The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is conducting an annual survey of intelligence community employees to lay a foundation for future reforms of personnel practices.
The survey (pdf) asks IC employees to evaluate a range of issues from workplace environment and job satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders?”) to attitudes towards other intelligence agencies (“How easy or difficult is it for you to collaborate with members of the IC who are outside your own IC agency?”)
“The purpose for collecting this information is to study and report attitudes and perceptions of the Intelligence Community workforce regarding their work environments, with a focus on various management policies and practices that affect them,” according to the survey form.
“The results will help your organization develop strategies to improve the quality of that work environment — one of the goals of your senior leadership and the Director of National Intelligence.”
Specifically, an official source indicated, the survey will support alignment of the Intelligence Community with the DNI Strategic Human Capital Plan (pdf), which envisions increased integration of U.S. intelligence agencies. It is the second such annual survey to be performed by the ODNI.
A copy of the survey was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “Intelligence Community Annual Employee Climate Survey,” Office of the Director of National Intelligence, November 2006.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.