The Foreign Service Journal, February 2005

often doesn’t keep the underper- former from being promoted to neglect a still-larger section or office instead of being selected out — and meanwhile, the post’s effectiveness remains diminished and subordinates join the ranks of those who have lost the pride with which we used to look upon, and serve in, America’s diplo- matic corps. Corridor Reputations and Onward Assignments The optimistic and naïve may argue that the poor performers will get their due as their corridor reputa- tions bar them from the “good jobs” and relegate them to the hard-to-fill positions around the globe or in back- waters of the department. While this does sometimes happen, it doesn’t solve the problem — it merely makes it harder to address and increases frus- tration at posts which already tend to suffer from poor morale and neglect. Even worse, this corps of Foreign Service dregs and misfits disillusions — or worse, molds in their own image — entry-level employees on directed assignments to these garden spots. Indeed, the broken system of Foreign Service evaluations and pro- motions — including the don’t-rock- the-boat culture of our Service — undermines America’s foreign policy objectives in much of the world. So I ask: Are posts in West Africa, South Asia, the Central Asian republics, or South Pacific island nations that most Americans have never heard of really so irrelevant to U.S. interests that we can entrust them to such a dispropor- tionate share of personnel from the bottom of the proverbial barrel? We Need Institutional Changes and Leadership While these scenarios may not be factors in all cases, they certainly do occur at far too many posts. Thankfully, under Secretary Powell’s leadership, the State Department has focused significant energy on promot- ing leadership skills and training in the Foreign Service. In the past few years, the department has introduced employee surveys and mandatory training on leadership and manage- ment. At the same time, FSI’s Leadership and Management School has spon- sored a department-wide “Conver- sation on Leadership” with specific recommendations for promoting the practice of leadership within State, and has convened a Leadership Roundtable of individuals committed to implementing these recommenda- tions. This progress is certainly wel- come. Still, at too many posts around the world, too many officers still say, “Show me leadership in the Foreign Service and I’ll show you a shocked FSO!” Institutional changes in the imple- mentation of Foreign Service evalua- tions and promotions are urgently needed. Employee Evaluations Performance evaluations must be changed to hold employees account- able for their performance, induce supervisors to accurately document an employee’s performance, protect raters and reviewers from frivolous grievances or complaints, and allow employees to have a voice in the assessments of their supervisors’ per- formance. All supervisors are required to hold at least two counseling sessions with employees during each rating period, yet many of them forget this require- ment until close to April 14. In the absence of counseling notes, supervi- sors bar themselves from including critical statements in employee evalu- ations because they themselves are exposed for having not done the docu- mentary due diligence. The State Department could immediately begin sending quarterly ALDAC cables reminding all supervisors to hold counseling sessions with those they supervise. If the department can jus- tify biannual open season reminder ALDACs for personnel benefits and monthly Visas Viper reminders, can’t we justify quarterly reminders to ensure solid employee performance? The department should immedi- ately implement 360-degree evalua- tions of all personnel, not just FS-1 and above. What each of us does affects many other people at various levels, so how can we continue to jus- tify not taking their feedback into account? This will force supervisors to evaluate rated employees’ managerial and leadership skills and capacities based on the experience of those who are being managed or led. Can those skills be accurately assessed any other way? A 360-degree review would also provide documentary defense for more critical assessments of an employee’s performance when the threat of a grievance or lawsuit would otherwise cause rating or reviewing officers to omit such information. Finally, EER review panels must be given a means to provide substan- tive, not just clerical, feedback to rat- ing officers when falsely buoyant EERs do not reflect an employee’s performance. While serving on such panels for the past four years, I have read great works of fiction and have seen horrendous employees promoted as a result of these. A license for sub- stantive feedback on EERs combined 14 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5 S P E A K I N G O U T u The 2004 promotion lists confirm that the Foreign Service evaluation system is broken.