The Foreign Service Journal, December 2005

I applaud the intent of the new Career Development Program, but am concerned about flaws in the implementation plan that com- promise employees’ ability to obtain the kind of planned series of assign- ments required by the letter and spir- it of the CDP. The most crucial of these flaws are two: first, the failure to eliminate the assignment system’s longstanding bias against consular, management and public diplomacy officers; and, second, the failure to provide adequate rewards for FSOs in all cones who have demonstrated their willingness to meet the needs of the Service through a series of assign- ments to differential posts. Eliminating Conal Bias As a consular-coned officer, I have consistently encountered the attitude that while reporting (i.e., political and economic) officers should have a chance to learn program management and consular skills, it is a lower priori- ty for consular, public diplomacy and management officers to learn report- ing skills. This attitude appears to reflect one of two beliefs. First, some assume that consular, management and PD officers are mainly going to be filling in-cone jobs throughout their careers, and therefore do not need to learn reporting skills. (There is some truth to this claim regarding manage- ment officers, given the real shortage of officers in that cone compared to the number of positions, but that dis- parity should not be used to deny them out-of-cone assignments.) Alterna- tively, officers in those cones are simply viewed by some colleagues as incapable of performing at an accept- able level in reporting positions. In effect, political and economic officers are being treated as true Foreign Service generalists who can serve in any capacity, while consular, PD and management officers are treated as glorified specialists. This bias severely disadvantages officers in the program management cones in obtaining the career-enhancing assign- ments needed to be competitive for cross-grade promotions and to satisfy career development requirements, and runs contrary to the letter and spirit of career development. The Career Development Plan should develop the skills of all officers in all cones, not just offer out-of-cone opportunities to political and econom- ic officers. Toward that end, I suggest the following possible fixes: Dual Cones. Every officer could have two cones. The Bureau of Human Resources would assign one upon entry to the Service, and employees would select the second upon being tenured. One would be from the reporting cones (political or economic) while the other must be from the program management cones (public diplomacy, management or consular). During bidding, employ- ees would be considered in-cone for both of their cones. They would des- ignate one cone as their dominant cone (major cone) for in-cone promo- tions. They would not be considered for promotion in their other cone (minor cone). They would be expect- ed to serve in both their cones, along the lines of the requirements for the CDP regional major/minor — three tours/six years of in-cone service for a major and two tours/three years of in- cone service for a minor. Preferences for Out-of-Cone Bid- ders. Alternatively, HR could reserve certain “cushy” jobs in developed countries in all cones for qualified out- of-cone bidders. This could be done by offering specified positions only to out-of-cone officers, or by allowing anyone to bid but giving preference to out-of-cone bidders. Or, a quota sys- tem could be set up, requiring that a given percentage of all jobs in each region or bureau be filled by out-of- cone bidders. Individual Development Plans. Yet another solution would be to replace the coning system with Individual Development Plans that each em- ployee would sign with HR. These would be along the lines of a contract between the employee and the bureau of his or her choice regarding 16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 Implement Career Development by Reforming the Assignment System B Y C AMILLE H ILL S PEAKING O UT Employees should be proactive in planning their careers, but the system must facilitate their efforts to develop and implement reasonable plans. w