The Foreign Service Journal, March 2023

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2023 35 before them had their share of scoffers decrying the then-new system they functioned in. It isn’t hard to understand why: It’s human nature to believe that one’s own achievements are more remarkable than the achievements of others. If a system benefits us, we are likely to extol its virtues and to fight to retain that sys- tem because it’s a part of our personal success story and therefore linked to our egos. Whether or not the FSOT can be trusted as objective, it is only one step among many in the hiring process, the majority of which are more subjective. In the Qualifications Evaluation Panel (QEP) review (a step that was only established in 2007), candidates are first evaluated by a computer program, then by human beings who ultimately decide if they are compelled by what you wrote, or not. The FSOA also involves a panel of humans—notoriously biased as a species—evaluating you and your peers’ responses in real time. Even security and suitability clearances can hinge on just howmuch scrutiny individual investigators might think your past misconduct merits. In short, the recruitment process has never been purely meritocratic . What can we glean from an applicant’s ability to performwell on a multiple-choice exam such as the FSOT? Certainly not any real knowledge of traits such as cultural adaptability, initiative and leadership, or working with others—some of the 13 dimen- sions the Foreign Service looks for. If the FSOT assessed candi- dates’ prospects as well as intended, State wouldn’t have created the QEP at all. Clearly, for all of the work that goes into getting the best people for the job, the recruitment process is still in need of fine-tuning. Vetting Never Stops As for who deserves to be here, I certainly don’t know the answer. I can tell you that pathway programs such as the Picker- ing, Rangel, or Payne Fellowships are extremely competitive. I can tell you that they are open to most of the same applicants who came into the Service via the traditional route. I can tell you that I know FSOs who failed to pass the recruitment process for the fellowships, then found success by going through the traditional recruitment process, and vice versa. But none of that really deter- mines who deserves to be here. That will be determined on the job. I don’t yet know whether I will ultimately succeed in this career. But in that regard, I’m no different than any other entry- level officer (ELO). If I succeed in this career, or if I fail, I will be in the company of many others who came before me, whether through the new FSOT, the old one, or neither. The vetting process never really stops. The fact that tenure can only be achieved after ELOs have seen years of real-world experience as FSOs further illustrates this point. The State Department never believed that their own initial testing methods were sufficient to judge a candidate’s potential. Some of you are on, or can remember being on, “language proba- tion,” the prospect of passing your next language evaluation loom- ing as yet another test standing between you and the continued pursuit of your career. Even after tenure, the up-or-out promotion system is an ongoing test FSOs must pass, and then at some point compete for entrance into the Senior Foreign Service. Finding truly qualified candidates and creating truly capable diplomats is an exceedingly difficult task precisely because