PANEL SIZE AND COMPOSITION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 22, 2000
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: October 23, 1978
• Content Type: MF

Registry
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY DD/4 RApproved Fo elease 2001/06/09: CIA-RDP81-0014000400100003-7 gy
1
2 3 OCT 1978
DD /A Jgistry
file -tee
FROM: John F. Blake
Deputy Director for Administration
SUBJECT: Panel Size and Composition
REFERENCE: Memorandum from DDCI to D/Pers, dtd 27 Sep 78,,
Subj: Composition of Career Service and Subgroup
Panels and More Uniform Agency Standards for
Personnel Management Operations
1. We would assume that the proposal to restructure the
Agency's panel system arises from the feeling that more unbiased
and objective evaluations are required, and therefore it becomes
necessary to introduce panel members from outside the functional
categories of those being evaluated. We believe the proposal would
not meet the objective and would create other problems not presently
faced.
2. Under our current system, subgroups may establish panels
which in their belief best serve the needs of management and their
people. At present, panel structures generally fall into three
categories: (a) panels comprised solely of functional and line
supervisors; (b) panels comprising supervisors and non-supervisors;
and (c) panels consisting of members entirely removed from supervi-
sory structures. The latter usually occurs by chance as opposed to
design.
3. While supervisors can best understand the nuances of the
requirements of the job vis-a-vis the employee's handling of same,
others who have spent their career facing similar problems are next
best suited to judge the competence of individuals being rated.
Knowledge of the position and the incumbent along with the record
outlining the incumbent's performance are basic ingredients leading
to an effective evaluation procedure. Evaluations by individuals
not knowledgeable of the person or the function would have to rely
almost solely on the Fitness Report. The Fitness Report writer could
conceivably spend his efforts "educating the reader" and the actual
performance appraisal could take a secondary place in the report.
Even with this the evaluator will not have a full appreciation for
all that is said with regard to the job and the manner in which it
is done.
Approved For R! INI Q I;Q QP$ gO(D 89000400100003-7
 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved For Releas%waO01/06/09: CIA-RDP81-00142R00040WO003-7
SUBJECT: Panel Size and Composition
4. Officers who know the individual being rated can best
address that person's strengths and weaknesses. Personal knowledge
adds to the validity of the evaluation. Toward this generally
recognized concept, subgroups in the past have initiated programs
whereby the panels personally interview officers they will be
evaluating. This has widespread acceptance because employees feel
that the more the evaluator knows about them, the more objective
and valid the evaluation will be.
5. Performance appraisal is a basic function of effective
management. This concept would be impaired in a system which removes
functional managers from one of the most important phases of such a
system -- the assessment of an individual in comparison with his peers.
6. In addition, we do not recognize the value or purpose in
having panels evaluate larger numbers of careerists and do not see
how the desired objectivity will be introduced. What could evolve may
be a more time consuming, cumbersome, and impersonal system. The
panels operating in our current system, normally consisting of about
four to seven or eight officers, are responsible for and they have more
opportunity to carefully evaluate fewer than 100 employees in most
instances. It is doubtful that that could exist under an expanded
system.
7. If we must embark into an experiemental mode such as pilot
program, we prefer to have one "outsider" sit on each panel and have
that officer observe and comment on the panel's actions.
8. Finally, we feel that any decision regarding changes to the
current system should be delayed until completion of the survey to be
conducted by the team from the National Academy of Public Administration.
/s/ Michael J. Ma1nn41-7t
Distribution:
Orin- D/Pers
DDA chrono I
I
DDA subj
1 - JFB chrono
1 - DDA/U O
DDA/Q10-jls (20 Oct 78)
Rewritten: ADDA/MJMalartick:cn
STATINTL
Approved For Release 200 0 /09 DP81-00142R000400100003-7
S INTERNAL USE ONLY
 Approved For ReleasJOO1/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R00040ay000037.7 7/_
R,? SEP 3~9-a
MEINDRANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM : F. W. M. Janney
Director of Personnel
SUBJECT . Composition of Career Service and Subgroup
Panels and More Uniform Agency Standards
for Personnel Management Operations
1. Action Requested:
a. At the 13 September 1978 meeting with the Deputy Director
of Administration on the subject of instituting improvements in the
Agency's personnel management system, you identified a particular and
"central issue" concern of the Director on the question of the appropriate
composition of the membership of the Career Service and Subgroup panels
and the role of supervisors versus, non-supervisors in the panel evaluation
process. In adcli Lion aiid relai%"e` tea the panel membership question, you
expressed concern over the need for more specific uniform Agency standards,
relative to the precepts of panel operations, the criteria used in
comparative ranking and promotion exercises, the procedures fpr advising
employees of their standings, etc.
