The Foreign Service Journal, April 2020

30 APRIL 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL that better fit with both the department’s leadership and management principles and GTM’s promotional criteria. And GTM revamped the Career Development Program into the Professional Development Program to put the emphasis on professional growth (not career arcs) and strength (not speed) for advancement, and to simplify assignment distri- bution requirements and eliminate overcomplicated majors and minors. The program for granting Meritorious Service Increases was revamped by GTM and AFSA in 2016, in the form of a three-year pilot program [see p. 37 for more on this] . Separately, the bureau and AFSA had had a contentious period with institutional griev- ances and appeals on the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 MSI award results. The department did not pay the MSI awards in 2013 and only awarded MSIs to 5 percent of those who had been recom- mended for promotion but did not achieve it in 2014, 2015 and 2016. This led AFSA to file grievances; the association won the first (2013), lost the second (2014) and awaits final decisions on the last two (2015 and 2016). Meanwhile, the department launched the three-year pilot. In the MSI pilot for 2019, GTM did not include employee names in an attempt to mitigate implicit bias on the part of panel members. The results did not show a statistically significant difference, but rather a slight decrease, in the number of women and minorities getting awards. The reason is rather straight- forward—it was a mechanical solution to a cultural problem. Private-sector human resources experts have noted what they call the “idiosyncratic rater bias effect.” Since MSI nominators know the employees, any implicit bias is more likely at that stage (including whether to nominate at all) than it is later from a panel that is deliberately composed of individuals representing diversity. The answer to implicit bias is to address it head-on and change attitudes and behaviors. Unlike other fields (e.g., music auditions, where technical skill and virtuosity are key factors and evaluators are well served by not seeing the candidates), nomi- nators for awards and raters and reviewers for EERs know the person. In EERs, employees write the initial section and frame the report that selection boards read. Despite the best intentions, eliminating names does not fundamentally address bias, accord- ing to extensive peer-reviewed and validated analyses. Only a concerted effort to help all employees get better—positive bias— will mitigate negative bias at the front end. Other than insisting on diversity in judges, trying to tackle bias at the back end will have limited, if any, impact. Other aspects of the reforms also have a mixed record. For instance, after an initial flurry of interest by employees in the new EER-related resource bank, its use tailed off. GTM is looking to make the resource bank more prominent and easily accessible because it offers guides and advice, including on such things as avoiding coded and loaded language and hidden biases. Misperceptions about EERs Some misperceptions about EERs persist. One holds that promotions are more a matter of chance than merit, using a coin toss, dice roll, crap shoot or roulette spin as metaphors. This misses the point. An individual EER is a one-year snapshot. Selection boards have a dynamic view: cumulative (three or more years of reviews); comparative (each individual’s develop- ment arc); and competitive (performance and future projection assessed in the context of the full cohort). It is not speed, but strength of development across assignments—challenges and accomplishments—that counts heavily in determining readiness for greater responsibilities. Another misperception is that writing is the single critical factor. Naturally, clear, concise, crisp, vivid writing is better than flabby, verbose, pedestrian, flat writing. But writing is a, not the , determining factor for boards. Content matters more than prose. Making a business case goes further than a good story—the latter is interesting to read, but not the most consequential com- ponent for decision-making. A third is the notion that the “development area” is a mark of near death. What’s important here is not to have a repetitive pattern. Throw-away lines do not impress boards; they degrade the overall integrity of the report. Boards also see through them: No matter how characterized or disguised, weaknesses in inter- personal relations come through. It is natural for strength in all competencies to grow over time, but leadership and relational growth must improve faster and more consequentially to make one competitive for promotion. As employees handle more com- plex internal and external policy challenges, the human factor becomes ever more important. Progressing from responsibility for oneself, to teams, to an enterprise level entails exponen- tial growth in leadership to inspire people and foster the next Some misperceptions about EERs persist. One holds that promotions are more a matter of chance than merit.