Snowden Archive
——
The SIDtoday
Files
Browse the Archive

Letters to the Editor: Awards and High-Priority Targets

SUMMARY

Anonymous staffers give feedback on the question of whether promotions are or should be based on one’s performance in high-priority signals intelligence missions.

DOCUMENT’S DATE

Jul 15, 2005

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

Mar 01, 2018

1/1
Download
Page 1 from Letters to the Editor: Awards and High-Priority Targets
DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL (U//FOUO) Letters to the Editor : Awards and High-Priority Targets FROM: the SIDtoday Editor Unknown Run Date: 07/15/2005 (U//FOUO) We received a number of comments about the article Mailbag Question: Are More Awards Given to Those Working Highest-Priority Targets? Here's a small sampling, with opposing views: From: anonymous Comment: (U//FOUO) The comment I would make is that if the target you work doesn't affect promotions, we are missing the opportunity to attract folks to staff higher-priority missions. In fact, it is counterproductive and annoying that "fair share" seems to be the approach used. So if Person A has been working the same target for 15 years in one product line while Person B has moved to diversify -- and I don't mean hopscotching around without gathering target depth -- and in so doing, has taken on watches, crises, etc., both get the same consideration for promotion? I say, why bother taking the more challenging positions. (U//FOUO) This is borne out by the huge number of GS13-to-14 promotions in [certain "unsexy" product lines], where longevity now seems to get you promoted now that they're running out of people to promote... I realize this is a bit of a generalization, but in our drive to be "fair," we're getting ridiculous and ignoring mission. The problem is, we're never straight with the workforce about precisely what behavior will truly influence promotion. We got rid of boards that were, true, very cumbersome, but far more reasonable than single managers exercising silly favoritism in a fair-share environment. From: anonymous Comment: (U//FOUO) The question is a reasonable one to ask. However, I don't feel like the answer is based on reality. You can cite all of the policy bologna you want, but the reality is that upper management will promote folks to 14 and 15 based on whether the upper-level management agenda is being adhered to. Upper level management gravitates toward the hot and now topics vs. the mundane day-to-day topics that need to be addressed. We have seen this repeatedly in [my product line], and I have no reason to think that it is different anywhere else in the Agency. "(U//FOUO) SIDtoday articles may not be republished or reposted outside NSANet without the consent of S0121 (DL sid_comms)." DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108