The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2015 19 the profession and by the general public. In a talk at AFSA on May 29, 2014, Prof. Snider outlined the differences between professions and bureaucracies. As opposed to workers in a bureaucracy, members of a profession accept lifelong learning and unlimited personal liability; they measure effectiveness rather than efficiency; and they have a self-policed ethos. An essential element of any career system, Prof. Snider believes, is a mechanism to provide basic standards and rules to protect it from political abuse. The ethical standards of a profession constitute a powerful means of controlling individual behavior in groups that must function in ambiguous, chaotic or dangerous situations. By contrast, controls in a bureaucracy are based on promotion and monetary rewards. In addition, unlike bureaucracies, senior members of professions are stewards who serve as mentors to entry-level personnel and promote, preserve and protect the standards of the profession. After more than 30 years in a calling that I dearly love, doing work that I would not trade for any other, I fear I may offend many by my conclusion that we are not yet a profession. In my view, the U.S. Foreign Service is a collection of highly intelligent, intensely dedicated and loyal experts in the art and craft of diplomacy. Where Do We Miss the Mark? While it is an inarguable fact that we provide a vital service to American society, the sad reality is that the majority of Americans, including those in positions of political leadership, don’t recognize or acknowledge what we do. As stated in American Diplomacy , edited by Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman, “with only a few minor exceptions, (professional) U.S. diplomats do not capture the popular imagination. … The United States relies extensively on diplomacy and diplomats, but has trouble acknowledging the fact.” Similarly, though members of the Foreign Service have extensive experience working with abstract knowledge to perform tasks that are not routine, they fall short in the area of long- term learning. Education. The Foreign Service Institute does an excellent job of providing language training, as well as some training in specific skills. What we lack is a system of career-long education designed to develop our diplomatic skills. Unlike our military counterparts, who spend a significant percentage of their careers in long-term training, we in the Foreign Service are lucky to get much beyond language and tradecraft training. An Army officer, for instance, can spend up to four years of a 20-year career in training (see “The Army Approach to Leader Development,” FSJ , July-August 2012), with as much as two years of that time devoted to long-term (a year or more) education. In contrast, FS members are lucky to get such training once during a career. In the military, training and education are required. In the Foreign Service, employees have to actively seek it out— even demand it. During my 30 years, I had two years of long-term training, including senior training at the National War College and the Senior Seminar. More than one colleague warned me that so much training, taking me out of the “rating loop,” could be detrimental to my career. Until long-term career education is valued and rewarded by promotion boards and assignment panels, we will continue to be deficient in this area. Ethics. There is no shortage of ethical regulations and prohibitions in our line of work, and no one can say that Foreign Service personnel are unethical in general. The current regulations, however, are proscriptive, couched in dense legal jargon and spread through the Foreign Affairs Manual, making them relatively hard to access. To build the trust necessary to be truly effective, we need a clear, formal code of ethics that is prescriptive and aspirational, easy to understand and apply evenly and fairly, and understood by people who are not part of the Foreign Service. It is not that society does not trust us; it does not know what to expect from us. Autonomy. Relative autonomy in the conduct of diplomacy is essential. In some assignments I had a great deal of room to operate because I worked in a country or area of little interest to the Washington bureaucratic and political establishments, or because I was in an area where communications with Washington were limited or nonexistent. In other assignments I experienced intense micromanagement. When ambassadors visiting Washington have to ask permission to make appointments withmembers of Congress, as was the case in one bureau in which I worked, I have to conclude that members of the Foreign Service, regardless of rank, have little real autonomy. How to Change the Situation If the Foreign Service is to adequately serve the American people now and in the future, it is imperative that it become the professional service intended by legislation over the past 91 years. This is not an easy task. It requires political will from elected leadership to provide