The Foreign Service Journal, January 2003

In general, they have streamlined our operations, applying modern management techniques to make us more productive. They have introduced such concepts as Total Quality Management, Centers of Excellence, and Best Practices as well as created mathematical models for post resource allocation. They have held our feet to the fire and demanded we document our successes through the submission of “suc- cess stories.” To their credit, they’ve used them on the Hill to get us more money. That’s the good news. The less good news is that (as this magazine goes to print) we still don’t have a signature on our assignments policy/procedures proposal — a critical document devel- oped 18 months ago to make our personnel system more equitable and professional. Without it, we will continue to live under a highly subjective system that allows unrea- sonable latitude in the assignments process and can encourage abuse. Friends have told me that negotiating with Commerce is not “Mission Impossible,” but it is extremely difficult to reach a consensus because of the “stakeholder problem” (non-career DGs are only with us two to three years). To be fair, however, this attitude seems to exist irrespective of the political stripe of the occupants in the office. Many believe it’s a natural atti- tude for people who aren’t long-term stakeholders in our service (as the directors general of other agencies’ foreign services are). So what to do? For starters, we need to sell our message better to our higher-ranking officers and encourage them to risk a trip up to Commerce’s front office on our behalf — to become visible advocates for change. While recognizing that dialogue is always better than diatribe, we must pre- pare cogent arguments that can persuade the reluctant to become even temporary stakeholders. As such, we will ensure a sense of mutual ownership of the issues and some real responsibility for their solution. This is a tall order, but I’m convinced we can make it happen, togeth- er. In short, if we are to succeed in our own department, we must be able to count on the DG as “one of our own,” who will fight for the support we need to run a profes- sional corps of officers. The Next 20 Years With the advent of computerization, e-mail, Web sites, videoconferences and the like, we are well on our way to becoming a true 21st-century organization. So is everyone else, it seems. Our detractors would have you believe that we can be replaced by a high-speed modem and a subscription to an Internet service provider — that most international business can be done electronically and that anyone can do it. While that may be the case for major financial institutions moving billions of dollars, it’s just not true for the hundreds of thousands of America’s small businesses whose needs are more modest but every bit as important to the U.S. economy. The same “infor- mation revolution” that made the Internet indispensable also gave us “information overload,” and is also making the job of sorting through that information essential. And who is capable of doing it efficiently in world markets at a reasonable price? We are. While we still need to concentrate on the tool (the computer), we must keep focused on the craftsman (our professional organization). Both are vital to our success. Fortunately for us, our productivity has soared, and our ability to deliver valuable services to the business com- munity has increased manyfold. We must continue on this path, not because it’s the prudent thing to do, but because it is the only thing to do. U.S. companies demand it of us and they demand that FCS remain a peo- ple -oriented business, one committed to finding solutions that are tailored to their needs. That said, we will need to train the next generation of already computer-savvy college graduates in the art of becoming effective, special generalists, people whose skill-sets cover a wide range of disciplines. To do that, we must provide adequate train- ing slots in larger embassies for these men and women to grow and hone their skills under the tutelage of experi- enced officers. We must fill vacant positions but not move inexperi- enced, first-tour officers into senior commercial officer jobs until they are ready. (It’s better to have multiple- country coverage than coverage that is too “experience- challenged.”) We must have a long-range vision and an equally long-range plan that encompasses personnel, programs and services. For the shorter term, it must cover at least a five-year period, not just the traditional, four-year “administration period.” We must think and plan beyond the election, beyond the next director gen- eral appointment. To reach our goal of getting more companies to export we must engage more companies where they live. This means creating Stateside positions (for FS-1 and senior officers), as was once advocated but then forgotten. For example, we should appoint special commercial advisors F O C U S 42 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 3