The Foreign Service Journal, January 2005

a direct result, the real question facing most people is not if they will be pro- moted, but when. The senior threshold is fundamen- tally different precisely because most officers will not make the jump. Being an FS-1 officer for the longest possible time does not presently — and should not — increase an employ- ee’s odds of making the jump to the Senior Foreign Service. There are two ways to tackle this issue. The department could carry the concept of the “senior window” forward into a point-based promotion system by stating that point scores from a maximum of six promotion boards will be used to calculate the total score on which promotions are based. Just as employees now choose when to “open their windows,” they could choose when to start including their annual point scores into their total. Because every officer would be considered the exact same number of times, the maximum total point scores would be identical. A second option, of course, would be to retain the current promotion system for the senior threshold. Good Management Means Making Tough Calls The most common argument against adopting a point system is that the system could not be imple- mented fairly. This is based on the assumption that not everyone would agree on how key trade-offs, such as how to reward time-in-class versus outstanding performance, should be reflected in the point curve. There are two answers to this argument. First, it is true that it would be virtu- ally impossible to explicitly define time-versus-performance trade-offs under the current promotion system. Precisely because entire folders with many years of performance data are considered, any matrix of trade-offs would be almost impossibly complex. But breaking the overall promotion process down into a series of annual, independent evaluations, and moving to a points-based system, make it possible to explicitly define trade- offs. The second answer to this argu- ment is much more important because it touches upon the Foreign Service’s overall approach to leader- ship and style of management. Even with the simplicity resulting from the switch to a points-based promotion system, reaching a publicly disclosed and agreed upon decision on the rela- tive merits of time-in-class versus one- time performance or service in the field versus training would be very dif- ficult. The fact remains, however, that these decisions are already being made each year. Indeed, it would be impossible to reach promotion deci- sions without doing so. The differ- ence between the current system and a points-based system comes down to how these tough decisions are made. At present, the department avoids potential conflict by avoiding explicit, written guidance on what are proba- bly the toughest decisions in the pro- motion process. The alternative to this strategy of avoidance is to con- front the challenge head-on by explic- itly defining the relative value of dif- ferent types of performance via the point curve used in a points-based promotion process. This would undoubtedly be a difficult alternative to adopt, but the advantages in terms of transparency and predictability — and ultimately in the trust officers have in the process — would be over- whelming. No personnel system is perfect, but I believe a points-based system has much to recommend it.  The author, an FSO since 1987, has served in Muscat, Pusan, Seoul, Moscow, Vancouver, Kiev and Washington, D.C. He is currently principal officer at Consulate General Krakow. 20 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 5 S P E A K I N G O U T u