The Foreign Service Journal, May 2010

18 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 1 0 need to move away from “traditional” diplomacy — how- ever one defines that. Throughout these debates, institutional change came about incrementally. This led to changes in professional training as resources and demand allowed, one recent ex- ample being the expanded, improved training for those deploying to Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the most widespread method within the Foreign Service for imparting wisdom about how to do the job and pursue a career continues to bementoring, whether conducted formally or simply through the example set by more senior officers. This is famously illustrated by the story of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who spent more than 20 percent of his military career undergoing professional development that he found useful. When he asked his under secretary for political affairs, Marc Grossman, how much time he had spent in professional training over the course of his For- eign Service career, Grossman replied: “Two weeks, aside from language instruction.” While considerably more training has been added since this exchange, mentoring remains the core of our profes- sional development. But that model has already begun to break down in the face of rapid personnel increases, and is manifestly inadequate for future needs. Fortunately, we now have new opportunities to rethink the role of profes- sional development, pull together recent advances in train- ing into a comprehensive plan, and create a strategy that can win congressional support for the resources needed to make it a reality. Yet even as that opportunity presents itself, State man- agement is beleaguered with the demands of allocating the new, critically needed influx of officers and planning the support needed for a 25-percent increase in Foreign Serv- ice personnel. As a result, it lacks the time — though not the will or understanding — to craft the needed strategy. This auspicious moment is unlikely to last. A depart- ment that cannot think and plan strategically will not be honored with more resources as the political clamor to re- trench mounts. With the Department of State’s cooperation, the Amer- ican Academy of Diplomacy (which I head) is conducting a study to assist in meeting the need for new strategic plan- ning. This study, which the American Academy of Diplo- macy hopes to conclude by December, is being funded by the Una Chapman Cox Foundation with additional assis- tance fromAFSA, the Delevan Foundation and the Acad- emy’s own funds. The Breakdown of Old Models There were many reasons the Foreign Service histori- cally provided its members with little training, chief among them a lack of financial and personnel resources. But be- ginning in 2001 with Sec. Powell’s emphasis on careerlong professional training, starting with the institution of a lead- ership development continuum spanning the FS-3 level to the senior ranks, there has been significant progress. Lan- guage training — a key element for diplomats — is being massively expanded. Tradecraft courses have grown in length and frequency, as have cone-specific and mid-level curricula. And there are more slots for Foreign Service personnel to attend the National War College. Yet we still lack the resources to institutionalize the changes, add critical topics and stop jamming training into transfer summers to the detriment of staff and posts. Broad professional development, away from high-pressure jobs, remains limited to a few officers. Meanwhile, many Foreign Service personnel still view training as a diversion from career advancement or even detrimental to it. Others assume we are good enough as we are, although the lack of training, accreditation and specialized diplomas has always made it difficult to explain why we should be treated as a profession when we lack the symbols that mark other guilds and professions and are directed primarily by amateurs. But in view of the long line of successful career diplomats who contributed to the forging of the postwar institutions, advanced the nation’s interests and managed the multifaceted business of diplomacy through countless negotiations and wars, there was evidence that we some- how did learn what we needed to know. That model is now breaking down. As retirements con- tinue and the influx of desperately needed new officers ex- pands, we are at the point where almost two-thirds of Foreign Service officers have spent fewer than 10 years in the Service; 28 percent have spent fewer than five. We simply no longer have sufficient experienced officers to serve as mentors and trainers. And this reality will not be F O C U S Ronald E. Neumann, a retired Senior Foreign Service of- ficer, served as ambassador to Algeria, Bahrain and Afghanistan among many other assignments, including Iraq. Now president of the American Academy of Diplo- macy, he is the author of The Other War: Winning and Losing in Afghanistan (Potomac Press, 2009).