The Foreign Service Journal, January 2005

• Credit = Performance Times Difficulty: “Creditable performance under unusually difficult or danger- ous circumstances is particularly rele- vant” for promotion consideration. Translation: Just like judges for Olympic gymnastics or diving, pro- motion board members look not only at how well a job was done but also how intrinsically difficult the job was to do. As a result, employees serving effectively in highly demanding jobs and/or in difficult locations generally will be promoted more quickly than employees serving effectively in jobs that are perceived as being less diffi- cult. • Potential: “Promotion is recog- nition that a member has demonstrat- ed the capability of performing the duties and responsibilities required at a higher level.” Translation: Pro- motions are not rewards for prior ser- vice, but are instead extrapolations from that service. For example, notwithstanding the above first tip, employees who take tough jobs but fail to perform well in them are unlikely to be promoted ahead of their peers. • Decision Criteria: “The Core Precepts provide the guidelines by which Selection Boards determine … promotability.” Translation: In read- ing evaluation reports, boards consid- er performance in the 29 specific skills listed in the core precepts (also called the “Decision Criteria for Tenure and Promotion in the Foreign Service”). Each skill is listed in three levels of accomplishment (junior, mid-level and senior). Boards judge whether the employee is performing below, at or above the level of accom- plishment appropriate to the employ- ee’s current grade. • Overseas Service: “A signifi- cant portion of the career must be spent in assignments abroad … [and] boards are instructed to consider … demonstrated competence in service abroad when reviewing members for promotion.” Translation: Foreign Service members who have not served abroad in many years are lim- iting their promotion potential. While the State Department tries to accommodate employees in difficult medical or family situations (especial- ly employees who have such difficul- ties later in their careers after many overseas assignments), it is a fact of life that the Foreign Service needs members who are ready, willing and able to serve abroad. • Fair-Share Service: “Boards are encouraged to weigh positively creditable performance at hardship and danger pay posts … including … Iraq and Afghanistan.” Translation: All Foreign Service members need to do their fair share of hardship assign- ments. Those who do so generally will be promoted more quickly than employees who do not — assuming that they performed well. One should note, however, that taking an assign- ment to a hardship and danger- pay post does not guarantee a pro- motion. (Full disclosure: In chrono- logical order, my overseas assign- ments have been at 35, 0, 15 and 5-percent differential posts.) • Leadership and Management Skills: “An employee’s leadership and management skills should be given particular importance when s/he is being considered for promotion.” Translation: Selection boards are not to promote brilliant policy wonks who abuse their staffs, supervisors who discourage dissenting views, or employees who fail to lock their safes at night. • Training and Skill Develop- ment: “Boards should attach special value to an employee’s demonstrated commitment to upgrading their pro- fessional skills through training.” Translation: Boards give positive credit to those who use FSI and other training to improve their performance and/or raise the level of their unit’s performance. To do so, boards review employee profiles (formerly PARs) and read long-term training evalua- tions to see what training employees have had. • Foreign-Language Proficien- cy: “Boards are instructed to duly consider foreign language excellence which enhances the member’s contri- bution to the mission.” Translation: Boards review employee profiles and read language-training evaluations to see what proficiencies employees have. They give credit to those who use their foreign-language skills to advance their bureau or mission per- formance plan goals. • Functional Proficiency: “Boards are instructed not to penalize employees for taking periodic assign- ments out-of-cone or out of special- ized skill group” (emphasis added). Translation: Boards may “penalize” employees who take numerous assignments out of their cone or spe- cialty after tenuring if those assign- ments do not appear to be serving any well-thought-out career development purpose. This is especially true for those boards charged with reviewing employees by functional cones or spe- cialty. • Broad-Gauged Officers: “The department’s goal in creating the mul- tifunctional skill code is to … expand the pool of broad-gauged officers pre- pared to assume senior leadership positions.” Although the State De- 40 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 Promotions are not rewards for prior service, but are instead extrapolations from that service.