The Foreign Service Journal, September 2014

18 SEPTEMBER 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL SPEAKING OUT “Up or Out” Is Harming American Foreign Policy BY GEORGE B . LAMBRAK I S T he “up or out” system for career advancement in the Foreign Service was intro- duced as an improvement in the Foreign Service Act of 1980, but it has instead damaged the Service. It should be repealed. “Up or out” is borrowed from the military. The regulations for “up or out” set limits (usually short) on the time in class an officer can serve before being either promoted or selected out. The intention, of course, is to thin out senior ranks to provide “flow-through” space for more junior officers to move up the pyramid. This suits the military hierarchy. Yet diplomacy requires larger por- tions of international sophistication, tact and specialized knowledge, while demanding less physical prowess in its execution. That is why every other developed country’s diplomats are generally allowed to remain in active service until reaching the age of 65. At a symposium on creativity run by the Department of Defense back in the George B. Lambrakis was a U.S. Foreign Service officer from 1954 to 1985, the first two years with the U.S. Information Agency and the rest with the Depart- ment of State. Formerly director of training assignments in the State Depart- ment’s Personnel Bureau (now Human Resources), he was also a member of AFSA’s 1970 “Young Turks” AFSA Governing Board, which organized the trans- formation of the association into a labor union. Even after subsequent careers in international fundraising and academia, he remains interested in Foreign Service personnel issues as they affect wider American foreign policy. His December 2013 FSJ article, “A Plea for Greater Team- work in the Foreign Service,” introduced his views on “up or out.” 1980s, a psychologist presented find- ings on the ages at which the heights of effectiveness are thought to be reached in various professions. It should sur- prise no one that advertising profes- sionals were most effective in their late 20s and the military in older years. But the height of effectiveness in diplomacy was reached even later, by practitioners in their 60s. Clearly, the age of greatest effectiveness depends on the type of mission to be accomplished. A Career or a Way Station? “Up or out” is also based (often unconsciously) on the belief that the Foreign Service is not truly a profes- sion. Proponents of this view claim its work involves so many characteristics and skills that are also partially present in members of many other professions, such as lawyers, politicians, academics, businessmen, journalists and others who often aspire to temporary diplo- matic assignments—preferably starting at the top. Yet this issue must be faced: Does the diplomacy of the United States deserve to be served mainly by a stable body of experienced people for their full profes- sional lives? Or is the Foreign Service content to ultimately depend on pro- viding training grounds and relatively short-term, in-and-out experiences for many other professionals who view their principal careers as being elsewhere? Is the work of the Foreign Service so easily mastered without special training or apprenticeship, and can the Service afford to release many of its best people after providing a partial stage in their life experience? For that is where the “up or out” provision of the 1980 Foreign Service act has led. The faster one is promoted, the sooner he or she faces competition for senior rank. And a few years later— often still in their 50s, and arguably near the height of their effectiveness— the vast majority of Foreign Service professionals are forced (or elect) to leave the Service. The Foreign Service I propose is dif- ferent, but not difficult to attain. Elements of a Professional Service In my view, a professional Foreign Service should be characterized by the following elements. (1) A career that can last until the age of 65, following a trial period lead- ing to tenure.