The Foreign Service Journal, March 2015

50 MARCH 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Previous columns have discussed the rise of the Dip- lomatic Readiness Initiative and Diplomacy 3.0 generation and their “Pig in the Python” impact on promotions: i.e., more time at grade, slowing promotion rates and more limited upward mobility. This month, I suggest procedural and substantive reforms to address supply and demand in the crowded labor market. The 2015 summer assign- ments cycle is one of the tightest ever as the first cohort of DRI officers is now being promoted to FS-1, and the Diplomacy 3.0 cohorts are at the cusp of FS-2 eligibil- ity. AFSA’s concerns were acknowledged by pre-season department forecasts predict- ing position deficits in several skill codes, particularly at the FS-2 and FS-3 levels. In December 2014, the depart- ment acknowledged the tight labor market (14 STATE 146948), noting that bidders should explore out-of-cone assignments and domestic Y tours. In order to make last year’s bidding market work, the department had to reclassify dozens of positions from FS-4 to FS-3 and transfer their ownership from entry-level to mid-level. At this time it is unclear howmany positions will need to be reclassified or injected into the system to meet the Director General’s promise of “No Bidder Left Behind.”The market is only going to get tighter, though, The Foreign Service Labor Market and the department needs to begin considering how to use the position drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan to fill frozen positions and create new detail assignments and training opportunities. The challenge of manag- ing this closed-market labor system is that the bidders are free agents, regional and functional bureaus control the jobs, and the market’s regula- tor—Human Resources—has few intervention tools on hand. Individual bidders and Human Resources end up bearing the costs of the mar- ket’s inefficiencies. Language-Designated Positions: In the past, Congress has criticized the department’s management of employees’ language abilities, paying particular attention to the percentage of language- designated positions encum- bered by qualified language speakers (see GAO Report #09-955 at www.bit.ly/GAO- 09-955).While part of the challenge resides in the lack of a properly sized training float, another explanation can be found in the selection process for language-designated posi- tions. The current system results in sub-optimal matching of employees and positions, because those selecting individuals for positions, i.e., regional bureaus, are not forced to consider the real costs of employee language training (travel and transpor- tation, per diem, tuition, FSI overhead allocation) borne by central Human Resources. Requiring bureaus to account for and, ultimately, bear the costs of the decisions would result in a more efficient use of existing employee skills, save real money, unlock addi- tional employee productivity and make the assignments process more transparent. Employees would still have opportunities to acquire new languages, but bureaus would have to prioritize where and how to spend their language dollars. Bureaus could no lon- ger afford to be cost-agnostic as in the current system. Such a reformwould ensure that the Service is making maxi- mum use of existing employee language skills and limited training dollars. An Economist’s Take: The State Department is not the only organization confronted by matching problems. New York City public schools face similar challenges when they match students and enroll- ment spaces. Policymakers in NewYork eventually turned to economists specializing in game theory and matching for solutions. The NewYork Times explained the use of game theory in the public school matching process in an article on Dec. 5 (www.bit.ly/ NYT_gametheory). The department’s assign- ments system is also ripe for outside analysis and improve- ment. For the past several years an economist fromThe GeorgeWashington University has been looking at applica- tions of game and matching theories to the entry-level assignments process. Such research has already identi- fied process and technological solutions that will save the employee and the depart- ment time (read money) and result in better matches for the department and the employee. Last year’s AFSA survey confirmed that assignment system reformwas member- ship’s highest career and professional development priority. AFSA has accordingly proposed that the depart- ment take a serious look at the assignments process to see how the system can be made more efficient, trans- parent and user-friendly. Such a review would entail additional resources—people and money—to consider key workforce development issues that have been the subject of several Office of the Inspec- tor General and Government Accounting Office reports. The current open assign- ment process was established 40 years ago in response to a directive issued by the Secretary of State calling for a more open, centrally directed assignment process. Today, the strains of a larger work- force are showing, and it’s time to revisit that call—but this time with technology, game theory and a couple of economists on our side. n Next Month: Open-Plan Offices: Boon or Bane STATE VP VOICE | BY MATTHEW ASADA AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. Contact: asadam@state.gov | (202) 647-8160 | @matthewasada