The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2016 61 frequently and took various forms: narrative, numerical and even multiple-choice. Here is a chronology of their evolution. Foreign Service School, circa 1928 The school instructed all newly commissioned Foreign Service officers, rated “FSO (unclassified),” in the elements of consular work: passports, visas, accounts, indexes, invoices, etc. The instructors conducted a written exam in each area, and then numerically rated the student on mental keenness, practical judgment, effectiveness and general attitude. They then attached comments to their rating, and the chief instructor ranked mem- bers of each class. This process was not unlike public school grading in the first half of the 20th century. Gender bias reared its ugly head here, at the very beginning of Frances Willis’ career. Her passports instructor stated: “Miss Willis showed excellent judgment and other qualities, which in a man would have called for a higher rating.” Informal Period, 1925–1933 Four personnel evaluation reports appeared during this period: the Annual Efficiency Report, a special Inspection Report, an Efficiency Rating and a department-generated report. The AER was a one-page, narrative report generated by the onsite supervi- sor, describing the officer’s duties and performance. It usually ended with a comment about the officer’s suitability for retention, reassignment, promotion, etc. But occasionally it consisted of a simple, handwritten note, especially if the supervisor was a politi- cal appointee. The American Foreign Service Inspection Report was the only structured format of the four. And despite its title, it was only used to evaluate consular officers. Amultiple-topic, multiple-page, narrative document, it was written by a consul general who had been detailed as a Foreign Service inspector to evaluate a consular employee at post. Sections of the document addressed personal- ity, mode of living, contacts, cooperation, standing and profes- sional attributes, the last taking up two pages. It ended with the inspector’s opinion about the officer’s suitability to continue in the consular service or transfer into the diplomatic service. The third format, the annual Efficiency Rating, was also gener- ated by the department’s Consular Service. But it could hardly be called a report, since it consisted of short, unsigned comments— sometimes just one word each—about the officer’s performance in assigned duties: passports, shipping, notarials, etc., as viewed from the department. Following the comments were a date and rating—average, high average, good, very good and none. In my aunt’s case, these comments appeared at random places in her dossier, including handwritten notations on the bottom and back of her 1928 Foreign Service School record. But perhaps it didn’t make any difference where the reports were filed, because none of these pioneering women were expected to last very long. Fortunately, these haphazard evaluations faded away in the early 1930s, though they were later resurrected in a more structured format. None of these reports indicated whether the officer had read them. Little is known about the fourth State Department-generated report, in this case about Lucile Atcherson, the first woman to join the Foreign Service. Although Marilyn Greenwald, Lucile’s granddaughter, obtained Atcherson’s dossier and quoted narra- tive evaluations of her performance as a third secretary in the first chapter of a biography of Lucile’s daughter, she did not cite the actual documents. One quotation appears to have resembled the AER, while the department-generated quotation seems to have been an early version of a Rating Sheet—the next stage in the evolution of personnel evaluations. Rating Sheet Era, 1933–1946 The State Department adopted a two-year promotion process, using a selection board consisting of officers senior to the rated officer. After the board convened, it updated a Rating Sheet, the essential document for promotion, and permanently filed it in the officer’s dossier. This consisted of a one-paragraph summary of material in the dossier for the current, two-year period under review. The material consisted of memos, letters, notes, newspaper articles and evaluation reports from the department and the onsite supervisor. Apparently, the one-paragraph summary was generated by a member of the current board, but no description of the process was included in the dossier. Then the summarizer (more accurately, a redactor) would assign a rating of excellent, very good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory and add the entry to previous paragraphs in the Rating Sheet. These paragraphs were dated, but neither signed nor initialed. The annual Efficiency Rating could hardly be called a report, since it consisted of short, unsigned comments— sometimes just one word each— about the officer’s performance.