The Foreign Service Journal, March 2013

18 MARCH 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL technology platforms to carry out their duties. Admittedly, social media tools can damage careers if handled incorrectly. But for the career Foreign Service to take its rightful place at the policymaking table, this resistance to using them must change. This is true not just in terms of new technology, but our entire cultural mindset. Resistance to career-long training— not just during orientation or to prepare for a specific assignment—significantly hampers the Foreign Service’s ability to compete effectively with the rest of the interagency community. Moreover, although the Foreign Service Insti- tute offers outstanding instruction in foreign languages, its other professional education offerings put us behind the employees of the other federal agencies competing for a share of the interna- tional relations pie. Throughout my Foreign Service career, I made it a practice to take courses at the Foreign Service Institute after every overseas tour, and frequently while I served in Washington. Some of my colleagues warned that this would put me at a disadvantage for promo- tions and choice assignments by taking me out of the mainstream. They said I needed to be “out in the field,” doing things that would be noticed. I had a different view. After 20 years in the Army, where continuous training is not only expected, but often required for advancement, I knew that no train- ing or educational opportunity was a waste of time. That class in dealing with the media might not have an immedi- ate payoff, but at some point, the things learned in it will come in handy. Taking on Risk Another critical weakness in the career Foreign Service is the reluctance to take risks. By this, I don’t mean a lack of physical courage. Foreign Service personnel have never shirked their duty to go into harm’s way, as evidenced by the thousands who have volunteered for places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. One only need contemplate the hundreds of names on AFSA’s memo- rial plaques in the main lobby of the State Department—and those that will be added on Foreign Affairs Day in May, including that of the late U.S. ambas- sador to Libya, Chris Stevens—to know that Foreign Service personnel have been as willing to make the ultimate sacrifice as their Defense Department colleagues. In fact, on a per capita basis, more of us have done so. But when it comes to coming up with new ideas and advocating them to the political leadership, the Foreign Service falls short. The mere thought that a senior department leader or member of Congress might take umbrage at a proposal will often kill it. When I was ambassador to Cambo- dia, for example, and proposed a change in the relationship with that nation’s defense establishment, fear of pos- A critical weakness in the career Foreign Service is the reluctance to take risks by coming up with new ideas and advocating forcefully for them.