THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2025 23 decades of entrenched attitudes and fearing the loss of their “pristine” evaluation records. However, it quickly reset the evaluation baseline and is now universally accepted as improving the fairness and accuracy of evaluations. The department can easily adapt a similar framework to the unique demands of the Foreign Service. Abandon the autobiography, embrace quantitative scoring. The new EER would adopt a discrete scoring system, organized by core precepts and key competency areas. The form eliminates personal narratives, instead providing abbreviated comment sections to justify certain assessments. For each precept, raters only need to include justification text when assigning “adverse” or exceptionally high scores (4 or above). Reviewers then rank staff against peers across the entire department to assess their suitability for promotion. This would standardize evaluation criteria, allowing boards to compare apples to apples and to focus promotion selection on competencies that demonstrate an ability to perform at the next level. It would also shift evaluation responsibility from the individual employee to the supervisor, forcing leaders to make objective assessments and acknowledge those best suited for promotion. This would significantly reduce the writing required to prepare reports, avoiding the massive dip in productivity that occurs every spring while every- one is busy crafting complex narratives. Establish a high-performance baseline. The design of the rating system recognizes that Foreign Service personnel are by and large highly qualified professionals. The descriptors for a baseline score of 1 match the performance of a dedicated, talented, and competent employee—what one might consider a B+ student. By setting a high baseline and including descriptions of truly exceptional performance, we can push raters away from grade inflation so only the best qualified candidates stand out. This lowscore weighting is further reinforced by the third, and perhaps most important, element. Weight scoring. What ties this system together is its pairing with a “grading curve” for each rater and reviewer to compensate for individual grading biases. Promotion boards would see a weighted relative value for each score based on the rater/reviewer’s entire scoring history for a peer cohort. For example: Supervisor A tends to inflate scores and rates FS-4 Jones as a 5 in leadership. Supervisor B tends to skew scores lower, rating FS-4 Smith as a 3 in leadership. If Supervisor A’s historical average for all FS-4s is 4.5 and Supervisor B’s historical average is 1.5, the weighted score shown to promotion boards would correctly indicate Smith’s higher relative leadership score. The Marine Corps’ experience with this weighted system revealed that it not only normalized rating variances but also nudged raters/reviewers to score lower on the scale to preserve scoring space for true top performers. Combined with the high baseline, this encourages honest Example of a rater scoring block for a precept element. “A” indicates adverse performance. A score of 1 represents the baseline for a highfunctioning employee, followed by gradually increasing levels of performance. The criteria will guide raters toward an appropriate score and reduce grade inflation. Employees should meet all criteria in the example to achieve the score, so a grade of 6 would indicate exceeding all of grade 5 criteria, something akin to the top 0.01 percent of all peers in the department. Justification is required only for adverse or exceptionally high ratings. (Adapted from the U.S. Marine Corps performance evaluation form and existing State Department precept definitions.) A 1 2 3 4 5 6 o o o o o o o Figure 1: Sample of a Scoring Block JUDGMENT: The discretionary aspect of decision-making. Draws on core values, knowledge, and personal experience to make wise choices. Comprehends the consequences of contemplated courses of action. Effectively manages resources. Utilizes internal controls to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Takes action to mitigate risks. ADV Decisions are consistent and uniformly correct, tempered by consideration of their consequences. Able to identify, isolate, and assess relevant factors in the decisionmaking process. Opinions sought by others. Subordinates personal interests in favor of impartiality. Decisions reflect exceptional insight and wisdom beyond the employee’s experience. Counsel sought by all; often an arbiter. Consistent, superior judgment inspires the confidence of seniors. JUSTIFICATION: Majority of judgments are measured, circumspect, relevant, and correct.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=