The Foreign Service Journal, September 2020

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2020 45 the same levels as during the terms of former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the fact is, bringing in large numbers of diverse officers will not transform the Foreign Service. For that we must look deep into the factors that discourage retention of minorities and women. Coddling bad management, perpetuating a broken bid- ding process and valuing self-promotion over neutral analysis in the evaluation process have all led to a flawed Foreign Service, one that does not look like America. If State is to do better, it must have an honest conversation about these factors. Bad Managers At the heart of many State Department problems is bad management and, in particular, a permissive attitude toward bad managers. The human psyche rarely permits behavior and atti- tudes stemming from one’s own social group to subside. Thus tribal- ism will crush equity and inclusive treatment of underrepresented groups if the culture itself is led by the majority. When the first line of defense for this country does not feel supported, valued and empowered, it is a national security con- cern. Therefore, it is critical that the State Department protect such groups from the tyranny of emboldened individuals who seek to extinguish the respect, empowerment and progression of officers. By remaining quiet, our leadership is complicit. Like many minority colleagues, I have experienced managers harassing subordinates to crush dissent without any account- ability for their actions. These inherently biased leaders, hand- picked and enabled by their chain of command, are a sickness within the organization. They and their enablers use their power to weaponize the corridor reputation and the employee evalua- tion review process to suppress officers into silence. Those who do speak up are met by tone-deaf senior leaders. In rare cases, these senior leaders reward the loyalty of officers for “sticking through it quietly,” and offer “nicer” onward assignments instead of reporting to the Office of Employee Relations for punitive actions to disincentivize the perverse practice. While the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of Civil Rights are equipped with tools to support equality in the work- place, the impact of such processes is not to reduce discrimi- natory behavior but rather to resolve a particular issue. If no responsibility is assumed and punitive efforts are not made, bad managers are free to continue their reckless behavior. Bidding: It’s Who You Know Bidding is another area where I see that the State Department prefers order and past practice to an honest assessment of the process and where it goes wrong. The department tells us we are “generalists,” yet the Career Development and Assignments divi- sion has never controlled the bidding process to ensure we all meet our promotion requirements once we reach mid-level. We are asked to dance around 360s, résumés and employee profiles in search of that golden handshake. Yet by following this process, minorities and women frequently encounter closed doors. The bidding process is supposedly transparent and fair. How- ever, it is not exactly based on merit. Instead, assignment selec- tion is based on who you know and when you met them. Bureau chiefs want their friends. And the only way to break into a bureau where no one knows who you are is by having specialized knowledge. Hiring managers rarely offer an assignment to someone from another skill set who does not already have the experi- ence. So why are we called generalists? Calls to reform the bidding process have been heard for decades. Except for consular-coned officers, there is a practical career disparity—meaning everyone’s experiences vary greatly— between the various generalist career tracks and how bureaus control and manage hiring. This disparity could be mitigated by centralizing the bidding process to CDA, so that both officers and advisers can truly manage career growth and assignment mobility. Because bureaus refuse to relinquish power and posi- tions, we are forced to specialize our skill set to appropriately align our careers with the real needs of the Service. But even if we simply began specializing, the bidding process still needs to change, because the employee experience is a measure of inclusion, and those who do not have a strong network—mainly minorities, women and third-tour officers—are disproportion- ately disadvantaged. While I see advantages in centralizing bidding, I believe a great option would be to launch a matching algorithm that considers all the experience, interests and remaining profes- sional requirements of the officer in relation to positions within various bureaus. Hiring managers would then receive a short list produced by the algorithm and be required to interview everyone on that list. Such a process and systemwould greatly improve the experience, merit and transparency of the bidding process. The fact is, bringing in large numbers of diverse officers will not transform the Foreign Service.