
well recognized and accepted by managers and employees alike. Therefore,
the Task Force believes that the fear that decentralization will worsen
existing disparities or foster new inconsistencies in the classification
system is unfounded. Moreover, the process of writing and grading generic
position descriptions will be a Directorate- or Agency-wide exercise at
working toward, rather than defeating, the principle of equal pay for
equal work, especially for the newly emerging or changing occupations.
The Office of Personnel, by virtue of managing the grade points and
conducting periodic position management surveys, traditionally has been
perceived as playing a police role in assuring that major inequities did
not occur, and it will continue to perform an oversight role to protect
against major inequities in management's application of their generic
position descriptions. Once properly graded generic position descriptions
have been developed, however, the integrity of the system will be the
ultimate responsibility of the line manager, not the Office of Personnel.
The Office of Personnel will conduct periodic spot checks of position
grades above the journeyman level, and at the recuest of an cffice or a
directorate will advise managers on applying the generic descriptions to
unique situations. The Office will also advise Directorate ranagement of
unusual trends in the classification data it monitors, such as average
grade, a preponderance of clerical downgrades, or other anomalies
suggesting that a generic description is not being interpreted
consistently by managers, and would issue an advisory memorandum to all
Directorates describing how the generic description is to be applied. The
authority to certify the grade level of the position will con:inue to rest
with the line manager.
c. Will the new system really improve our flexibility an our
capability to react quickly?
The dynamics of organizational change, whether driven by
technological, mission-related, or other sources are addressee by today's
position classification system in a timely way only through a'. inordinate
commitment of time and effort by management and the Office of Personnel.
The Agency does react quickly, but the process of formalizing the position
grades, titles, and organization structure usually receives a lower
priority. This results in managers operating with "nonofficial' position
grades and organization structures for several months before heir
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07 : CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
'official" structure reflects reality. Although this practice results in
no delays in meeting the new mission requirements, it does call into
serious question the basic relevance of a position management program when
it is always lagging behind the real structure of an organization, to the
general discredit of personnel and administrative systems.
The new system will provide line management the tool to put a "real
time" organization on the books, which experience has shown is desirable
for numerous reasons. It will also raise and resolve debates about
position management more expeditiously and locally. This latter point is
critical in reorganizations and mergers of organizations where the
inability of the Office of Personnel to drop everything and grade the new
organization's jobs is viewed as a third party and bureaucratic impediment
to meeting the new line organization's mission. Moreover, if the grading
of positions is at all contentious in the current system, resolving the-
conflict delays management and the Office of Personnel from addressing the
Lore important matters of staffing, career development, succession
planning, etc. Therefore, to the extent that the decentralized scheme
reduces the time it takes to get the jobs set up and on the books, it
rives managers increased time (which could be translated as flexibility)
to address the more pressing management needs of their organizations. The
time gained in setting up the positions in new organizations and getting
them put on the books by OP can be better spent in addressing matters with
more direct and material effects on the organization.
Another concern about the effect of the new decentralized scher e on
rLanagement flexibility is that it might make it too easy to reorganize,
creating a continuing sense of uncertainty among the ranks and giving the
manager too free a hand to reorganize. As stated above, we believe that
responsible management in the decentralized scheme will result primarily
in time savings that can be used to get on with the staffing, p-acement,
and career management actions often held in abeyance now pending
classification actions.
As part of the HRM&CTF activity, OP has been defining and testing out
a capability to assist managers in optimizing their organization. As the
decentralization advances, OP expects to be in the position to assist
r..anagers in planning for and designing new organizations and in
recommending better use of position resources.
d. How should ceiling and points be distributed?
We recommend that grade points should be distributed in the sa-~e way
that other resources are, i.e., based on program requirements. Point
distribution should be done using authorized office position ceiling
r.:srbers. The process used to determine SIS position allocations is an
appropriate model, as is the program call process. We would envision
Directorates submitting their projected requirements for points to the
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
Office of the Comptroller during the program call, and the Comptroller
using these requirements to generate the request for a new Agency average
grade. Points made available from the new average grade authorization
will be distributed to the Directorates by the Executive Committee as part
of the normal course of reallocation once the budget is received by the
Agency.
e. Will rotational assignments be facilitated or hindered by the new
system?
We do not envision the new system affecting the desirability or
management of rotational assignments. What will not chance is the fact
that the employee is promoted by a Career Service. So long as the
rank-in-person system is maintained, the Career Service can promote
without regard to the grade of the position being encumbered. Each Career
Service now sends clear signals to its employees as to whether rotational
assignments are encouraged through its promotion policies. We see no
reason for this practice not to continue in the new decentralized scheme.
I and the Task Force-members remain positive about the prospect of
decentralizing position classification. It will be one of the most
significant challenges to be faced by the Office of Personnel in the coming
years, yet it can pay off with a major positive impact on the Nay we manage
human resources.
STAT
RoVAi E. en orf
Attachment:
As stated
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
SUBJECT: Simplification of the Position Classification System
STAT
Distribution:.
Original - Addressee w/atts
1 - ExRegistry w/atts
1 - DA Representative w/atts
1 - DI Representative w/atts
1 - DO Representative w/atts
1 - DS&T Representative w/atts
1 - DCI Re resentative w/atts
1 w/atts
1 - D/OP w/atts
2 - DD/CAP w/atts
1 - CAP/PCSD Chrono w/atts
1 - CAP/PCSD/ODB w/atts
STAT C/PCSD/ODB
(12Aug8fi)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353R001800030009-5
 STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
Next 7 Page(s) In Document Denied
Iq
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90GO1353R001800030009-5
Attachment B
DECENTRALIZATION OF POSITION CLASSIFICP=ON
#Group Occupations
#Identify-Levels.Within Occupations (journeyman/ei7-ert/manager)
+Develop'GenericPDs in Agency Standard ===nat
+Grade Generic PDs Against Agency Stanca_d
#Coordinate with Office
+Provide managers with Generic PDs
*Submit Position Change Requests through Direct::ate to ODB
+Implement Position Change
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
... ATrAMt'1T C1
"FACTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM
^ Knowledge 40%
^ Suervleory Ctls
15?
M Guidelines 15,
i Complexity 10%
^ Scu
1 0a/Effect
^ Pers Contacts
3%
^ Purp Contacts
5%
tH
Ph~rs Demands
1'
Wk Environment
1%
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/07: CIA-RDP90G01353RO01800030009-5
.AGENCY. PROPOSED SYSTEM
A'I'I'AINI7TJ