The State of CIA as an Organization

and the Directors of Central Intelligence as Types of Leaders:

 1946-2004

An example of the cyclical nature of the state of organizations

and the required types of Leaders

Introduction

This example seeks to test the hypothesis (as set forth in Topic: “Types of Leaders and Styles of Leadership”) that:

            -Organizations tend to go through three states in a cyclical fashion.  Either they:

--face a real or perceived threat or crisis or
--are exhausted, dispirited or in bureaucratic turmoil, or
--have stagnated and are not performing well.

-Each of those states brings with it what is sometimes called a “mission” or what the topic text calls a major task to be accomplished by the Leader. That major task may be Leading the people of the organization to:

--rapidly respond to the threat or crisis or perform at a high level of performance for an   extended period, or

--restore their own morale and the stability of the organization, or
--accept the changes needed to improve their own performance and that of the organization.

-Each of these major tasks requires that, ideally, to successfully Lead the organization, the Leader must be one of three “types”, emphasizing the appropriate “core traits” (as defined in Topic: “Leadership Traits and Qualities”) required of a Leader.

--To Lead people to rapidly respond to a threat or crisis and perform at a high level of quality and energy for an extended period requires Charismatic Leaders who can Lead by emphasizing their Inspiring personal qualities such as their personality or a created persona; their reputation for courage and success; and their enthusiastic, optimistic or self-confident behavior.  Charismatic Leaders gain and keep their followers because of who they are.

--To Lead people to restore their own morale and the stability of the organization requires Transactional Leaders who Lead by emphasizing their Caring personal qualities such as seeking out, listening to and understanding the personal desires and professional needs of the people and demonstrating their desire and ability to meet those needs.  Transactional Leaders gain and keep their followers because of the commitments they make to them.

--To Lead people to accept the changes needed to improve the performance of the organization requires Transformational Leaders who emphasize a Vision for change for improvement and create the conditions which enable the people of the organization to share and realize that change. Transformational Leaders gain and keep their followers by creating a shared desire and an environment for achieving realistic organizational change.

Source

An article, “Directors of Central Intelligence, 1946-2005”  by David S. Robarge, published in Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 49, No. 3 creates “A Leadership Typology” of past DCIs.  It  starts by asking the question, “Can DCIs, then, be regarded as leaders, as opposed to heads of organizations or chief administrators?...Did DCIs have---could they have had---a leadership role commensurate with that of their counterparts at the Department of State and Defense?” The author says that “One way to begin answering  those questions is through serial biography and group analysis.”

He says that “A straightforward approach to the DCIs would take into account the institutional and political limitations on their authority, the objectives they were appointed to accomplish, and the personality traits they exhibited and managerial methods they used during their tenures.  What were the directors told to do (mission) and how did they go about doing it (style)?”  He, thus, seeks to determine “What 'types' of DCIs, if any, have been most successful (patterns ).”

The author concludes that: “Using this perspective five variants of DCIs are evident.”

-“The first is the administrator-custodian or administrator-technocrat charged with implementing, fine tuning or reorienting intelligence under close direction from the White House.” These people were “Usually appointed at a time of uncertainty about the Intelligence Community's roles and capabilities...these DCIs tried to maintain stability in the CIA's relationships with other Community agencies.”   According to the author, “Examples of this type have been Sours, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, William Raborn, Woolsey, Deutch, and George Tenet....Some had a very low key style, almost to the point of acting like placeholders and time servers (Hillenkoetter, Raborn).  Others energetically pursued administrative changes designed to make the CIA and Community more responsive to policymakers and better adapted to a new political environment (Deutch, Tenet).” 

 -“The next type is the intelligence operator---DCIs who  were current or former professional intelligence officers tasked with devising, undertaking, and overseeing an extensive array of covert action, espionage, and counterintelligence programs in aggressive pursuit of U.S. national security policy.....The high level of secret activity...recurrently produced operational mishaps, revelations of 'flaps' and other intelligence failures that hurt the CIA's public reputation and damaged its relations with the White House and Congress.....Three DCIs fit this category: Dulles, Helms and Casey.”

-“Failures indiscretions, and other such controversies in turn have lead to the departures of those intelligence operator DCIs and their replacement with manager-reformers” charged with “‘cleaning up the mess’….  There have been two kinds of manager reformer DCIs: 

--“One is the insider---a career intelligence officer who used his experience at the CIA to reorganize its bureaucracy and redirect its activities during or after a time of political controversy and lack of certitude about its direction.  Two DCIs functioned as manager-reformer insiders: Colby and Gates.”

--“The other type of manager-reformer is the outsider, who as chosen…to implement a major reorganization of the CIA and the Intelligence Community, or to regroup and redirect the Agency....Six DCIs were manager-reformer outsiders: Vandenburg, Smith, McCone, Schlesinger, Turner and Porter Goss. Collectively, they  were responsible for more major changes at CIA …than any other category of director....Most DCIs in this category were far more concerned about achieving their objectives quickly than about angering bureaucratic rivals or fostering ill will among subordinates.  Largely because they accomplished so much---or tried to---and did not worry about whom they antagonized along the way, some of them were among the most disliked or hardest to get along with DCIs.”

-“Finally there are the restorers: George Bush and William Webster.  Like the manager-reformer outsiders, they became DCIs after the Agency went through difficult times…but they were not charged with making significant changes in the way the CIA did business.  Instead they used their ‘people skills’ and public reputations to raise morale, repair political damage and burnish the Agency’s reputation.” 

