The Foreign Service Journal, May 2004

officers. Honest, let alone serious, criticism is rare, even though the eval- uation precepts insist that no one is perfect. The vast majority of raters and reviewers genuinely want to avoid damaging their colleagues’ career prospects, even when they are not performing well and could benefit from constructive guidance early rather than later. But raters are also painfully aware that tough written criticism, especially early in a two- or three-year assignment, is likely to poi- son the rater-ratee relationship throughout the remainder of the tour — and perhaps prompt a counter- strike grievance action from the rated officer, who concludes that there is nothing to be lost by a litigious riposte to criticism. • Constructive criticism. The “areas for improvement” box inspires all manner of creativity. Most writers are aiming to craft minimally critical prose that will pass your sniff test and allow the employee to be mid-ranked. But also be alert for the raters who insert a stiletto so skillfully that the ratee doesn’t even notice the wound. • The employee self-statement. This section of the EER has appropri- ately earned the “suicide box” label. It may well be the most important writing that an FSO does each year — partly because the acceptable style of comment keeps changing, so the rated officer must be alert. Most are now smart enough to avoid reacting to the criticism of verbosity with five pages of rebuttal, but you will still find inappropriate challenges to com- ments by the rating or reviewing offi- cer and jeremiads against department policies. At the other end of the spec- trum, deciding whether to toot one’s own horn (and how loudly) remains an art form. Watching FSOs waver between the Scylla of self-deprecating modesty and the Charybdis of exu- berant self-congratulation is instruc- tive. But at a minimum, when the EER reflects a hallelujah chorus of praise, the smart officer avoids writing “AMEN!” in all caps. Service on a promotion panel can be a meaningful career experience. Just as a stint with the Board of Examiners provides an insight into the quality of new entrants, an assignment to a promotion panel offers a chance to assess whether the system is fair in its judgments of offi- cer quality. Perhaps it is unsurpris- ing that the general conclusion is that the process is scrupulous and fair (those successful within a system rarely denounce it), but the mechan- ics of the process are constantly reviewed; the American Foreign Service Association passes on the annual precepts for promotion; and public members provide a regular sanity test. But ultimately, the sys- tem is only as effective — and fair — as those administering it. 64 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 4 SERVING THOSE WHO SERVE AMERICA S I NCE 1 9 7 1 2004 represents our 34 th year helping to maintain America’s fleet of vehicles throughout the world. All of us at D & M consider it an honor to have worked with all of you through these years. We are aware of the importance of your official and private vehicles, forklifts, generators, tools and equipment. We look forward to continuing this service in a professional manner. We are here to help, just ask! Gary Vlahov www.dmauto.com (516) 822-6662; FAX: (516) 822-5020; E-mail: info@dmauto.com