The Foreign Service Journal, December 2009

L ong ago in Europe, tradesmen were not well-regarded by society. People who earned their living by buying and selling, making things or providing services were not people with whom the upper echelons of society associ- ated. These days, our heroes are mostly successful business- people, and the self-made success story is the exemplar of the American dream. Yet we see within our Service the same feudal attitudes that existed when I entered a quarter of a century ago. The number-one issue that I hear from members who are not generalists is that they do not feel respected. That insulting attitude appears across every skill code, and it affects morale as well as the cohesiveness of the Service. It is hard to imagine that posts are working at peak effi- ciency when there are strongly perceived divisions between suits and non-suits, officers and sup- port staff, security personnel and the“ungrateful FSOs” they protect. And let’s not forget those who are generally invisible to most FS members at overseas missions, such as the folks based in Regional Information Management Centers or elsewhere, who travel from post to post performing information technology or buildings oper- ations functions, as needed. Ironically, as was the case with the tradesmen of old Eu- rope, the specialists within the Foreign Service are often at least as well educated as the officers, and many possess skills worth far more in the outside world. Most importantly, both specialists and generalists are equally essential to the mission. My favorite ambassador began her career as a secretary (the kind that types) and rose to become, in her time, the highest- ranking woman in the State Department. Many equally qual- ified office management specialists would be happy to stay in that field, but seek greater recognition of their value and experience. What can be done? As with any social issue, the first step toward a solution is acknowledgement of the problem. And, in fairness, we must acknowledge that many factors con- tribute to the problem, including some — like the Vienna Convention rules that often prevent “administrative person- nel” fromhaving full privileges— that are either beyond our control or require the cooperation of host-country govern- ments to address. Some sources of discontent are imposed by functional bu- reaus, which control their human “assets”more tightly than generalists are controlled. And there is no doubt that us-ver- sus-them attitudes are perpetuated both within groups of specialists and even by the management of certain functional bureaus. Most generalists, in fact, are blithely unaware that much of this discontent even exists. That is not an excuse, just a fact. Good management, of course, must include awareness of the sentiments and perceptions of all sections of an embassy or office. Understanding the roles within a mission can help. One post in which I served held a regular “Admin Night” for new arrivals, where different members of the administrative staff explained their roles. Many of these included interactions with host-country counterparts of value and other sections, as well. Equating length of service with rank when considering is- sues such as housing assignments can also be an important equalizer. This would require changes to the ForeignAffairsManual, but why should amid- level officer with six years in service get better housing than an office management specialist with 20 years’ service? Importantly, the right to self-determination, for lack of a better term, must be expanded. Employees who enter the service in skill groups with caps on salaries and rank should be freer to expand their options as they move closer to those caps. And, if it is essential to the department that more ex- perienced employees stay in those groups, then the depart- ment needs to lower or eliminate barriers to advancement (and raise salary caps), rather than forcing ambitious em- ployees to look elsewhere. As part of this, raters should always be aware of the ele- ments for advancement within each group, and promotion boards should include members who understand the fine points of the work they are assessing. You would be surprised how many Employee Evaluation Report grievance cases AFSA sees where the rater actually does not understand the work being rated. Andmost importantly, all of us should recognize that part of making the Foreign Service more representative of our na- tion is to know that, while all positions are not equal in rank or salary, they are all equally valuable to our mission. Equal- ity in the Foreign Service is more than a matter of efficiency and management. It should be a matter of pride. ❏ D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 55 A F S A N E W S Pride and Prejudice V.P. VOICE: STATE ■ BY DANIEL HIRSCH The number-one issue that I hear from members who are not generalists is that they do not feel respected.