To access the full article, click here:            Scroll to Vol 49 no. 3.

To access a longer treatment of the same topic Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community by Douglas H. Garthoff, click here______ Scroll down to 2005.

Comparison with Types of Leaders

From those short descriptions of the DCIs and their “missions” or  their “major tasks”, it can be seen that those five “variants” of DCI generally fall into the three “types” of Leaders.

-Transactional Leaders

-“administrator-custodians” and “administrator-technocrat”… “charged with implementing, fine tuning or reorienting intelligence….at a time of uncertainty about the Intelligence Community’s roles and capabilities [and CIA’s role]...these DCIs tried to maintain stability in the CIA's relationships with other Community agencies.”   

-“restorers”… “after the Agency went through difficult times…they were not charged with making significant changes in the way the CIA did business.  Instead they used their ‘people skills’ and public reputations to raise morale, repair political damage and burnish the Agency’s reputation.” 

Charismatic Leaders

-“intelligence operator---DCIs who  were current or former professional intelligence officers tasked with devising, undertaking, and overseeing an extensive array of covert action, espionage, and counterintelligence programs in aggressive pursuit of U.S. national security policy.....The high level of secret activity….”

Transformational Leaders

-“manager-reformers” charged with ‘cleaning up the mess’….There have been two kinds of manager reformer DCIs: 

--“the insider---a career intelligence officer who used his experience at the CIA to reorganize its bureaucracy and redirect its activities”

--“the outsider, who as chosen…to implement a major reorganization of the CIA and the Intelligence Community, or to regroup and redirect the Agency....”

Thus, Summary: The Cycle of State of the CIA and DCIs as Types of Leaders: 1946-2005

1946-1946: Stability: “administrator-custodian” or Transactional Leader; Sours.

1946-1947: Change: “manager-reformer outsider” or Transformational Leader; Vandenburg. 

 1947-1950: Stability: “administrator-custodian” or Transactional Leader; Hillenkoetter.  

 1950-1953: Change: “manager-reformer outsider” or Transformational Leader; Smith.

1953-1961: Threat: “operator” or Charismatic Leader; Dulles. 

1961-1965: Change: “manager-reformer, outsider” or Transformational Leader; McCone. 

1966-1973: Threat;  “operator”  or Charismatic Leader; Helms.

1973-1974:  Change: “reformer outsider” or Transformational Leader; Schlesinger.

1975-1976   Change: “reformer insider” or Transformational Leader; Colby. 

1976-1977:  Morale: “restorer” or Transactional Leader; Bush. 

1977-1981:  Change; “reformer”  or Transformational Leader; Turner. 

1981-1987:  Threat: “operator” or Charismatic Leader; Casey. 

1987-1991:  Morale:  “restorer”  or Transactional Leader; Webster. 

1991-1993:  Change: “reformer” or Transformational Leader: Gates. 

1993- 1995: Stability:  “administrator-custodian” or Transactional Leader: Woolsey.

1995-1996: Stability: “administrator-technocrat” or Transactional Leader; Deutch.

1997-2004: Stability:  “administrator-technocrat” or Transactional Leader; Tenet.

2004-2005: Change: “manager-reformer outsider” or Transformational Leader. Goss.

Conclusions

The hypothesis that an organization can be found to be in any one of three states and that a different type of Leader is required for those different states is generally borne out by the example.  In the case of CIA,  Presidents usually perceived the state of the organization as alternating between stagnation requiring change and improvement or having just undergone change and needing a period of stability. Thus, the types of Leaders required and selected alternated between Transactional and Transformational.  Only a few Presidents---Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan---saw the need to focus the Agency on meeting a growing threat. So, Charismatic Leaders were few.

In the 1940’s and 50’s, periods of maintaining stability during the establishment of the organization and periods of stagnation in the progress of CIA exercising its role in the Community, alternated with the requirement for a period of change to reorganize and redirect the efforts of the Agency.  Thus, Transformational Leaders were required to follow Transactional Leaders. Then well into the 1970s, there was a long period of high activity to respond to the threat and make a number of efforts to change the way the agency did so.  But, ultimately, because of the activities of those years and their political consequences, there was a need for a return to a period of stability. Thus, a Transactional Leader was required to follow those Charismatic and Transformational Leaders.  Subsequently, the pattern alternated between the need to bring change and improvement with the need to restore stability and restore morale following change with Transactional Leaders following Transformational Leaders.  

 The lesson of CIA is that organizations are perceived by senior Leaders to be performing at a lower standard than desired because they are in one of three states.  Based on that perception, the incoming Leader will be given directions such as “get that organization moving again” by bringing about change and improvement; or “get that organization back in shape” by restoring stability and morale; or sometimes “get that organization performing at peak performance” to meet a new or emerging threat. Each of those challenges will require the incoming Leader to be a different type of Leader in order to be successful.  The incoming Leader may have to be Transformational and create a shared Vision of to where and how the organization should move; or to be Transactional and listen and understand in order to take Care of  organizational stability and personnel morale; or sometimes to be Charismatic to Inspire the enthusiasm and dedication that brings peak performance.  Unless the aspiring Leader is ready to undertake all of those challenges he or she is not ready for Leadership.  Unless the aspiring Leader is flexible enough to be the type of Leader required, he or she is not going to succeed in meeting the challenge.