The Foreign Service Journal, April 2020

22 APRIL 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 2019. The launch of online and class- room unconscious-bias awareness train- ing is welcome, and should be made mandatory for everyone. Evaluations can further evolve to include a score, so that the evaluation is less dependent on the rater’s and review- er’s writing skills. We can also look at ways to make evaluations more concrete and link them to onward assignments. Assignments: Who You Know, Not What You Can Do Bidding instructions in 2019 urged people to consider their qualifications before bidding. It was a mixed message, because experience tells us that it’s not skills and qualifications that get jobs, but personal connections. This undoubt- edly holds true for bureaus that employ centralized bidding processes, despite their claims to be open and transparent. Reaching the Senior Foreign Service and being hired into the Senior Executive Service require a well-rounded career, and this is a function of the assignment process and the accessibility of opportu- nities for professional growth. When assignments are a crucial part of an officer’s education and develop- ment, it is easy to see how the belief that “diplomats are born, not made” is upheld. The culture of the department tells us the best officers will shine through and rise above the rest, naturally. Another way to put it: If you are good, you will get the best projects, the best jobs and the promotions. Yet reality has shown us that doing more work is not necessarily the right way to get promotions or good onward assignments, and the allocation of those opportunities is subject to the will of your boss and who you know. A backlash against bad managers, “screamers,” who effectively manage their corridor reputations to their own benefit led to a revolution in the assignments process in 2006: the introduction of the online 360 evaluation. In theory, it would give voice to subordinates to help weed out those officers who were best at “kiss- ing up and kicking down,” as we call it. It is welcome news that recently one more bureau joined the shared 360 platform. That said, the current format for 360s is not much more than a digitized rumor mill and extension of the corridor reputation that is often manipulated, lacks Equal Employment Opportunity oversight and is unevenly applied across the department. In the best scenario, the soon-to-be launched TalentMap could revamp the 360 bidding process as the first stop for bidders, with GTM offices reviewing name-redacted and gender-neutral résu- més and conducting first-round inter- views for all posts. Skills-based interviews with the same questions for all applicants that directly relate to the desired knowl- edge and skills needed could give hiring managers objective criteria to better match candidates with staffing needs. Shifting to a preestablished rubric could have a lasting effect on abolishing the favoritism that may be the root cause of the department’s failure to be inclusive and diverse, as laid out in the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. The Challenge: Now What? This is our Department of State. We have a Director General heralding a time of change, and we have the power to reshape our institution to become more aligned with our modern world. As a department, we can acknowledge that becoming an effective diplomat is an active effort born of blood, sweat and tears. We can foster professional growth in our community by mandating and rewarding educational opportunities, and agreeing that long-term training is work for which we should be evaluated and recognized. As a requirement for one’s own promotion, we can institute mentor- ing and professional development of one’s subordinates and peers—not only to improve their professional abilities, but to strengthen our department and community. We can use our referent power to make the institution more inclusive, dynamic and effective. We can continue this conversation through the Director General’s open conversations and other dialogues within the department on how to best achieve these aims. Most important, we can move away from vague definitions of good diplomacy in exchange for defined examples we aspire to replicate. We can identify rules and regulations in the FAM/FAH that preserve the biases that hurt our efforts to become an expert, professional diplo- matic corps; and we can advocate for changes to these rules. By collectively acknowledging and actively working to demand and create a new organizational culture—one where we acknowledge that diplomats are not born, but made —we are more likely to achieve the results we seek. In this manner, we are more likely to attract, retain and reward the workforce we both need and have promised the American people. n Speaking Out is the Journal ’s opinion forum, a place for lively discussion of issues affecting the U.S. Foreign Service and American diplomacy. The views expressed are those of the author; their publication here does not imply endorse- ment by the American Foreign Service Association. Responses are welcome; send to journal@afsa.org .