The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2011

matic force incapable of meeting the nation’s goals — is simply unacceptable in today’s and tomorrow’s world. Taking Training Seriously Without a larger work force to in- crease flexibility, those already serving will find that they must remain in crit- ical jobs and cannot be spared for training. All the talk of mandates will be so much hot air if we cannot estab- lish a larger reserve of training posi- tions. This is something the State Department realized as early as 2008, when it expanded the current training requirement to a total of about 1,100 positions, most of them for language training. The next two recommendations are the most far-reaching in the study. The first deals with strengthening the per- sonnel system so that at least some as- signments can be deliberately related to a long-term view of essential train- ing. For this to happen, we want to break certain cherished traditions. One of these is the myopic focus on as- signments that considers only the im- mediate needs of the Foreign Service and the preference of the officer. We do not think this approach adequately serves the national interest in a fully trained professional corps. Instead, the personnel system should be rein- forced with staff and authority to play a more central role. The Career Development Program has already begun to move in this di- rection, with its list of essential re- quirements for promotion. But it leaves these steps entirely to the offi- cer. Nor is it yet clear that the person- nel system will be able or willing to enforce its own rules. We think it should. For this to happen, there must be a rebalancing of forces: enough bodies to train; stringent requirements for cer- tain types of training; and a clear enough linkage between training and promotion to break the deeply rooted Foreign Service culture of resistance to training — an approach our nation can no longer afford. We recognize that such change must come in tan- dem with the resources to implement them; but come it should. Training vs. Education The next recommendation changes the focus from training to education. Foreign Service officers, like other se- rious professionals, need intellectual preparation for the much broader re- sponsibilities that come with seniority. This is recognized in a notion of our military colleagues that they “train for certainty and educate for uncertainty.” The utility of education, not just training, is borne out overwhelmingly by the experience of those who have had such opportunities — in the now- discontinued Senior Seminar, at the service colleges, or through university training. We believe the goal must be to give every mid-level officer a year of pro- fessional education, not just a pastiche of short (and mostly optional) training courses jammed into already crowded professional lives. Professional education must involve a more serious commitment to reflec- tion and thought. Eventually, we rec- ommend that such a year of advanced study, relevant to one’s career track, become a firm condition for promotion to senior ranks. We recognize that the resources do not currently exist to move instantly to such a program. We therefore recom- mend assigning growing numbers of officers to a year of professional edu- cation at service colleges and other universities, until we reach the point at which everyone can participate. Re- sources permitting, State might revisit the utility of something like the old Senior Seminar, in the hope that we will someday carry our own weight in the area of professional education, as FSI now does in training. Other recommendations return to the focus of training. We recommend establishing a temporary corps of rov- ing counselors, drawn extensively from among recently retired FSOs, in re- sponse to problems that the mid-level gap has caused. With two-thirds of FSOs having spent less than 10 years in the Service, more attention must be paid to mentoring, as well. The direc- tor general is moving ahead with a similar program, which we strongly en- dorse. Whatever changes we or others rec- ommend, on-the-job training will re- main a fact of life. But why should we go on assuming that every Foreign Service officer knows how best to mo- tivate another generation, or is a great teacher? This is why we recommend conducting a study to examine best practices in on-the-job training. Senior FSOs Need Professional Education, Too The report’s final three recommen- dations apply to how our most senior officers are prepared for their jobs. The experience of our large group of former chiefs of mission on the ad- visory group is that few country direc- torates have an adequate knowledge of how best to prepare a new ambas- sador to go to his or her post. As a re- sult, too much time is wasted while the new chief of mission designs his or her own consultation. A five-day training course for desk officers and 68 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 1 The AAD report’s findings dovetail nicely with the thrust of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.