b. Pursuant to these discussions you asked that a paper be
prepared by 27 September 1978 11. ch would address the specific question
of the composition and role o= panel membership as well as the broader
consideration of establish .ng -ore definitive and uniform standards for
panel operations and processes s? ed at improving the effectiveness of
personnel management wit in e Agency at large.
c. This paper, while addressing the specific subject of the
panel makeup question as req,.:.es ted, contains a recommendation for your?
consideration as regards a proposed methodology to review the elements
of the Agency personnel r^a-~age ~:nt system as an integrated totality
rather than as a series of st' ies of its separate features.
Approved For Release 2001106/09 :.ClA-RDP81-00142R00040010p003-7
 Approved For Release 01/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000400*90003-7
2. Background:
a. The Career Service and Subgroup Panel System:
(1) Since 1973, Agency personnel management policy has
required formal Career Service panel systems for the annual comparative
evaluation and ranking of all professional employees. Agency policy
has not required, however, that the panel responsibility be extended
to promotion review and recommendations, though in many Subgroups and
in the DDO as a'whole this has been the practice. In some components
the evaluation panels have served in a staff capacity to a Career Service
board where the actual promotion recommendations were made.
(2) While sets of common Agency-wide "Personnel
Management. Objectives" (see Tab A) and uniform "Personnel Management
Programmatic Responsibilit_11essee_yjb_W were established by the
then-Director as basic standards app icable to all of the Career Services,
they were general in nature and were designed to provide the Heads of the
Career Services with the latitude to institute implementation precepts
and methodologies appropriate to perceived differences in the personnel
management requirements of their Directorates. In this policy environment,
Heads of Career Services, while held accountable for adherence to the
uniform but general policy directives, developed various and different
approaches to carry out their career management responsibilities.
(3) With the recent implementation of the Uniform
Promotion System, uniformity has now been instituted as regards promo-
tions through the requirement that Career Service panel mechanisms will
address employee promotions regardless of category or grade. In response
to the Director's decision that responsibility for promotion/ranking/
selection be charged to the panels, the Career Services have reviewed
the structures and procedures c' their Directorate and Subgroup panels
to ensure effective compliance :_t.~~ the directive.. 1tihere necessary,
there has been some restruct=zv of existing panels and the establish-
rent of new panels.
b. The Career Ser~:~ Panel Structure:
(1) Attached (Tab C) is a matrix for each Career Service
listing the Board and Panel s=cures, the membership, chairmanship and
responsibilities. As indicated, many of the panels are responsible for
recommending assignments and ping. This is a natural evolution of
the evaluation responsibility but' is not now a functional requirement
under current Agency policy. as the panels settle into operation under
the new guidelines, we would expect this function will become more common.
Approved For Releas '?2b0i/06/09': CIA-RDP81-00142RO~Q40,01:40003-7
 Approved For Release.001/06/09: CIA-RDP81-00142R000409MOO03-7
(2) There is usually a Career Service-level board,.
composed of senior personnel, responsible for the GS-14 and GS-1S group..
Coverage by the other boards and panels normally depends on the size of
the office and the distribution and mix of personnel. Some panels are
responsible for personnel by grade, some are organized by functional
specialties, and some have combination coverages. Merershipsin the panels
vary either by incumbents of designated positions or by individual
appointment of officers selected for their particular contributions..
With the exception of the DDO, the Senior Secretarial Panels and the
Career Service Senior Boards, panels function on a Subgroup basis..
