The Foreign Service Journal, February 2007

and hardship positions. That concern was a key factor leading to the devel- opment of the Career Development Program for generalist officers that was implemented in January 2005, just as Secretary Rice took office. (Similar programs for 18 Foreign Service Specialist groups were imple- mented in January 2006.) Under that reform, Foreign Service members — for the first time — are explicitly required to check off specific assign- ment “boxes” before they can be con- sidered for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. Specifically, FSOs now face four mandatory requirements: 1) serve at one greater hardship (15-percent or higher) post after tenure; 2) attain a diversity of regional and/or functional expertise (for example, serve multiple tours in two regions); 3) meet the pre-existing requirements for profi- ciency in one foreign language; and 4) meet the pre-existing requirements for taking leadership and manage- ment training at each grade. In addition, FSOs are required to satisfy five of seven “elective” bench- marks before they can be considered for the Senior Foreign Service: 1) service at an unaccompanied post; 2) service in a “critical needs” position (typically at a hardship post); 3) six months of crisis-response experience (such as is gained working in the Operations Center); 4) cross-func- tional experience (such as a consular officer running a narcotics assistance program); 5) service in a position with substantial supervisory responsibility (such as management counselor or deputy chief of mission); 6) a profes- sional development tour (such as the pursuit of academic study); and 7) the attainment of additional language proficiency (such as working profi- ciency in a second language). The program has many caveats and qualifications, including “grand- fathering” provisions that phase in the requirements according to the employee’s grade at program imple- mentation. Consult the Bureau of Human Resource’s Intranet site for full details. This “ticket-punching” program represents an historic hardening of the conditions of service for Ameri- ca’s career diplomats. It is a dramatic departure from the previous assign- ments system that, for example, allowed employees to rise to the Senior Foreign Service without ever serving at a hardship post after ten- ure. Henceforth, with limited excep- tions, service at hardship posts will be mandatory. Service at an unaccom- panied post and in a “critical needs” position will be unavoidable unless the employee completes all five of the other “electives.” For better or worse, this is not your father’s (or mother’s) Foreign Service. On the positive side for employ- ees, the Career Development Pro- gram presupposes that additional lan- guage, functional and academic train- ing will be offered in the coming decades. The program should also ensure that employees gain a wider breadth of functional and regional experience than has often been the case. Transformational Diplomacy The next shoe to drop was Secre- tary Rice’s “transformational diplo- macy” initiative announced on Jan. 18, 2006. In order to “begin to lay new diplomatic foundations to secure a future of freedom for all people,” the Secretary announced a series of steps designed to get diplomats to “move out from behind their desks into the field” and move “from report- ing on outcomes to shaping them.” (Of course, most Foreign Service members would argue that they were already doing that.) The initiative included the “global repositioning” of hundreds of Foreign Service positions largely from West- ern Europe and Washington, D.C., to the front lines of diplomacy in “critical emerging areas in Africa, South Asia, East Asia, the Middle East and else- where.” To move the first 100 posi- tions, the Bureau of Human Resour- ces stopped the pending assignments of around 25 Foreign Service mem- bers, including some who had already begun foreign language training for their now-canceled assignment. In October 2006, State announced the repositioning of an additional 100 positions. Many, but not all, of the new positions are at hardship posts. The repositioning of up to 100 addi- tional positions is expected in 2007. It is important to note that Sec. Rice moved existing positions instead of obtaining funding to create addi- tional positions. That was reminis- cent of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s decision to take positions from Western Europe to staff the new embassies formed following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many observers view that as the beginning of the “do more with less” hollowing out of Foreign Service staffing that reached its disastrous peak in the mid-1990s under Secretary of State Warren Christopher, when hiring fell far below attrition. Only time will tell if the additional “transformational diplomacy” positions will be created by cannibalizing existing positions. Another unanswered question con- cerns the future of Sec. Rice’s plan to 42 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 7 The “Iraq tax” created staffing gaps worldwide and blocked the creation of the planned training reserve.