The Foreign Service Journal, January 2003

F O C U S J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31 there can be certain disconnects. Our State colleagues at times are puzzled by why we spend so much time at trade shows working the crowds and why we have the authority to manage our own finances distinct from the embassy’s administrative section. And chiefs of mis- sion, especially non-career appointees, sometimes find it difficult to relate to an SCO who has as much (if not more) visibility in the host country as they do. I once had the honor of serving with an ambassador who was approximately my height and also had white hair and wore glasses. After he appeared on a national TV show, I received numerous congratulatory messages and thumbs-up from passers-by. I mentioned to the ambas- sador that I did not want him to think I was trying to steal his “glory” by impersonating him. He assured me that his only concern was how to respond to the ques- tions he had suddenly started getting about customs clearance procedures! FCSOs are truly unique within the foreign affairs community. Back Home at DOC FCSOs work closely with their Civil Service col- leagues in the Commerce Department to form the only federal government agency that has the same objec- tives domestically and internationally and offers the same service to their clients anywhere in the world. Our primary objectives are to help American-invested companies find fiscal success internationally, increase employment by increasing U.S. exports, and defend and protect U.S. business interests. Our clients — “rat- ing officials” — are numerous, including American providers of goods and services, distributors of American products and services worldwide; and host- country importers and consumers of American prod- ucts. (To be politically correct, I should also include the country team and DOC, and Congress on the list, as keeping them happy is at times even more impor- tant.) Yet while we serve many masters, and the list of ser- vices we provide is long and impressive, all of our “bosses” are looking for the same result: did we close the deal? In that respect, our job is easier than that of our State colleagues, who also have several masters but with different (and sometimes conflicting) priorities. Some might even suggest our job is more fulfilling than others in the Foreign Service since we seek concrete results, sometimes literally. It may take years of nego- tiations to win a major power project, but when the concrete is poured, there can be no doubt that the deal was closed! Yet while we share the same objectives and provide the same service as do our domestic offices (now called Export Assistance Centers), there are obviously some differences in perspective between the 240 Foreign Commercial Service officers assigned to over 140 embassies and consulates and the approximately 37,000 civil servants in Commerce who work throughout the United States. For example, our GS friends wonder why we in the Foreign Service are willing to move every three or four years to a different country, learn a different language and perhaps even a different way of doing our job. And when I tell friends within the Beltway that my children did not live in the same place for as long as four years until they went to college, they respond with the look normally reserved for mean-spir- ited parents. Every director general of the US&FCS tries to bring the two groups closer, but it is a difficult task. We have different personnel systems and a dif- ferent award and promotion structure. Another factor is our management, which often has neither Civil nor Foreign Service experience. There is an unwritten rule in Washington that equates the num- ber of political appointees in a department with the total number of employees; thus, the larger the depart- ment, the more political appointees. This practice has a particularly harmful twist within DOC, due to the scarcity of divisions where political appointees can be assigned without seriously impeding the agency’s work. For example, approximately half of all DOC employees are part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Because it is necessary to know some- thing about science to understand what those organiza- tions do, let alone to manage them effectively, there aren’t many political appointees in NOAA. The same is true of the Census Bureau and many other divisions within Commerce. Consequently, disproportionate numbers of political appointees end up in senior positions in organizations like the International Trade Administration even though they may never have met a payroll, sold a prod- uct, met a budget or managed more than a few employ- ees. Similarly, the FCS Director General position has been a “training slot” for the past 20 years. Several