The Foreign Service Journal, May 2004

From traditional wisdom about over-inflated EERs, you might expect to be faced with attempting to deter- mine the virtues of 100 angels con- tending to become archangels. That, however, is not the case. Indeed, it is almost eerie the extent that panel members agree on the placement of specific files. The “promotables” typi- cally establish a pattern of success early in their careers and continue to perform at that level, while the “mid- ranked” majority are productive, valu- able members of the Service but not usually destined for its highest levels. • The promotables. Once the rough cut of all the files is complete, the Office of Performance Evaluation provides the actual promotion num- bers available — invariably fewer than those the panel has deemed worthy. Then the real challenge begins. There is detailed comparison—using a com- plex point-scoring system — for the promotables. For each 40-candidate tranche, every panel member must assign four “10s”, four “9s”, and so on down to four “1s.” Those scores are then totaled. Thus, with a five-person panel, the absolute top score a candi- date could receive would be 50 and the lowest would be 5. At that stage, the candidates are rank-ordered and the panel discusses the lineup. Evaluators are free to change their scores — but if you add a point to one candidate, the scoring system forces you to subtract a point from another officer. Final placement is determined by total score of the five panel members; ties are voted on as well. Those just above and just below the “promote line” may also be revot- ed upon: one common approach is to reread the files of the five candidates on each side of the promotion line, going back to the last promotion, before producing a final list of individ- uals recommended for promotion. Although more candidates may be ranked for promotion than actually promoted, that should not bother you. First, promotion numbers could change. Second, it is important for the record that an officer be designat- ed as promotable rather than simply “mid-ranked.” • The low-ranked. This remains a degrading element of the “up or out” system. It smacks of the ancient British naval custom of courts-martial, even executions, for relatively less suc- cessful officers simply to keep the oth- ers in line. Just as for the “promota- bles,” the panel re-examines the “low- ranked” to determine whether they are more appropriately placed in mid- level. If they are low-ranked, the panel determines whether they should be referred to a performance stan- dards board for possible selection-out; a justification statement is required when an individual is referred to that board. We also noted who should get counseling letters (these are required for the low-ranked, but can go to other officers, including those promoted). What to Look for — Or Watch Out for • Time in class. Even budding superstars should demonstrate light- up-the-sky brilliance for a number of years consecutively to be rewarded. But steady, if not stellar, performance can also lead to promotion. All else being equal, length of service is the determining factor. • Actual accomplishments. It is tedious, but necessary, to sort through the EER verbiage and determine whether the candidates have had a variety of hardship assignments and whether their assignments had sub- stantive content rather than a coordi- nation role with no responsibilities. The superstaffer in Foggy Bottom may be highly visible and adept at working the system, yet do little beyond shuffle paper faster than his or her peers and jump higher when a principal yells “frog.” Conversely, a lower-level FSO at an obscure post or deep in the bowels of the department may have advanced U.S. interests through substantive accomplishments, and that should count even if the job seems to lack flash. • Quality, not quantity. Although delivering hundreds of demarches or drafting sheaves of cables demon- strates that a candidate is busy, a Foreign Service officer is more than a FedEx agent. It is what the candidate accomplishes substantively for U.S. mission objectives that should be noted. The same is true of predictions about trends in the host country: yes, it is nice to know that the officer is a good fortune teller, but it is important only if the prediction is incorporated into U.S. policies, contingency plans, or other activities that have a direct effect on the bilateral relationship. • Overseas time. Diplomatic life overseas is less and less “fun” for many reasons; the hatred and anger of host- country residents can be palpable. In particular, being blown up used to be a once-in-a-lifetime concern, but now it is a day-to-day fear in many, perhaps most posts. Thus, those who have will- ingly served in hardship posts deserve special attention. • EER drafting skills. You will have to slog through a lot of dense, even turgid, prose, replete with acro- nyms and jargonesque commentary. Consequently, when you encounter a rater or reviewer who is a rhetorical craftsman, it is tempting to reward the rated employee out of sheer relief. But what should catch your attention are specific examples that substantiate the all-too-commonplace superlatives. Yes, the candidate walks on water and turns it into wine during the stroll. But the important point is exactly how much distance was covered and what vintage is the wine. • Grade inflation. In Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor tells us, all the children are above average. Judging from the rampant grade infla- tion in EERs, apparently many of them grow up to be Foreign Service M A Y 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 63