(3) All offices (Subgroups) in the Agency are Hof,
hoi g ous in their structure or functional roles and may not be in a
position to have the same panel compositions. Without more c'.etailed
study of the particular situation it is not possible to endorse one
system (i.e., as regards panel membership) or another as being more
appropriate or effective. For an example, in the Office of Personnel,
where over one-third of the careerists serve outside the central Office,,
there is a commonality of professional supervision, but the day-to-day
functional supervision is received from the officers of the components
where assigned. In the larger components, junior officers may be
supervised by more senior personnel officers, but this is not always
true. This same situation prevails in the DDA Subgroups of Finance,
Security and Logistics. Selection for membership to an Office of
Personnel panel is made with the intent of providing balanced repre-
sentational coverage with supervisory input rather than direct super-
visory participation. In contrast, the offices of NFAC, where essentially
all evaluated personnel serve within the office and supervision of
employees is by the office line of command, the panels are normally
composed of supervisors.
c. Standardization of Panel Precepts, Criteria Utilized
in Comparative Eva! uatio-? !c='. g/ Promotion Processes:
(1) As pre iously cited earlier in this paper, the
basic body of Agency "unifo_::'' policies relative to career and personnel
management was consciously d`.1-el=ad by previous Directors to be
general in- nature and desi.Y ed provide the Heads of the Career
Services with the authority a --,,d f exi.bility to institute internal
implementation policies and prcceuses which they perceive to be best
suited to both the manageri..l needs of their Directorates and responsive
to the needs and interests of their assigned personnel.
Approved For Release 2(Oi/O6/Q9 : CIA-RDP81-00142ROQ0400W D03-7
 Approved For Releass?2001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R00040 00003-7
Subgroup Panels:
(2) Implementation policies and practices within a
Directorate Career Service are essentially uniform but, when viewed
from an inter-Directorate vantage point, a pattern of varied approaches
is evident. These differences have a rationale and a supportable basis
from Directorate management's viewpoint. There is, however, a large
degree of commonality between the Career Services as regards panel
makeup, precepts, evaluation criteria and methodology. The recent
new directives relative to the Uniform Promotion System and the estab-
lishment of formal panels for secretarial and clerical employees will
certainly enhance and improve management of these groups within the
Career Services and the Agency at large.
(3) Agency-wide evaluation criteria as presently set
forth by Agency regulation are quite general in nature. Attached (Tab D)
are the specific criteria used in the evaluation of Office of Personnel
employees, one set for professional and another for clerical. The point
system involved in this system is particularly conducive to arriving at
specific rankings in each grade and could well serve as a model. In
addition to using a uniform set of criteria Agency-wide, it would be
appropriate for Career Services to have additional criteria, published
in the Personnel Handbooks, tailored to any unique requirements of the
particular Service.
3. Staff Position:
a. The Composition of Membership of Career Service and
(1) We have assured that the question of the composition
of panel membership derives frc a concern as to the objectivity and/or
effectiveness of supervisory personnel, directly or indirectly associated
with employees evaluated, per=ori.ng the evaluation function. The
extreme alternative to super, is-.7,r membership would be establishing
panels composed of individuals .who are totally disassociated with the
discipline, profession or assn a ions of the employees being evaluated.
Peer evaluation or "coT binat-. -" 7anels are other alternatives -- both
of which have been experinr_^ =,7yth by certain Career Services in the
past.
(2) There is every indication from day-to-day contact
with employees that many are c: cerned about panel. evaluations which
do not include their super= sc__ or provide for supervisory input. To
establish a policy whereby panel evaluations would be performed by
individuals not associated ~?.i t. the pertinent professional discipline
and its requirements could pwsent a potentially more threatening
situation than evaluation by he known supervisory level.
Approved For Release 2001/06/09 CIA-RDP81-00142RQA040Q1A9D03-7
 Approved For Release01/06/09: CIA-RDP81-00142R000400.10003-7
(3) We are not aware of any organizations that have
evaluation systems that eliminate individuals with background or experience
with the matter at hand. The panel system at the State Department for the
evaluation of FSO's has a membership which is representative of the "cone"
being reviewed. A review of the literature on performance evaluation
strongly recommends that the supervisor is an essential participant in
any appraisal system. Louis Allen in his book "Professional Management"
says, "A manager must carry out this responsibility (e.g., performance
appraisal) himself; it cannot be easily delegated." Other experts also
conclude that it must not be delegated. In developing background material
for the Performance Evaluation Task Force study earlier this year, the
Office of Personnel had the opportunity to review over 100 governmental
and corporate performance appraisal systems. In all such. group evaluation
systems,' the supervisory echelon was included in panel membership.
