Are Intelligence Agencies' Hiring Procedures Too Strict?

[magnusmaximus]

Dear Small Wars Journal Community,


Firstly, I do not work in intelligence, so you will have to excuse what may be an ignorant question.

Do you guys think (U.S.) intelligence agencies tend to be too strict about who they hire?

I have read about US-born linguists getting turned away for having foreign girlfriends, brief drug use, or for having travelled abroad -- in short, circumstances which do not seem like great reasons to reject an applicant, especially one with a needed skill.

Additionally, what can done to remedy the situation -- if it needs to be remedied?




Thank you,
Magnusmaximus

[Old Eagle]

Overall, I think that they're fairly balanced. I once ran a fairly large organization, and watched my HQ and that Other Government Agency hire great folks with minor blemishes in their past.

Hell, we hired Stan!!!!

[Ken White]

A lot of the fluff stories about refusal to hire contain only one side of the story. If, for example, the 'girl friend' has some strange ties the potential hiree is not aware of -- or discounts, said hiree is going to object. He may or may not be right but the hiring agency, correctly, is not going to publicly justify their decision.

Some of the complaints are legitimate, any bureaucracy will make errors of excessive caution but mostly there's a pretty good degree of validity in their refusal to hire. Congress has a part in this. No matter how well people are checked, the occasional bad apple will slip through and even really good guys can turn for one reason or another. Every time that occurs, Congress, in its need to be seen to be doing something will insert a hooker to prevent such an error in an appropriation bill and then the Agencies are bound by it, right or wrong.

They need people and they know it. Generally the system works.

Speaking of Stan, haven't heard much from him lately. Wonder what he's up to, could be work, could be again lolling on the beach on some Island...

[120mm]

I would say that a minor ding that is unrevealed by the applicant is automatically a major disqualifier, while there are some people with the same "ding" that are able to get in, because of a combination of forthrightness and agency need for their qualifications.

Having said that, I know of at least two people who are working in sensitive positions that shouldn't be there. They are, in my estimation, both unacceptable security risks, and I've done my level best to get them dismissed, but to no avail.

"Fairness" is not a consideration for hiring for Intelligence Agencies.

[Adam L]

"Fairness" is not a consideration for hiring for Intelligence Agencies.

Amen!

Perhaps this should be more of the idea in the hiring/appointment in certain upper level positions. LOL!

Adam L

[Jedburgh]

WP, 29 Oct 08: Change Expands Eligibility for Intelligence Hires

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has taken steps to make it easier for U.S. intelligence agencies to recruit first-generation Americans with foreign relatives.

In an Oct. 1 directive, McConnell removed a requirement restricting access to "sensitive compartmented information," the highest level of classified information, to employees whose family members or close associates were U.S. citizens. In the past, there had to be a formal waiver of the citizenship requirement and a "compelling need" to hire people who did not meet the condition.....

[davidbfpo]

The UK overseas intelligence agency, SIS (formerly known as MI6), is marking it's first century and there is this gem or "spin" on how it recruits: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-join-MI6.html

davidbfpo