The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 5 I want to begin my AFSA tenure by paying tribute to John Limbert, Louise Crane and the rest of the past board for the ex- cellent job they did. They were lucky to serve AFSA mainly during a rare period of abun- dant resources and management deter- mination to nurture the Foreign Service and care for its people. They made the most of these favorable cir- cumstances. I am delighted at the prospect of working on issues vitally important to our members and our nation with a group of dedicated and motivated board members and professional staff in an organization that has exceeded the expectations of virtually all its mem- bers during my 26 years in it. I only wish that present conditions were so favorable as those the outgoing board enjoyed. However, disturbing events have already begun to confront us. Let me be clear and direct. The appointment of three mid-level FSOs as deputy assistant secretaries in EUR, based on their personal loyalty to the assistant secretary while serving at the NSC, is a whole lot more than a tem- pest in a teapot. It strikes at the heart of our meritocracy and jeopardizes 20 years of shared State Department/ AFSA efforts to infuse management and leadership into a service long marked by policy brilliance and man- agerial incompetence. Management’s refusal thus far to address the grave concerns raised by AFSA over these appointments is shortsighted and seemingly oblivious to the damaging impact of this controversy on profes- sionalism, morale and esprit de corps. The department, quite simply, cannot have a “Foreign Service for the 21st Century” that permits appointment practices of the 1830s. I don’t know who these mid-level DASes are; I haven’t heard their names. What I’m reacting to is princi- ple – based on 26 years of experience. Being a DAS is not about “extraordi- nary” policy brilliance. It is about proven leadership and management of people and a policy process. It requires extraordinary skills, but not the ones used to justify these appointments. Policy expertise is abundant and every Secretary has created “special adviser” or Schedule C slots to get it. However, putting unproven officers in top “line” positions, in charge of multiple bureau offices and hundreds of employees, risks both eventual systemic failure and compromising the very policy efforts that are its primary rationale. Nor are such appointments justified by the personal loyalty to the boss that motivates them. Those working in senior national security positions, and that’s what these are, must have a high- er loyalty, characterized by the willing- ness and ability to bring tough, unwant- ed messages to the boss. Not only analysis of the pros and cons of policy options, but how to implement them; honest assessments after implementa- tion begins and what the blowback is. If the DASes are resented, if they don’t listen, if their role is to insulate the prin- cipal from the system that supports him, their isolation can be disastrous. The impact of this appointment abuse on the integrity of the FS per- sonnel systemwill be perverse, a classic example of the appearance of conflict of interest being as damaging as actual conflict. Will anyone imagine that these DASes’ performances will be honestly evaluated, that any person who precipi- tated such a controversy could admit in an EER that while those he chose are great at policy, they are lousy managers or never earned the confidence and respect of their subordinates? What will be the impact on the integrity of the very promotion system management has criticized as not promoting these individuals quickly enough to qualify for these positions? The bottom line is that these appointments undermine the institutional basis of the Foreign Service and weaken the case I intend to press over the next 24 months: that the FS is a national security institution and must be provided for as such. Secretary Rice is being feted for giv- ing diplomacy “new muscle.” She has stated that she values and respects the Foreign Service, will follow her prede- cessor in reinforcing it, and realizes she needs it to accomplish her goals. Her initial words were reassuring. As she reaches the half-year mark of her tenure, her troops are now looking for actions to match that rhetoric. n P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS The Rhetoric and the Reality . . . B Y J. A NTHONY H OLMES J. Anthony Holmes is the president of the American Foreign Service Associa- tion.