The Foreign Service Journal, June 2011

Is the Foreign Service Still a Profession? B Y G EORGE B. L AMBRAKIS S PEAKING O UT W hen AFSA surveyed its active-duty members last year, it included a question asking them to describe what they see as “Foreign Service values.” Some re- spondents, including many who had served in the military prior to joining State and other foreign affairs agen- cies, answered not by citing positive characteristics of their new organiza- tion, but by expressing unhappiness about the lack of organizational values, mentoring and other aspects of strong management that they were used to from their time in the armed forces. That reaction brings into focus a disturbing trend in recent years. Con- sciously or unconsciously, the up-or- out system—which works very well in the military, where its need seems self- evident — has turned the career For- eign Service into just another set of occupations, not a unified profession with a core set of values. Reflecting this change, today the Foreign Service recruits entrants on the basis that if they don’t like the work, they need not think of it as a life- time commitment. (Admittedly, nei- ther IBM’s value-laden career system, nor the similar Japanese model, is present in Microsoft, Google or other corporate giants of today.) That there is considerable disagreement within our profession as to whether the For- eign Service even has a core set of common values, let alone what they are or should be, only emphasizes this point. Institutional values are imbued through comradeship, training and the idea of group solidarity—which is best protected if there is an element of elit- ism being conveyed. Yet the Foreign Service specifically strives to avoid elit- ism of any kind, making no distinctions in prestige between its people and oth- ers in government. (Contrast that with how the Marine Corps treats its peo- ple. I have served with career ambas- sadors who are still proud to have once been Marines.) It’s the Foreign Service So what kind of values does that leave us? And to what or whom, pre- cisely, should FS professionals be loyal? To answer, “to the Foreign Serv- ice,” would be elitist, not to mention dangerous for one’s working future. To the United States? Of course — but then what is so special about diplo- macy, as opposed to other jobs helping your country? An argument could be made that the dominant Foreign Service value should be service . Yet many of the replies to AFSA’s active-duty member survey underscore the point that there is a strong element of individualism in how FSOs see the way colleagues do their jobs (and seek credit for doing so), as well as in the dog-eat-dog and “devil take the hindmost” competition for assignments and promotions. Some see the system as so highly competitive that it actually creates a strong disincentive to help others. That, of course, tallies with the major- ity of jobs in our capitalist society, but it runs exactly contrary to the value sys- tem of a military career. This attitude was less prevalent before the 1980s in- troduced a fairly brutal weeding-out system, just at the point where mid-ca- reer and senior people had put their trust in the Service and committed to a unique career. That poses a dilemma. Either the Foreign Service resumes thinking of it- self as a lifelong profession (as it is for The up-or-out system has turned the career Foreign Service into just another set of occupations, not a unified profession with a core set of values. J U N E 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 13