(4) Supervisory membership directly associated with the
professional discipline of the employees to be evaluated is strongly
indicated because of their awareness of the nuances of the given
profession and the subtleties of performance/potential elements of the
occupational area.
(5) While there appear to be convincing arguments that
the panels should preferably be composed of supervisors or personnel
closely associated with the disciplines of the employees being evaluated,
experimentation might be instituted with selected Subgroups using pilot
"dual" panel evaluations by officers not associated with the discipline
(i.e., without abandoning the current system within the Subgroup). We
could then make comparisons of the resultant rankings and documentation
of the rationale for their conclusions. The result's"
esults of such pilot
projects would provide insight into the validity of such approaches
and a basis for further cons considerations of the issue.
b. St adardization o Panel Prece ts, Criteria and Procedures
Used in Comparative Evaluatio : P Kdng Promotion Processes
(1) The tire _= available for the preparation of this
paper was insufficient to u der a-e the depth of research and analysis
essential to the development- of a conclusive staff position on the
selection and definition of what policies, delegations of authority,
evaluation criteria and proce`_res should be adopted or modified as
the Agency standards for these vestal concerns. There are, however,
certain starting points where _-ch indepth studies might begin.
Approved For Release 20;Q.1/,06I09.: CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7
 Approved For Releas 01/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000409MOO03-7
(2) The current body of general Agency "uniform" policy
guidelines -- recently more precisely defined by the Director as regards
uniform promotion standards -- was instituted in 1973-74 as deemed
appropriate at that point in time when the Director was effecting his
"new approaches" to personnel management. The purpose at that time was
to get the Directorates started in a common (albeit with considerable
flexibility) direction in the primary personnel programmatic areas..
(3) It is evident today that the Career Services and
Subgroups are well along in terms of their internal implementation
policies, precepts, criteria and established procedures relative to
career and personnel management within each of the Directorates. The,
body of general Agency policy currently on the books which has served
the designed purposes in the recent past could now stand refinement
and specificity appropriate today to achieve further selective standardi-
zation and centralization on the one hand and the retention of sufficient
flexibility for component management to exercise reasonable judgment in
meeting their particular and unique responsibilities..
(4) The elements of the personnel management system
in any relatively large organization are multi-faceted and, essentially
interrelated. A change in concept or policy directed at one facet
inevitably impacts on other elements of the system, The consequences,
of instituting segmented changes, therefore, must be fully anticipated
to make certain they will not adversely affect other elements of the
system and produce undesired effects. Upon indications that the personnel
management system in general is not fully responsive to top management's
concepts and determinations, the effectiveness of the organization as a
whole or the needs of the work force, it is essential that the entire
system be studied and evaluated as an integrated totality, as we did
in 1973. In this way, changes can be instituted to accomplish the
designated purposes and dys:ftzic t?cnal effects can be avoided.
There are a - ous approaches to undertaking such
an indepth study and the de. '_ r.t of proposals for changes in the
Agency's personnel management
21L 1: the Office of Personnel assisted
by operations -level represen to _ :mss from each of the five Career Services.
..
tion 2: By a task group, chaired by the Director
of Personnel and composed of desigmated members from the Directorates,
the Office of the DCI, and c`_er appropriate resource persons. (This
approach was used by institut_cz in 1973 of the Personnel Approaches
Study Group . )
Approved For Release -1601Mf09- dIA=RDP81-06.142R000400-'4OQ003-7
 Approved For Release' D1/06/09: CIA-RDP81-00142R0004004XO03-7
ption 3: A contract with an external management
consulting organization or an individual expert on personnel management
systems.
4. Recommendations: It is recommended that:
a. Each Career Service establish a pilot project of two
panels in each Directorate to conduct comparative evaluation and promotion
rankings/ recommmendations parallel with established "official" panels.
The pilot project panels would be composed of personnel not associated
with the organization or functions of the employee group being evaluated..
The results of the pilot panel evaluations (e.g., comparison with official
panels, analytical comments of the sitting members, et al.) would be used
for studies leading to a decision on the issue of the panel composition.
b. An indepth study encompassing all major aspects of the
Agency's total personnel management system be made with a particular
focus on the substance and extent of uniformity of standards needed
in Career Service personnel management operations.
