Ics Org Chart: Fill & Download for Free

Oh man this is one of the toughest parts of scaling.I remember Aaron Levie, CEO of Box, and I discussed this at one of the SaaStr Annuals, when he lost his VP of Engineering. He had no back-up and thought that was it. We’ve all lived it. I still live it myself!It’s one of the biggest risks not just in the early days, but really just as you scale. Until you get to at least 50 employees, there’s rarely a second layer of management, a Plan B, a back-up for each role.All I can tell you is this:First, if you hire great VPs, it partially takes care of itself. Great VPs attract great directors and great ICs. A Great VP almost always hires at least 1 great person under her than can take over. So always listen and learn, and err on the side of promoting the best you have.Second, the rest of the team rallies — if you have a good team. This isn’t a perfect answer, but if you have a good team, they get it. They know they have to step up. They fill the gap as best they can.Third, it’s better if the mediocre leave in the end. The best ones tend to stay longer, and it’s the mediocre that leave faster. You may fear the hole in the org chart if someone mediocre leaves. But in the end, you’ll see that it would have been even better if the mediocre had left earlier. It’s time to get on with finding someone great.The “my top person gets hit by a bus risk” almost never ends until you have a deep bench of management. Maybe not even entirely then.But the #1 key to solving it is hiring truly Great VPs. They attract the best talent under them. And it’s that talent that mitigates the risk.

Yes and no.Yes it is "good enough". Homeland is centered around the main characters, their families and the anti-terror plot itself. The CIA's organizational structure and detailed inner workings aren't exactly necessary to tell this story.With that said, no, it does not delve into the organizational structure, it glosses over some details, gets some completely wrong and generally abstracts some others. Below are some examples.The CIA has several directorates and these are not explained at all. In general, the two main directorates are Intelligence and NCS. The analysts lie within the Intelligence directorate and these are the wonks who sit around pouring over every detail of terrorist's lives and generally enriching raw data. The officers are within NCS and these are the field spooks - out there risking their lives in foreign countries collecting raw human intelligence.Carrie aludes to these differences when she initially meets Peter Quinn in Season 2. She asks "analyst or officer". He replies "analyst" which suggests that he comes from the other side of the agency and, thus, a reason why Carrie never heard of him - because she is part of NCS.Here is the org chart per Wikipedia:In Homeland, David Estes is named as the "deputy director". However, there are multiple deputy directors within the CIA. It isn't clear which one is his precise position, but considering his relationship to the VP, it is most likely the overall deputy director. We see him reporting directly to the White House and attending social functions. He could also be the Deputy Director NCS. I'm surprised there is no longer a DDI now that I'm looking at the org chart. It is a good thing that we don't meet the actual DCI because that is a purely political position and I'd like to stick to a story centered around operations.The Science and Technology and Support directorates are entirely glossed over, but that is to be expected. We see lots of technology deployed, however there is no explanation of the actual organizational structure which supports all that. Also, the CIA has a small army of lawyers to ensure every action is within the law (and just barely). None of that was presented, however, the plot did not dictate the need to depict the CIA's legal counsel.One irksome bit to me was the discussion toward the end of Season 2 - when Carrie was being offered the "station chief" job. It wasn't at all clear which station chief. The CIA has a station chief in each of the various countries in which it operates - so it begs the question - which one? Homeland takes place primarily in the United States. Conceivably, there is a station chief for the CounterTerrorism center and that would fit the story - I'm not sure if the head of that center is referred to as a "station chief".Finally, I don't believe the CIA is actually the lead agency for major counter-terrorist operations. Instead, it is the NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) which has this mission. The NCTC is a joint agency that pulls from many resources within the intelligence community. In this regard, the show "24" was far more accurate in its portrayal of the NCTC (though the show called it CTU). So I believe the taskforce was a major miss regarding organizational structure.Here is a major plot hole: our terrorist cell escapes via helicopter right in Virginia. This would never have happened if the NCTC was actually in charge and had the full force of the 16 IC agencies. The NRO would have tracked that helicopter no problem.http://www.nctc.gov/United States Intelligence Community

It really depends on which department within the Bureau you’re working in (also note, the structure may have changed since I’ve been in — Pompeo did a lot of “reshaping” of the org chart).If you’re in The Watch, which is a very career-enhancing position and highly coveted, you’re working a high pressure, high profile job in the Operations Center where you could be doing anything from handling flash traffic about a breaking coup attempt, to being called on to connect one of your principals with a former Prime Minister on a cell phone within minutes. It’s a critical position and one of the few that mid-level officers can get that merits a parking space. So that’s cool.If you’re in the Office of Research you’re doing a lot of strategic analysis of geopolitical affairs — the closest way to explain it is that it’s the government’s equivalent of graduate-level academia where they deal with publishing, conferences, weighty matters, etc. It’s kind of also a decent career path into the academia, historically speaking, since you can potentially go from here onwards to get things like fellowships/graduate degrees/post-docs through the department. These positions tend to be Civil Service-oriented.The Office of Analysis (AN) is INR’s more Foreign Service oriented office, where you have the geographic desks focused on supporting the intelligence needs of various missions around the world with all-source analysis, while taking the information from their respective regions and feeding it upward into critical reports like the PDB and NIE. Additionally you also have the subject matter offices which don’t have a geographic restriction but tend to focus on a particular area of analysis and often serve as liaisons with other agencies in the IC for officers out a post. These offices are fantastic for people who have an interest in a particular area of subject matter that you may not be able to scratch at one particular post, especially since the Analysis office does a lot of travel (some of which can be quite lengthy on TDY). So as a DC tour for FSOs these jobs can be pretty coveted.Finally, on the Office of Intelligence Policy Coordination IPC side of things, they deal with policymaking and coordination/deconfliction between the IC agencies, as well as intelligence oversight and long-term intelligence planning. This part of INR is what produces most of the rockstars that go on to NSC positions and make the DC NatSec “40 under 40” lists; though since the Trump administration that’s changed as the NSC has shifted it’s orbit away from State.The day to day of what it’s like will really depend where you’re at and what you’re doing; but one key element is that INR is not a large bureau. I mean, the Foreign Service is already not particularly large in the first place, but the entire INR is around 300 full time blue-badged USG employees, a decent chunk of whom will be out at post or on TDY at any given time.As such, it’s a very independent community — employees are often expected to work on tight timetables with little oversight and find their own resources, and that independent spirit has always been a feature of the Bureau, not a bug. That same independent streak has led to INR repeatedly being the lone dissenting voice in the IC on major National Intelligence Estimates and only being proven right years or even decades later by subsequent investigation. (e.g. Iraq WMD, Vietnam War, certain Soviet espionage and foreign policy actions during the Cold War, etc.) So it can be a place for strong personalities and frankly weirdos too. That makes it not necessarily a place for everyone, which is perhaps why only certain offices within INR are highly competitive for FSOs (namely The Watch, as well as some of the IPC gigs) while the others are somewhat considered career neutral at best (and usually only available at a time where one must be highly particular about their career path if they hope to open their window into the Senior Foreign Service ranks.)