The Foreign Service Journal, October 2012

58 OCTOBER 2012 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL AFSA NEWS The Foreign Service person- nel system is buttressed by two distinctive features: rank-in-person and an up- or-out retention system. FS employees, like members of the military, hold personal rank, rather than deriving it from the position they occupy. This gives the govern- ment tremendous flexibility when determining overseas assignments and reduces the already considerable bureau- cracy inherent in transferring employees to new postings. The up-or-out retention sys- tem acts as a management control to rank-in-person by creating a strong disincentive to employees resting on their laurels. The Time-in-Class and Time-in-Service compo- nents of the system make it a “retention” system rather than merely a “promotion” system. Because failure to rise within a given time period ends careers, TIC and TIS encourage continuing professional development. They enable our agen- cies to provide true pay for performance and provide a predictable degree of flow to FS promotions. That, in turn, means that to stay in the system, a Foreign Service member must constantly be competitive for promotion. In order to work best, the up-or-out retention system requires rated employees to “look” essentially alike. Similarity between job Staying in Place in an Up-or-Out System STATE VP VOICE | BY DANIEL HIRSCH AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. descriptions and standard- ized reviews of performance make it easier to compare performance and qualifica- tions between employees. As the department has diversified its workload and changed its expectations with regard to employee careers (due to wars, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, dramatic broadening of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security functions, and other factors), various groups of employees have become dis- advantaged in the process. AFSA is increasingly work- ing with management to find ways to reduce the effect on retention of the following situations: • Detail to other agencies or organizations are strongly encouraged by the QDDR. A tour of duty in an intergov- ernmental organization—as an adviser to the military or international body, or as a congressional staff member —can be both broadening and prestigious. However, translating that service into a competitive employee evaluation report is occasion- ally problematic. The duties and responsibilities inherent to such details are poorly understood by both employ- ees and, occasionally, the department itself. We have seen cases where perceived conflicts between those duties and the department’s current “message” have disadvantaged employees. More generally, many details are considered long-term training and documented with a training report. AFSA would like to see that training report more closely resemble a standard EER form, or be replaced by one. • Reserve military service is documented in ways different than performance in most Foreign Service jobs. AFSA is currently working with man- agement to study the effects of such service on careers and to monitor compliance, by State, with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which requires agencies to ensure that reserve service does not disadvantage employees who are called to such duty. In the USERRA context, we are looking at a number of issues; e.g., how duties performed for the military can be described in terms of the core precepts of performance in the Foreign Service. • Caps and bottlenecks exist in the career paths of many specialists, which either cap the level to which members of that specialty can rise, or severely limit the percentage of employees who can aspire to higher lev- els. Where the entire group is capped, the group as a whole is generally exempted from TIC regulations. Where even one member of the group can rise to higher levels, the entire group is subject to TIC. AFSA would like to see man- agement exempt from TIC any group where fewer than 5 percent of members can aspire to promotion above FS-2 during a full career. • Extended service in Washington or other state- side postings is increasingly a reality for many employees, particularly those in certain specialist classes. AFSA’s efforts to address the impact through the promotion precepts seem to be working But given that the changes are fairly recent, we continue to monitor the situation closely. • Employees with disabili- ties often face hidden biases limiting their assignments, which in turn, affect their ability to demonstrate their skills in competitive settings. As with USERRA, AFSA con- tends that compliance with federal policy on disabilities requires the department to enable such employees to compete, on a level playing field, with other members of their rank and skill classes. Despite significant improvements in some areas, we consider the department to be far from where it should be. n ... a Foreign Service member must constantly be competitive for promotion.