The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2012

36 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 2 One is the two-week intensive course that covers a broad array of issues in a particular region. And then we do advanced area studies as part of long-term language training. That model has not changed, but we have added a number of courses. We have a new course on area studies for people assigned to Mexican border posts, for example. It’s not the same as if you are assigned to Mexico City. That was something the direc- tor general’s staff recognized: the need to do more to prepare our officers assigned to the border. There is also more use of technology in area studies, and across FSI, in fact. Almost all of our classrooms are equipped with smartboards, making training more inter- active. And we’re able to bring the Internet into the classroom. Seven or eight years ago, we didn’t have that capability. TJ: We’re also giving a scrub to area studies courses to ensure they deal with the development pillar highlighted in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Re- view. SZ: Would you like to highlight any recent innovations in the curriculum of the Leadership and Management School? RW: The major additions since 2005 are the empha- sis on interagency training and training the interagency community. A flagship course we created in the leader- ship school four or five years ago is the National Security Executive Leadership Seminar, at the FS-1, GS-15 level. It meets for two days a month over five months, and we offer it three times a year. It’s a very different model from what we normally do, in several respects. Half the participants come from the State Department and half from other agencies. It’s also a course people are nominated to take. It focuses on na- tional security strategy and the roles of different agen- cies; the reason to do it over five months is to give people a chance to do a lot of networking in between. The course has a long waiting list of participants from other agencies because it’s one of the few genuinely in- teragency training opportunities in the federal govern- ment. There was so much demand for it that we also created a weeklong course we call “Understanding the Interagency.” It also focuses on national security and the roles and missions of various de- partments. Particularly coming out of the QDDR process, we have worked very hard to build a collaborative relationship with the U.S. Agency for International Development on training. I think it’s been a real success story. We now have a senior USAID officer detailed to FSI, and together we created a very successful distance learn- ing course on diplomacy and development. USAID made it mandatory for their new hires. Between our two agencies, nearly 400 people have taken it so far. We are now creating a classroom course that has sim- ilar content, only on a more advanced level. And we are working with USAID to create their first mission direc- tor’s course, which is patterned on the Ambassadorial Seminar. SZ: AFSA believes the Bureau of Human Resources should be able to ensure that employees get training, re- gardless of the complaints at the posts and bureaus. Do you think that’s necessary? RW: If I understand AFSA’s goal in this regard, it isn’t so much a training-related question as it is about career development and assignments. I believe their point of view is that regional bureaus have too much say in as- signments, and training would be a part of that. Without commenting on whether the central system or bureaus have too much control of personnel, we have seen a serious change in bureaus’ willingness to let peo- ple go to training. SZ: What other changes would you highlight? RW: Foreign Service National training has been a very big growth area for us over the years. In recent years, it became clear we cannot send trainers out to all the re- gions, and bureaus and posts can’t afford to send a lot of people back to Washington for training. So we’ve tried to come up with a different model, which I think has been very successful and well received. Almost all of the regional bureaus have training cen- ters, so we have partnered with them to take more train- ing to the field. And because we can’t send a lot of American trainers overseas due to the cost, we’ve created a new program of adjunct faculty. In that program, as well, we work with the regional F OCUS “There is more use of technology in area studies, and across FSI, in fact.”