The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016

62 MARCH 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL This process made the board’s job much easier, because everything they needed to know about the candidate was sum- marized in the new paragraph. They could immediately tell whether the candidate was improving or slipping. But it also opened the door for mischief if the anonymous redactor were biased or had a personal ax to grind. In Frances Willis’ case, for example, a 1932 entry in her dossier reported that as a third secretary in Stockholm, she had assumed chargé duties, the first time a woman had done so. That report was indeed filed—but inside Frances’ 1928 Foreign Service School record, where it was overlooked by the redactor, who also ignored two press articles reporting the event that had been properly filed. As a result, that event was omitted from the first (1933) entry in her Rating Sheet, which assigned her an unimpressive “Satisfactory” rating. Onsite, supervisor-generated AERs continued, virtually unchanged, during this period. However, the department-gener- ated Efficiency Ratings returned as a short paragraph, covering both consular and diplomatic tasks, now with a rating (E [Excel- lent], VG [Very Good], S [Satisfactory], U [Unsatisfactory]) added, just like the Rating Sheet. They were not signed, but some bore reviewer initials. And in my aunt’s case, they often seemed to influence Rating Sheet deliberations more than AERs. Major Changes, Good and Bad: 1946–1955 In response to abuses by Rating Sheet redactors, Under Sec- retary of State Joseph Grew and Dean Acheson, his successor in the position (the equivalent of today’s Deputy Secretary of State), mandated major changes in the evaluation process starting in 1946. These included abolishing the redactor’s rating on the Rating Sheet and transferring it to the Annual Efficiency Report, so that the onsite supervisor became responsible for rating the officer, just as is currently done. They also elevated the AER to major—not paramount, but major—importance in the promo- tion process. While no directive is available defining these changes, con- sider the following events: Under Secretary Grew had appointed Frances Willis as his assistant in 1945 and given her an excellent review, immediately promoting her to Class III. Acheson subse- quently gave her an outstanding review. Then they discovered that the redactor, in a special 1946 Rating Sheet review trig- gered by that promotion, gave her a mere “Very Good” rating, stating that Class III was high enough for her “because of her sex.” Frances’ next AER included—for the first time—a rating at the end of it, and the subsequent Rating Sheet entry had none. The department-generated Efficiency Ratings—now signed—continued, along with a periodic Inspector’s Effi- ciency Report, which added 16 questions to be answered by the inspected officer (e.g., “What is your ultimate goal in the Foreign Service?” “Are you in debt?”). New forms started to appear, as well. One was a seven- page Position Description with a two-page, 1,100-word set of instructions requiring a detailed description of duties, includ- ing the officer’s estimate—within a 5-percent margin of error— quantifying such factors as time taken, successes and adverse consequences for each duty. A one-page, department-generated, Annual End-User Summary Report also appeared, with a narrative evaluation similar to that in the AER. It ended with a new numerical rating system, consisting of six boxes and the requirement to check one box. The boxes ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 6, with 6 defined as “... superior in every respect, denoting the highest degree of resourcefulness and initiative, with no recognizable room for possible improvement”—a high bar, indeed. The AER, which remained nearly unchanged for 16 years (apart from minor revisions in 1933 and 1943), was massively revised and expanded in 1949. Not only did it grow from one to six pages, but it now had four parts. Part II alone listed 13 fac- tors to be graded in three categories: superior, satisfactory and not up to standard. These included versatility in knowledges (sic) and skills, such as accuracy, productivity, trustworthiness and reliability. Part II concluded with narrative comments from the reviewer, similar to the old AER. Part III was a short section grading language skills, and Part IV listed activities to be graded, including political, economic, consular, etc., much like the Foreign Service cones that showed up at this time. Part I was the oddest section of all, consisting of 31 groups of statements descriptive of FSO performance. The review- ing officer was required to underline the most descriptive and cross out the least descriptive. Here are typical examples: A) He will probably not go much further in the Service. B) He demands a high degree of efficiency from those asso- ciated with him. The redactor, in a special 1946 Rating Sheet review, gave her a mere “very good” rating, stating that Class III was high enough for her “because of her sex.”