(S) F. W. cJ i y
F. W. M. Janney
Atts
Recommendation 4a is:
( ) APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
Recommendation 4b is:
( ) APPROVED ( DISAPPROVED
Deputy Director of Central intelligence ~ ~ - Date
Distribution:
Orig - Return to D/Pers
1.- DDCI
1-ER
1 - DDA
1 - C/Review Staff/OP -7-
2 - D/Pers (1 w/held)
App~~ppr ved a 2001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7
DD/PER S/PEC jmk (27 Sep 78)
 Approved For Releaset.'i?01/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000408"0003-7
AGENCY PERSONNEL OBJECrIYES
1. To recruit within the full meaning of equal employment opportunity
policies the best qualified individuals who have demonstrated. ability
or potential for development to serve present and future personnel
requirements.
2. To maintain standards of conduct which expect employees to work to
their full ability, to maintain a spirit of cooperativeness in their
work, to be willing to serve the Agency's needs ; cherever and whenever
required, and to adhere to exemplary standards of behavior in their
private and official lives.
3. To provide employees with:
(a) Opportunities for making the best use of their training and
experience.
(b)
Avenues for employment and advancement on the basis of ability -
and performance.
(c) Equal pay for substantially equal work. within prevailing pay
systems.
(d) An environ ent in w ich individual. employees received
opporttriities and job satisfaction commensurate with their
individual skills, _...=_i ties, and contributions.
4. To operate an Agency-wide e :-al.uation program. for determining those
employees with the most anj least potential and to identify those
employees who fail to r ee current work require--L:ents or suitability
standards and to separate equitably those whose continued employment
is not in the national '-_terest.
5. To foster close and open co:- unications between Agency officials and
employees.
Approved For Release 2001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7
 STATI NTL
Approved For Release446'01/06/09: CIA-RDP81-00142R00040( 0003-7.
AGENCY PERSONAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
The Director's designated representative and each of the Deputy Directors
are Heads of their respective Career Services and are responsible for
the application and functioning of the Agencyrs personnel program as it
applies to employees under their career jurisdiction. They will exercise
the following specific career service responsibilities.
(a) Develop and disseminate uniform promotion criteria.
(b) Establish an appropriate Career Service panel structure arrd*
procedure to conduct, at least annually, the evaluation and,
ranking of professional personnel.
(c) Provide the evaluation panels with uniform ranking criteria:
that will identify employees with the highest and least
potential and those in between. Normally, those having the
lowest rankings will have this fact made Imown to them..
(d) Review periodically the evaluation activities and results.
(e) Establish Career Service personnel objectives in connection
(f)
with personnel management evaluation systems such as Annual.
Personnel Plan (APP) and Personnel Development Program (PDP)'..
Establish at the directorate level a program and criteria for
the career management of supergrade personnel. The program
will include a system to review annually supergrade personnel
in personal rank ass=g:..zients and to effect corrective action
when needed.
(g) Create a Career Sew ce-wide counseling program which provides:
(1) Counseling fe - rrloyees whenever it is rec~rended in
the course of - evaluation process,
(2) A visible cc=eling service where employees may go on
their ~_t.ive for career guidance and job assistance.
(h) Organize Career S-fD-Groups below the directorate level as they
are deemed aporopriate to implement the personnel policies and
programs of the Career Service. These Career Sub-Groups may be
organized on either a grade, function, or program basis.
(i) Establish Career Service standards for selecting candidates to
attend senior schools or courses.
Approved For Release 2001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7
 tom,
Approved For ReleassJ001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R00040QOOO03-7
(j) Establish Career Service policy and standards for approving
external full-time and part-time training.
(k) Establish minimum training standards for managerial and
occupational positions when training is considered necessary
for job performance and employee development.
(1) Establish policy to facilitate inter-Career Service transfers
and rotational tours.
(m) Establish policy guidance and procedures for recommending
Honor and Merit Awards.
(n) Develop procedures for handling surplus employees to include.
appropriate counseling, retraining or reassignment, and,,.
notification of their surplus status.
(o) Establish a uniform grievance procedure for the Career Service..
Approved For Release 2001/06/09 : CIA-RDP81-00142R000400100003-7