The Foreign Service Journal, April 2020

38 APRIL 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL The Issue of Administrative Burden “The administrative burden on supervisors with EERs, regular post awards, and then MSIs is too much.” “Nomination-based systems require employees to have supportive managers willing to go above and beyond the EER process—extra work. …Managers and supervisors are often unwilling to do extra paperwork for things such as awards and MSIs.” “This is better, but it still comes down to initiative on the part of supervisors, which is hit or miss.” The Issue of Timing “MSIs suffer a lack of nominations in part because it’s yet another form to fill out and also because they are seen as risky to both nominee and drafter. If MSI is not received, Great Employee may get nothing; missed both the board’s blessing and then too late for the post's award committee process for the work done that year.” “MSI nominations are difficult because the employee could qualify for different types of awards. The MSI nomination specifically says it cannot be for the same performance that a Meritorious Honor Award or Superior Honor Award was awarded. “Thus, it is possible that employee would have supe- rior performance and be nominated for an MSI, but not approved for that award and then also not get a MHA or SHA because the performance is substantially in the past or the employee or supervisors have changed posts, or an awards budget has been exhausted due to the MSI processing time. “MSIs should be harmonized with MHAs and SHAs so that the employees with very high performance do not miss recognition.” Transparency and Fairness “I believe that the trial system that was used is the most transparent and fair system that State Department has rolled out.” “I appreciate the attempt to give specialists MSIs because they are overlooked, and the promotion rates are abysmal.” “I prefer the nomination not to be linked to being recom- mended for promotion. Having a separate process allows the panel to concentrate on the specific work being nomi- nated. … Promotion is supposed to be based on potential to serve at a higher rank, while the MSI is about work already accomplished. Linking the two can blur that focus.” Gender-Neutral Language “I love the flexibility of the pilot, and I also love the gender- neutral-language feature. I think having the freedom to recognize outstanding work by any colleague at any time is excellent practice. I also think removing gender bias is critical to ensure equal representation in selection from submissions.” “Gender-blind review is really important. Glad this was piloted in the MSI, but really it needs to happen for EERs too.” The Issue of Organizational Culture “Generally speaking, I think that the pilot is a wonderful pro- gram. I just fear that State lacks an organizational culture where managers seek to understand (and act on) all the avenues available to them to reward their people. MSIs are a nice, creative path to recognize someone, but are underuti- lized, as evidenced by the statistics that HR shared.” The MSI Pilot: What Survey Respondents Said Why Change the MSIs? A number of factors led the State Department and AFSA to review the MSI award process. Since the start of the MSI program several decades ago, MSIs had been mainly tied to the promotion process in a manner that operated relatively routinely. Until 2013, an agreed-on proportion (5 to 10 percent) of those who were recommended for promotion but fell short of achieving it auto- matically received MSIs, and bureaus had an additional relatively small number of awards to distribute on a discretionary basis. Because of the October 2013 government shutdown, how- ever, the State Department awarded no MSIs at all that year, which prompted AFSA to file an implementation dispute. In 2014 the department resumed the award of MSIs but cut the percentage down to 5 percent of those recommended but Here is a sampling of the free-form comments on the MSI pilot program from AFSAmembers who participated in the November 2019 survey.