The Foreign Service Journal, December 2012

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | DECEMBER 2012 9 n adopting the Foreign Service Act of 1980, Congress declared that “mem- bers of the Foreign Service should be representative of the American people.” This language lays down an unmistakable marker that America’s diplomatic service should reflect the real face of a diverse nation. At that time, the members of the Foreign Service were overwhelmingly white and male, and had often graduated from a handful of elite institutions. Three decades later, the Service has become largely representative of American diver- sity in terms of ethnicity/race, gender, geography, age, educational background and work experience. This success is the result of a variety of recruitment measures adopted over the years (some more effective than others), which have steadily increased minor- ity representation. A 2009 study com- missioned by the Department of State concluded that the procedures currently in place for recruitment and testing attract a diverse pool of applicants, and that this diversity also characterizes those who qualify for entry. To preserve and build on this real progress we have made toward making the Foreign Service truly representative of American society, we need new approaches to attract qualified African-Americans and Hispanics. Congress also set out several other important markers in the 1980 Act. It stipulated that “a career Foreign Service, characterized by excellence and professionalism, is essential to the national interest.” Toward that end, “the Foreign Service should be operated on a basis of merit promotion” and the Senior Foreign Service should be “characterized by strong policy formula- tion capabilities, outstanding leader- ship qualities, and highly developed functional, foreign language and area expertise.” Clearly, Congress not only sought to create a more diverse and representative institution, but one staffed by a profes- sional career service characterized by excellence and merit. But since the adop- tion of the act, what policies or programs have been put in place to ensure that progress would also be made on meeting those markers? Has the broader diversity achieved been accompanied by mea- sures to ensure an integrated, cohesive Foreign Service with a strong sense of mission and of community, dedicated to excellence, based on merit and with the clear code of professional conduct that is the attribute of strong institutions? Sadly, it is probably fair to say that the Foreign Service has lost (if it ever had) the professional framework needed to bind a diverse group of officers and specialists into a cohesive cadre. Nor do members of today’s Foreign Service seem to share a common understanding of their mis- sion and of their role in achieving it, in the manner so strongly emphasized and cultivated by our military services. To rectify this, particularly in an increasingly complex and competitive global environment, State and the U.S. Agency for International Development need to undertake structural reforms such as the following: First, they must “think big” about A-100 basic training, integrating profes- sional education and training from the beginning and throughout a career with prospects for advancement. This new concept should aim to infuse a consis- tent, career-long ethos of excellence, discipline and professionalism. Second, State should revisit the cone system, which has had such unintended consequences as encouraging overly narrow specializations within an officer corps that must be capable of thinking strategically, connecting dots and sup- plying the executive leadership of our diplomatic service. We also need to honestly assess the impact of an increasingly heavy prepon- derance of transient, non-career leader- ship that is not organic to the Department of State or the Foreign Service, and under- standably cannot relate to the require- ments of institutional development. This may appear to be an ambitious agenda. But such a vision is what the For- eign Service of the 21st century requires to fulfill the potential of the 1980 Act, by forging a common mission and building broad understanding of the key role each component plays in achieving it. n Building a Truly Diverse, Professional Foreign Service BY SUSAN R . JOHNSON PRESIDENT’S VIEWS Susan R. Johnson is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. I