The recent publication of the IC Human Capital study suggests that while the powers that be are starting to see the light with regards to developing a high caliber workforce, they're still wearing dark, rose-colored glasses.
Metrics in key areas are not outright dismal, but the "ho-hum" response to important questions about training, performance and leadership are clear indications that people are feeling like this work is just another job, not the calling that it should be. Also note the positive spin on middling numbers. I don’t know about you but if someone told me I had a 40% chance of succeeding in a given endeavor I wouldn’t be going into it with a smile on my face.
Some basic steps that a forward-leaning, technology-leveraging IC leadership should focus on to help turn things around include:
Performance rankings should take into consideration two primary factors: supervisors input and consumer input. Supervisor input is a well-established process that needs little further elaboration. Consumer input can be obtained by building a reputation-rating system similar to that used by eBay or Amazon. Such a system would not have been possible without the implementation of classified blogs and Intellipedia (a positive case of unintended consequences). A consumer-input ranking is a direct reflection of the quality and timeliness of an officer’s work and is likely to address more diverse factors and be more informed and objective than the assessment of a single, probably overworked supervisor.
A skill-set and professional development ranking should be a supplemental factor that may be used to further raise or lower an officer’s performance rating (and ultimately their compensation). Masters of obsolete weapons systems or those with deep knowledge of adversaries who no longer exist who make no effort to acquire new skills or actively contribute to the mission in other ways should not be able to absorb a disproportionate amount of reward simply because of timed served. Such individuals are essentially expensive overhead that should be encouraged to improve or move on though soft yet effective means (read: hit ‘em in the pocket book).
Top-notch performance means keeping abreast of the latest issues, technology or other aspects of the job that someone who is neck-deep in a mission or chasing the flail of the week is unlikely to acquire without help. Training time should be mandatory – supervisor enforced - and should include a mix of formal classroom training (government or commercial) and some variation of the famous Google “20%” time: self-directed study or time to test out new ideas. Officers, particularly those working military accounts or supporting defense missions, should all have access to the correspondence portion of the various military service colleges (command and staff, etc.) and following the OpenCourseWare model most if not all of the programs at the graduate level (NDU, NPS, etc.) should be available for self-study.
High level performance is not obtained in a factory. Architecture plays a major role in workplace performance but is rarely considered when discussing how to get the most out of people. Cube farms, while seemingly an efficient use of space, are not an environment that supports concentration or ferments insights. How one is supposed to focus on evaluating competing hypotheses or work out a matrix problem when Alice across the aisle is yelling into the phone at her landlord or Bob in the next cube is reliving last nights nail-biter of a playoff game with four other buddies is beyond my grasp. Forced togetherness in the name of “collaboration” is a sham: Good officers know who they need to work with; you don’t need to put them on display. Absent a shift to offices, everyone should have a high-walled cube with at least one privacy-glass panel and a door.
Finally, performance needs to be recognized significantly and often. The once-a-year, “Here’s your 3%” is only going to cut it for that dwindling supply of old timers. X, Y and subsequent generations tend to need a little more active involvement. Coddling is not necessary, but a shift in thinking by management is. A half-dozen “thank yous” spread out over a year means more than two-dozen congratulatory bullet points every spring. Give first-line supervisors the ability to give on-the-spot time-off (at least 8 hours) and small cash awards. When passing out the major annual performance awards make them significant (at least five-figures), make the selection criteria clear, and make the selection process transparent: Short of taking a bullet for their boss, there is no way a personal assistant should be getting the same award a collector or analyst should.
