The Foreign Service Journal, April 2012

A n AFSA member recently asked me whether the U.S. Agency for International Development might reform its performance evalua- tion process. This person felt that an extraordinary amount of time was wast- ed preparing employee evaluations instead of carrying out our work. My familiarity with USAID’s evaluation system goes back to the time when it was called theEmployeeEvaluationReport, whichultimatelybecame theAnnual Evaluation Form we have today. Since then, I have seen evaluation forms take many different shapes, sizes andmedia (paper vs. electronic). Some forms consistedofmainly checked boxes, while others required a thermometer-style graph. Vast written narratives were in vogue for a while, only to be replaced by short missives. It didn’t stop there. The review process has also gone through its own permuta- tions, with some systems requiring “360 degree” input fromcolleagues or substantive involvement by theAppraisal Committee. Thiswas followedby theACbeing respon- siblemerely for checking to see if the rules had been followed: written recommen- dations forpromotions, thenprohibitions against recommending promotion; a requirement to list areas for improvement, then no such requirement; etc. You get my point. Regardless of the evaluation system in place, it has always taken time to evaluate anemployee; for some, itmay require the entiremonthofApril to com- plete the process. Personally, I have come tobelieve that the AEF process is as developed as it can be, although I believe therewill always be roomfor improvement. I think the real prob- lem lies in the fact that many employees do not pay attention to instructions. Instead of developing work objectives and performance measures early in the cycle, the rater and ratee wait too long and fail to draft solid documents, even though instructions are readily available. Manyworkobjectives andperformancemeasures are deficient because they are not: specific; easilymeasurable, significant or challenging; related tomissionor agency goals; attributable to the employee’s work; or timely. Performance boards look for all these elements in the AEF and, above all, concentrate on the “so what?” of the employee’s work. Any AEF that just repeats the continuing responsibility of the employee will not lead to that employee being ranked for promotion. This bringsmeback to theofficerwhowrote tome about improving theAEFprocess. My answer is that we must continue to look for better ways to streamline the evalua- tion process. But until we come up with something new, evaluations will be easier to draft if meaningful and measurable work objectives and performance measurements have been established and raters meet the established benchmarks, thereby avoiding the rush to complete evaluations by the deadline. AEF preparation help is available at www.afsa.org/usaid un der Information for Members. V.P. VOICE: USAID BY FRANCISCO ZAMORA Reinventing the Annual Evaluation FormWheel aration from their family. Therewas a consensus that the agency candomore toensure that families arewell cared for—financially andemotionally— while officers are serving in CPCs. That includes access to counseling, information on support resources, adequate separate maintenance allowance, keeping families at current post and ensuring fair assign- ment procedures. The recently established USAID Staff Care Unit in Washington, D.C., can play a big role inmeeting those needs. What FSOs Consider Important: Sixty-three percent of USAID FSOs value their retirement package (Question 16) abovemany other factors, and 85 per- cent want AFSA to actively lobby Con- gress to protect it (Question 17). Close behind is concern about maintaining Overseas Comparability Pay. FSOs are keenly aware of the recent national fed- eral budget discussions in Congress that have put at risk federal salaries and retire- ment benefits. We have expanded our legislative outreach staff and increased funding for efforts to protect FS benefits. AFSA has redoubled its efforts to coor- dinate with other federal unions to counter such threats. LaborManagement Issues: Question 18 elicited the strongest response, with 83 percent of USAID FSOs expressing con- cernover discrepancies inbenefits between State and USAID, including: access to spousal language training at the Foreign Service Institute; lowerWashington, D.C., 52 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 1 2 A F S A N E W S Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA USAID VP. Survey • Continued from page 49 Any AEF that just repeats the continuing responsibility of the employee will not be ranked for promotion. Continued on page 55 FSOs are keenly aware of the recent national federal budget discussions in Congress that have put at risk federal salaries and retirement benefits. We have expanded our legislative outreach staff and increased funding for efforts to protect FS benefits.