The Foreign Service Journal, March 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2015 21 peared, and the number of telegrams sent/received at State rose exponen- tially. Today, of course, many if not most official communications travel via email. Quantity isn’t necessarily qual- ity (“garbage in; garbage out”); but the fact that employees can now send and receive massive amounts of informa- tion provides the opportunity for regular sophisticated analysis. Another example: A generation ago we were still using rotary phones; as late as 1980, I had to scream into the tele- phone while calling our embassies in places like Ankara and Athens. Now, calls almost anywhere in the world, even over a secure line, are almost as clear as if you were speaking with someone in the next cubicle. The Internet. In my day, the idea of social networking was closer to “Dick Tracy” wrist-radio science fiction than reality. Over the last 20 years, the Internet moved from something Al Gore just invented to the instant go-to resource for virtually any type of information, and “crackberries” taught us why opposable thumbs are really useful. Indeed, instead of stacks of dead- tree cables delivered to your desk, today employees have a huge range of computer-accessible material transmitted from around the world. Unclassified and classified systems provide information from embassies, as well as the full range of global media. Once we lugged paper drafts from one office to another, collect- ing clearances and noting “edits” to be incorporated in the next draft. The most sophisticated systemwas the “long-distance Xerox,” or LDX, which could send a small selection of high- priority messages between State, Defense and the National Security Council. Now coordination can be done electronically domestically and globally—but it requires 29 clearances for a second-echelon action. It is even possible to work remotely, using a fob that permits coded access to State Department computers and com- munication with colleagues throughout the world. Technology is amazing—until it isn’t, and you find that your password has expired or remote access inexplicably fails. As a result, Foreign Service members in the field are no longer without con- nectivity and guidance. Secure communi- cation is the norm, so you know what you are to do and when to do it, and Washing- ton knows what you have done—virtually instantly. To be sure, this capability is a mixed blessing; reins are tight, and being “out of touch” is no longer an option. Finding a vacation spot that does not have Internet access has become an art form. Evaluations In the late 1960s, an untenured employee faced an evaluation with a con- fidential section. The rater and reviewer could each record pleasing positives in the open section and insert knives in the confidential material. Additionally, if the employee were married, his wife was also rated. That mechanism was an astonish- ing invasion of privacy, at least partly designed to keep wives “in line” and supporting husbands’ careers by per- forming good works under the supervi- sion of often-imperious senior embassy wives. That said, it did serve me well: my wife was so lauded by my rating officers that my career development officer said she was “exactly the type of woman who should take the FS exam.” As regulations had just changed to accord her such an opportunity, she did just that. After passing, she pursued a highly successful career. Since then, personnel evaluations have become more transparent and intricate—but also less meaningful. At times, it appears that every officer can turn water into wine by walking on it— and generate a premier cru, to boot. The evaluation system continued to evolve. State devised work requirement statements, equivalent to contracts, so employees knew specifically what they were to perform. Raters had to review an employee’s progress regularly; and each evaluation had to include an area for improvement (which generated some of the Foreign Service’s most creative writing). The Employee Evaluation Report was also expanded to include a personal state- ment by the rated employee in which to elaborate on an area of accomplishment or rebut a criticism. Bearing out the apt- ness of the informal term for that section, the “suicide box,” one witless officer reportedly offered a 1,000-word rebuttal of the observation that he was verbose. Current evaluations are still more complex: rated employees now describe how well they fulfilled their work require- ments, an assessment balanced by rater/ reviewer commentary. Dickens Was Wrong Today, members of the Foreign Service live in neither the best of times, nor the worst of times. Virtually every improve- ment identified above has a commen- surate downside. But with a “glass half full” attitude, one can conclude that for individual diplomats the systemic improvements outweigh the associated disadvantages. Then again, recall the down-in-the- dumps officer who heard a little voice saying, “Cheer up; things could be worse.” So he cheered up—and, sure enough, things got worse. n