The Foreign Service Journal, October 2020

24 OCTOBER 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL category does not factor into the Foreign Service Officer Qualifi- cations (the “13 Dimensions”) used to select new FSOs; the clos- est thing to it, “Initiative and Leadership,” focuses exclusively on the officer’s own ability to “assume responsibility,” “persist” and “influence,” with no expectation of directing , enabling or improv- ing the performance of others. With this narrow scope, it is not surprising that many officers view success solely in terms of their own actions, a mindset that is reinforced through the development of the employee evalu- ation reports (EERs) on which tenure and promotion deci- sions are based. Used to following the EER narrative formula of explaining “what I did, and why it mattered,” many officers are understandably challenged by shifting to “what we did, and how I facilitated that” at later points in their careers. The bigger problem, for many, is that those team lead roles often start much earlier. While the majority of first-tour officers are assigned to busy consular sections with multiple levels of supervision, a fair number are called on to manage teams straight out of their A-100 orientation course, either due to the nature of their position or an unexpected need once arriving at post. General services officers (GSOs), for instance, often supervise large teams of locally employed (LE) staff, and deci- sions of which officer to assign to that role at entry level are usually driven more by existing language skills or the ability to meet training timelines than inherent management capability. Yet these are the people who have direct responsibility for the parts of the “FS life” that tangibly affect every overseas officer, including housing, travel and maintenance services—activities for which real management skills are essential. Haphazard Performance Management Performance management is one of the most difficult—and critical—responsibilities of every organization. Even the best candidate selection system will yield employees who struggle to excel in the abilities necessary for a successful career. The department’s approach to performance management, however, is so haphazard, inconsistent and lacking in independent mea- sures as to render it useless as a tool for evaluation. The EER, on which all tenure and promotion decisions are based, contains only three narrative sections: one is completed by the employee, one by the employee’s direct supervisor (the “rater”) and a third by another evaluator (the “reviewer”) who is generally the rater’s supervisor or another senior-level officer. The lion’s share of the writing comes from the employee, who provides a brief description of their work during the rating period; objective evaluation of one’s own performance is not the goal. While both the rater and reviewer statements are expected to evaluate the employee, those assessments are inherently sub- jective in nature and too often focus on future potential rather than recent performance. Further complicating the performance management process is the complete lack of objective , measurable criteria on which to base evaluations. EERs become a case of comparing apples to oranges (and mangos, bananas, peaches, too), even when the roles held by officers are relatively the same. As a result, tenure and promotion panels must infer officer competency; under these circumstances, the ability to write well becomes the most influential factor in rising to the top of the tenure and promotion lists. This allows insider knowledge, including coded language, to disadvantage officers whose abilities would otherwise distin- guish them on a more level playing field. There is a belief among FSOs that promotions reward good EERs and assignments reward good officers. Is that truly the case? The current open assignments “bidding” process sug- gests the opposite. For officers past entry level, the system of pursuing their next assignment is every bit as subject to bias and inequity as the tenuring and promotion processes. Officers identify upcoming vacancies that meet their preferences for role, location, language requirement and living situation, and then “lobby” for assignment to those positions. A common first step is contacting the incumbent to learn more about the duties and demands and then reaching out formally to the person desig- nated to select the candidate. … and a Capricious Assignment Process What should follow is a structured evaluation and inter- view process, wherein candidates demonstrate they possess the necessary skills and experience to succeed in the new role in response to questions designed to evaluate thoroughly and objectively the candidates’ qualifications. Candidates submit references from former supervisors, colleagues and subordinates “Management skills” as a category does not factor into the Foreign Service Officer Qualifications (the “13 Dimensions”) used to select new FSOs.