The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2010

J U L Y - A UGU S T 2 0 1 0 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 63 A F S A N E W S V.P. VOICE: FAS ■ BYHENRY SCHMICK Up or Out, Part III: Back to the Future I n Part I (see April AFSANews ) we recalled that in the recov- ery after World War II, as the five-star generals and admi- rals imposed theNavy’s “up or out” systemon all the armed forces, civilian leaders extended the up-or-out system to the Foreign Service, as well. In Part II, we discussed the “youth and vigor” argument for the up-or-out system, and noted that orga- nizational theorists classify promotional systems into various types (up-or-out, merit-based, seniority-based and random). Academics define the goals of a promotional systemas (a) select- ing the most able employees for positions of greater responsi- bility, and (b)motivating employees at one level to strive hard- er to reach the next one. Corporate leaders define the goals in more profit-oriented terms: does the systemgetme the employ- ees I need at the lowest possible cost? Inherent in an up-or-out system— one with a mandato- ry churn of employees forced out by relative performance, pro- motion and age— is a continuous training of employees. The military hasmade training an integral part of its up-or-out sys- tem. Former Secretary of StateColinPowell noted that he spent 15-20 percent of his military service in training. Meanwhile, as former AFSA President John Naland stressed in his presi- dent’s column in the Jan. 2009 Foreign Service Journal , “chron- ic underinvestment in training has long shortchanged Foreign Servicemembers on careerlong professional education. Colin Powell is said to have remarked that Foreign Service officers start their careers better educated that U.S. Army officers, but that Army officers end their careers better educated than FSOs.” It appears our foreign affairs agency administrators and Congress have focused on the last part of the corporate prof- it-oriented terms — employees at the lowest possible cost — and not cared about securing themost able employees for posi- tions of greater responsibility. Various internal and external reports have criticized the Foreign Service as lacking able lead- ers andmanagers. Well, you get what you pay for. Back in 1946, Congress realized the importance of training. In the dis- cussion of the Foreign Service Act on July 20 of that year, Representative John Vorys, R-Ohio, summarized the bill: It makes the Foreign Service hard to get in, and hard to stay in. It provides salaries, allowances, and retirements that should attract and hold goodmen ... It provides for the continuous train- ing of these officers during their service by a Foreign Service Institute. In addition to FSI training, the 1946 Foreign Service Act encouraged FSOs to enroll in outside institutions. In Septem- ber 1946, 10 FSOs were assigned to a yearlong course at the NationalWar College; and byOctober 1947, State had detailed 18 FSOs to various universities. It is worth noting, however, that pressure caused by limited personnel necessitated the with- drawal of most of the Foreign Service officers from the school after January 1947. So the sensible approach outlined in the 1946 Foreign Service Act was discarded by the next year. Some things never change in Washington. To successfully implement an up-or-out system, sufficient resources must be allocated to continuous training. We did not do it in 1946, and despite periodic attempts to fix the sys- temsince, the Foreign Service is still trying to implement a dis- torted, cracked-mirror image of the military’s up-or-out sys- tem. To answer the question posed by P.J. O’Rourke (see Part II, May AFSANews ): in the Foreign Service, youth, innocence, an untrained mind and a bad haircut do beat age, guile and (experience-related) hair loss. Note: The author would like to acknowledge AFSA Staff Assistant Patrick Bradley for researching the congressional his- tory of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. ❏ Hail and Farewell to AFSA Interns AFSA bids a fond farewell to Public Affairs Intern Jennifer Durina, a stu- dent at The George Washington University who departed AFSA in May; FSJ Advertising Intern (and Curacao native) Joserelda “Josie” Boon, who returned to her studies in the Netherlands in early June; and FSJ Editorial Intern Jennifer Thompson, who is a senior at GW. Legislative Affairs Intern John Gargula was here with us for just a few weeks through Marquette University’s Les Aspin Center. We welcome Jeffrey Rauch, AFSA’s first marketing, outreach and Web intern. From the Chicago area, Jeff is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with a degree in political science and communica- tion. Laura Caton, a senior at the University of Pittsburgh, has joined us for the summer as editorial intern. And our new public affairs intern is Regine Baus, a Tennessee native who attends GW, majoring in political science. AFSA NEWS BRIEFS Femi Oshobukola Joins AFSA as Director of Finance Femi Oshobukola has joined AFSA as director of finance. Originally fromNigeria, Oshobukola attended London Guildhall University (now LondonMetropolitan University). He has served as director of finance for DeVry University and as senior director of finance for the Points of Light Foundation. Oshobukola lives in Bowie, Md., with his wife, Tola, and their children, Samuel andMarian.