The Foreign Service Journal, September 2018

50 SEPTEMBER 2018 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL in our government, in other governments and from the private sec- tor. We will need people who can think and act globally—because that is what the American interests require. We must try to improve our record of recruiting qualified women andminorities. Here at FSI, we will needmore focused training in issues such as trade, climate change, refugee law and informationmanage- ment, while maintaining a high standard on cultural studies and language skills. While so doing, we cannot and will not ignore the more tra- ditional aspects of diplomacy. We will maintain our focus on key alliances and relationships around the world. But we also know that, in the future, our FSOs and other professionals will be asked to range far from the bargaining tables and communication centers of our largest embassies. Today, the greatest danger to America is not some foreign enemy; it is the possibility that we will ignore the example of the generation that founded FSI; that we will turn inward; neglect the military and diplomatic resources that keep us strong; and forget the fundamental lesson of this century, which is that problems abroad, if left unattended, will all too often come home to America. —Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, from “The FSO of Tomorrow, ” FSJ , May 1997 Resources for Diplomacy Have Become Inadequate Diplomats will not be replaced by CNN, e-mail or telephone calls between political leaders. Human contact and informed analysis on the scene will remain essential to making and implementing foreign policy. The new international agenda will place greater premium than before on professional skill in cross-cultural communication, negotiation and coalition building. Resources for diplomacy have become inadequate. For fiscal 1998, the Clinton administration has requested restoration of some cuts, but further reductions in subsequent years proposed by both the administration and Congress will, if enacted, cripple America’s ability to promote its international interests. For budget purposes, diplomacy must be addressed for what it is: a central component of our national security. The United States no longer confronts a superpower rival, but the issues faced are more frustrating, more technical, more diffuse. Americans will be concerned primarily with challenges that must be addressed by coalitions of nations, often in multilat- eral forums. Most of these issues are not susceptible to unilateral American action. The mission of the Foreign Service will thus extend beyond its traditional responsibilities. Since the national interest calls for coherence and balance in foreign policy, another central role of the Foreign Service becomes clear: to coordinate and guide American specialists from a variety of agencies, and sometimes the private sector, in the international dimension of their work. In fact, foreign affairs experts will sometimes find they must mediate among conflicting domestic points of view to arrive at consensus on national positions. —William C. Harrop, from “The Future of the Foreign Service,” FSJ , May 1997 The Professional Training Imperative The zeal with which the Foreign Service constantly re-examines its structure and missions and reappraises its train- ing needs honors our passion for our profession, but also makes it difficult to reach conclusions about how effective such changes have been over the years. The most widespread method within the Foreign Service for imparting wisdom about how to do the job and pursue a career continues to be mentoring, whether conducted formally or sim- ply through the example set by more senior officers. This is famously illustrated by the story of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who spent more than 20 percent of his military career undergoing professional development that he found use- ful. When he asked his under secretary for political affairs, Marc Grossman, howmuch time he had spent in professional training over the course of his Foreign Service career, Grossman replied: “Two weeks, aside from language instruction.” While considerably more training has been added since this exchange, mentoring remains the core of our professional devel- opment. But that model has already begun to break down in the face of rapid personnel increases, and is manifestly inadequate for future needs. As retirements continue and the influx of desperately needed new officers expands, we are at the point where almost two-thirds of Foreign Service officers have spent fewer than 10 years in the Service; 28 percent have spent fewer than five. We simply no longer have sufficient experienced officers to serve as mentors and trainers. And this reality will not be changed by mandates that each deputy chief of mission find time to mentor all entry-level officers at his or her post—an approach that increasingly resem- bles King Canute’s orders that the sea withdraw. —R onald E. Neumann, from “The Challenge of Professional Development,” FSJ , May 2010