The Foreign Service Journal, February 2005

justify the low-ranking, I hope that the selection boards will have the courage to low-rank them even if the 2-percent quota has already been reached. Low-ranking provides a tool to the Foreign Service through which underperformers can be assisted to improve or be removed from the Service. By low-ranking employees, selection boards provide a service to the employee and the Service; this responsibility must be exercised based on observed performance, not simply to meet an arbitrary quota. At the other end of the spectrum, selection panels should also resist the temptation to award sympathy pro- motions for “solid” but uninspired performers. Of course, solid employ- ees represent a significant, and need- ed, portion of any bureaucracy. According to the Procedural Precepts for Foreign Service Selection Boards, however, “[p]romotion is recognition that a member has demonstrated the capability of performing the duties and responsibilities required at a higher level. It is not a reward for prior service.” Foreign Service per- sonnel recognize that we have signed onto an up-or-out career track and the expectations therein are well publi- cized. Promoting someone who has shown “fine” performance as an FS-3 without demonstrating the capability to serve at an FS-2 level would be a disservice to the department even if the employee has 13 years at FS-3 and risks TIC-ing out. Time-in-class limits are intended to hone the Foreign Service’s effec- tiveness by removing the dead wood from our ranks. In practice, however, if it takes someone 13 years to be pro- moted from FS-3 to FS-2, has he or she demonstrated the potential to tackle the greater responsibility? Would you really want to serve under such a manager? Perhaps at senior levels of responsibility one may require a dozen years to demonstrate the merit to warrant promotion from 16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5 S P E A K I N G O U T u