The Foreign Service Journal, May 2004

of U.S. diplomats, greater openness in their promotion is obligatory. For that reason, the public member has been part of the process for over a decade, an innovation widely regarded as a success. These individuals are select- ed on the basis of several factors: prominence in their professions, being “well and favorably known” to senior people at State, and (where possi- ble) demographic representation. (Al- though one might imagine them to be babes in the thickets of State Department bureaucratese, this does not appear to be the case.) Let the Games Begin Let us assume that you see the pro- motion panel experience for what it is: a public service for your diplomatic colleagues to determine who is most ready for greater responsibilities. What can you expect, and how should you prepare? You can come to the promotion panel assignment “cold”— just as you can go to a new post with minimal preparation or begin your swimming lessons by being thrown into icy water over your head. But it is advisable to familiarize yourself with the procedur- al precepts for the selection boards (which are revised at least in some detail each year) as well as the detailed commentary on the skills to be assessed for promotion: leadership; managerial; interpersonal; communi- cation/foreign language; intellectual; and substantive knowledge. In 2004, the procedural precepts will also include community service and secu- rity awareness. To be sure, these documents are not as exciting as the latest whodunit, but they are no more arcane to work through than the instruction manual for programming your VCR/DVD player. And the criteria should already be at least somewhat familiar, given that they are the same ones under which you have been writing the year’s efficiency reports. In addition, it is useful to at least read through the annual set of depart- ment cables discussing lessons learned from the previous year’s panels regarding effective Employee Eval- uation Report preparation. While these comments are directed toward raters/reviewers and employees being rated, they also provide insights into the thinking of previous board mem- bers. Given the sheer volume of the work, some might also recommend taking a speed-reading course. But in most cases that is not necessary. Into the breach. Not all boards meet at the same time of year or for the same length of time; panels reviewing mid-level candidates for promotion tend to have heavier work- loads than those considering senior employees. In any case, panels are released when they finish their work. Following the director general’s “atta boy, go-get-’em” introductory speech, panelists settle in for a lot of reading. One five-person panel that co-author Steve Smith served on last year reviewing FS-2 political and management officers had to assess approximately 160 administrative and 240 political officers over an eight- week period, going through copious files covering each employee’s entire career. The numbers vary but that is a fairly typical workload. The process. The basic proce- dures have not changed much for over a decade. The candidates’ files are divided into batches of about 40, which are randomized, not alphabeti- cal. Smith’s panel did the manage- ment officers first and then the politi- cal officers. All panel members read every file in the batch. One significant recent innovation is that all files are now stored on computers rather than on paper. There is a significant advantage in this approach as it permits all panel mem- bers to access the same file simultane- ously instead of having to wait for someone else to finish it. Moreover, a screen menu permits you to examine not only each year’s EERs but the “kudos” (e.g., meritorious step in- creases, departmental commenda- tions, and so forth) sides of the files at the same time. Circumstances for viewing are comfortable; the screens are large, and the lighting is good. However, if you prefer to have a “hard copy” in your hands, tough luck — files cannot be printed out. (Welcome to the paperless universe!) The reading process is extended and exacting. Some panels face upwards of 5,000 pages of material — usually densely packed and sometimes arcanely drafted. The time constraints are tight, leaving only about two min- utes per file. Fortunately, the tradi- tional mandate to “read back five years or to last promotion” of EERs now is less rigid. Depending on the circum- stances of the individual, panel mem- bers may only read back one to three years at this stage. Remember that you have good technical support staff available to clarify points. They have years of experience and provide the year-to- year continuity and institutional mem- ory that facilitates panel action. Ranking the candidates. When all panel members finish each 40-file tranche, they vote, ranking each can- didate as “promotable,” “mid-ranked” or “low-ranked.” If you know some- one well (perhaps you’ve been their rating officer at post), you are sup- posed to recuse yourself, but casual acquaintance (being in the same car pool or having mutual friends) is not grounds for recusal. And in any case, everyone knows your choices. To be “promotable,” a candidate must be so designated by at least one panel member. There is a legal con- gressional requirement to identify 5 percent as “low-ranked,” and the rest are “mid-ranked.” This process con- tinues until all of the batches of candi- date files have been reviewed. 62 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 4