Regarding the ~50% pre-employment polygraph failure rate in federal agencies, see discussion of the FBI here, of the CIA here, and CBP here and here.
I don’t see intelligence agencies’ (such as the CIA’s and NSA’s) practice of offering multiple polygraph sessions as a sign of a more enlightened policy. Rather, it’s simply a feature of their institutional culture. Those two agencies in particular still use, after some 70 years, the long discredited (even among polygraph operators) and otherwise abandoned Relevant/Irrelevant Test that their first polygraph operators were taught at the Keeler Polygraph Institute in Chicago back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Subjecting applicants to multiple (typically up to three) sessions is not for the applicants’ benefit. It’s for the benefit of the polygraph operators who derive fuller employment through this practice.
One more thing: it’s worth noting that a retired senior CIA polygrapher, John F. Sullivan, writing for the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), has opined that “an honest subject has no better chance than a dishonest subject of getting through the process.”
There was a quote, verified, from a security professional that said something like, we are very confident that we can successfully identify people who are trying to hide something. However, we concede that we do sometimes detect deception when in fact the subject is being truthful.
The other odd thing about the multiple poly’s is how come somebody can be accused of being a drug dealing child molester terrorist in one session, then come back a second time and pass with no issues? This has happened to a number of people I know… well maybe they weren’t all accused of being drug dealing etc but the did fail the first time and pass the second time.
Great post-polygraph lines:
“Honey, your husband is a terrorist!”
“Gee I never knew I was a drug dealer!”
1 Like
Honestly it seems pretty much like they don’t want to get rid of the poly, and especially multiple polys, because they want an excuse to interrogate applicants and see their reactions/responses. It’s not like they can get rid of the poly and then just have an “interrogation” portion of the hiring process.
This probably isn’t a new idea, but I just think it’s interesting going into it thinking about it as an interrogation to try to get you to say something, rather than a test to see if you’re lying.
3 Likes
I remember a job announcement for a polygraph examiner and one of the “Desired Skills” was “experience eliciting confessions.”
3 Likes
The job security for contractors with TS/SCI + Poly is almost as good as the feds. Usually (not always but usually), the only way TS cleared contractors leave a job is if they find something better or lose their clearance for some reason. Even if the contract company loses the contract, 99% of the time, the new company will hire the existing contractors to stay there.
1 Like
Not quite. I wouldn’t say the number is quite that high… and in many cases, the new company will offer people less money to stay and keep doing the same job. You don’t think they won the job by bidding MORE than the incumbent, do you?
On the other hand, it is probably easier to switch jobs as a contractor if you decide it is time to make a move. It takes much longer on the “blue” side and not only are you less likely to get a raise/promotion, you may be “the new guy” much longer when you move to a new agency… or even a new office within the same agency. As there is so much mobility (ie turnover) on the “green” side this may be less of an obstacle as many of your new coworkers may have only arrived in the past year or two.
1 Like
I guess it depends on what you do. In my field, it’s pretty common to see people get offers site-unseen. I have several team members who knew just barely enough to pass the phone screening but got immediate offers simply because they have TS/SCI.
Also, by job security for contractors I meant hire-ability, not necessarily staying with the same company. I was using “new company will hire the existing contractors” just as an example that you can keep your job as long as you want (even if for less $$) or find another very easily. For ex: I’ve never seen one of my TS cleared colleagues go more than 48 hours without a job offer when actively searching (while non-cleared can take weeks/months to get an offer).
Point being, if fed jobs are the most secure, TS contracting seems like probably a close second.