The Foreign Service Journal, January 2012

A dvancement in the Foreign Service depends, to a large degree, on assignments, performance and corridor rep- utation. For the vast majority of generalists, a good cor- ridor reputation involves pleasing one’s boss, one’s post and the regional bureau to which one is assigned. That is usually a straightforward matter of doing a good job, advancing our nation’s mission in the country of assignment and receiving a good evaluation. For many specialists (and a small but growing number of generalists), the picture ismore complicated. Many functional specialists serve two masters: their post of assignment and a functional bureau. In some cases, they serve more. This sit- uation has benefits, but also creates a number of issues of in- creasing concern to AFSA. On the positive side, “membership” in a functional bu- reau often brings a level of esprit de corps — a more deeply shared sense of mission, a greater sense of being part of a team, and greater support frommore experienced members — which has been disappearing from other parts of the Service. Functional bureaus have their own funds for train- ing and conferences, ensuring a better training continuum. They are often in a position to better equip their employees, and to lobby, if necessary, for classwide issues. And they can provide a safety net for the employee who runs afoul of a boss at post — provided that boss is not a part of the same functional bureau. However, the negative side can be of serious concern. Two of the three largest functional bureaus have a high-level of em- ployee dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction appears directly proportional to the bureau’s degree of autonomy. At its heart is the fact that larger functional bureaus exert much greater control over assignments and careers, often through parallel or separate assignments structures. Whatever their size — from hundreds to thousands of FS employees—these bureaus have broad, pyramidal structures that give considerable power to a few individuals. These in- dividuals can make or break careers, in ways that often leave no paper trail and are therefore difficult to document. AFSA has become increasingly concerned about processes in these bureaus that circumvent the checks, balances and internal controls built into the human resources system that protect most employees from abuse. In bureaus that exercise strong control over assignments, AFSA hears of assignments being used as rewards and pun- ishments, including demotions that do not involve a due- process review of the reasons for such action. Even when a demotion does not occur, dramatic differences can exist be- tween the general impression of an employee held by col- leagues at current or past posts, and his or her reputation in the functional bureau. We have heard credible allegations of supervisors being pressured to write (or rewrite) Employee Evaluation Reports to malign employees who have annoyed higher-ups. In such cases, the supervisor (who is aware of an employee’s high- quality work at post) is pressured by bureaumanagement (for reasons that may have nothing whatsoever to do with that post) to ignore good work, document in the EER issues nor- mally protected as personnel-sensitive, and highlight, or in- vent, mistakes. Such evaluations (and the demotions mentioned above) can easily halt a career, or force the em- ployee to look for a job elsewhere. Some decisions have financial implications, including loss of Law Enforcement Availability Pay or other standby pay. Others can delay or veto the presentation of awards approved by supervisors and post management. Less shocking, but equally unfair, are assignments tomore, or less, desirable posts, based not on qualifications, but on re- lations between the employee and someone with greater power in the bureau. The potential for such abuses exists everywhere in the sys- tem. To some degree, personal relationships, corridor reputa- tion and other issues, affect every Foreign Service assignment or career. For most employees, there are mechanisms to help ensure that these decisions aremade by objective third parties, that candidates are fairly considered and that the employee has access to due process mechanisms. CentralizedHR func- tions not only reduce redundancies; they promote fairness and due process in assignments, promotions and disciplinary actions. For those who serve two masters, however, these mecha- nisms are too often ignored, inflicting unfair damage to ca- reers and reputations. AFSA intends to focus more deeply on these issues, par- ticularly as other functional bureaus begin to exert greater in- fluence over coordinated assignments. We must ensure that parallel or redundant systems either do not circumvent due process, or include their own controls to ensure fairness. As always, we are interested in hearing from FS members, either by e-mail to me at hirschdm@state.gov or through AFSA’s Web site at www.afsa.org/contact_us.aspx. J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 49 A F S A N E W S Serving Two Masters V.P. VOICE: STATE BY DANIEL HIRSCH