18 SEPTEMBER 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL checked by the reviewer. For example, the top box and the bottom box would both require a lengthier justification, while the middle two could require a shorter narrative justification or none at all. The boxes would look something like the following. (1) Far Exceeded Requirements. This box would be numerically limited to some percentage of EERs reviewed, for instance, 10 percent of those reviewed at X grade, to enforce its use only for top performers. This percentage would be linked to the reviewer throughout their career. The Army calls this the individual’s rating “profile,” and it would be visible to promotion panels. In this way, if a reviewer tended to rank people either on the high end or the low end, a promotion panel would be able to see that and take it into account—someone who consistently ranked their subordinates lower than others could be averaged out, essentially allowing everyone to be graded on a more level playing field. If the reviewer thinks that no one is in the top 10 percent of employees they have ever reviewed at one post or rating cycle, he or she would then have the ability to use this box at the next post or rating cycle if everyone they review truly does a top job. Allowing reviewers to carry over unused top boxes would enable them to use those boxes when they are merited, like in a crisis response. For example, if they review 10 employees, and the percentage limit is 10, they can rank only one person in this box. If no one reached that level of performance during the rating period, they could then rank two people as top 10 percent in the next cycle if they felt they deserved it. Or they could so rank one and carry the extra to the next cycle. (Ten percent is just a suggestion; we could use any percentage that would still allow reviewers to identify their top performers.) (2) Exceeded Requirements. Top 50 percent of those reviewed at X grade (or whatever percentage would make the most sense). There would be no limit on these; most EERs would probably end up in this block. This would identify high-performing employees who perhaps didn’t stand out to the level of those in the box above. (3) Met Requirements. Again, there is no limit, i.e., no requirement to low-rank. This part could show where someone needed improvement in certain areas, but it would not necessarily trigger any sort of review for continued employment. (4) Did Not Meet Requirements. The reviewer must state either that the employee should be retained/is able to be brought back to standard or that the employee should be separated from the Service. There is no limit on these. This could potentially be used by promotion panels to low rank or trigger an automatic review if presented with more than one. This would require a longer narrative and potentially also require the rater/ reviewer to attach their counseling statements where they have attempted corrective action. EERs can be streamlined by requir- ing drastically less narrative for “Met” or “Exceeded Requirements,” while requiring something lengthier for the “Far Exceeded” and “Did Not Meet Requirements” categories. Finally, the rated employee statement should go away completely. If it isn’t important to your rater or reviewer, then it is not important. A More Straightforward Evaluation This way of conducting evaluations reduces the time we spend writing EERs, identifies and rewards the truly outstanding people we work with, and provides a more straightforward way to identify when people are not performing and need to try something other than the Foreign Service. Moving to this system would absolutely require some tougher conversations between leaders and the people they supervise, but isn’t it the job of a leader to give honest feedback? Are we not hurting our higher performers and losing talent if their EERs get lost in a sea of people walking on water? By numerically limiting the number of top blocks available to reviewers, they would be forced to save those for their actual top performers. The top block would clearly indicate to the promotion panel that the rated employee exceeded the expectations of effectiveness at their grade and has the potential to achieve at a higher level. While this can be captured in narrative form, the fact that raters or reviewers are able to say this about all of their employees necessarily takes away from the highest performers. If everyone should be promoted in a system where you can’t promote everyone, then promotions become mostly a game of chance. Even if this may not be the best way forward, we need to have a conversation as an institution about what is working and what isn’t. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=