Taking Care of the "Troops" -- The State Department Way

Back in March, I posted a first person account of an FSO in Mexico amidst that country's shooting war. (see US Mission Mexico: First Person from a Border Post).

I also did a follow-up post, In a War That Must Not Be Named, Leadership and Security On the Line. 

This is what I wrote then:

I supposed we may think of life in the Service as if it were a scale -- the national strategic and security priorities on one side and on the other side, the acceptable personal risk of the employees.   But not everyone will get to look at that scale. And not everyone will get to make the judgment call.  Employees do not get to vote, diplomatic missions are not democracies.

That might as well apply to the mothership of diplomatic missions.

Thirty-two years ago, our diplomats were taken hostage in Iran. Moorhead C. Kennedy Jr. who served as an economic and commercial officer in the U.S. embassy in Iran during the hostage crisis has written an op-ed over in Politico asking "Whose side is the State Dept. on?"

"I was one of the 66 U.S. citizens taken hostage in Tehran in November 1979. Ten months before, revolutionary militants stormed the U.S. embassy, holding the mission personnel hostage for several hours and generating fear for the safety of the remaining Americans in Iran. After this group of U.S. Foreign Service personnel were recovered and removed, our State Department sent out a request to all its posts worldwide, seeking volunteers to staff the embassy in Tehran. Volunteers were informed that it was safe in Tehran and were encouraged to bring their families, including preschool-age children. In all, 66 Foreign Service officers answered this call to serve.

It was not as safe as the State Department had indicated. By October it had seriously deteriorated, as the Carter administration agreed to allow the shah to enter the U.S. for medical treatment.

As Carter had predicted, in reaction to Washington’s acceptance of the shah, hundreds of thousands of Iranians demonstrated throughout Tehran. Nov 4, a group of Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy, kidnapping 52 Americans. That they did so with the blessings (and under the apparent direction) of Tehran can hardly be challenged, since less than a month later, the government announced its intention to try the hostages as spies and execute them — unless the U.S. paid $24 billion.
[...]
Ultimately, in January 1981, the Carter administration entered into a series of agreements known as the Algiers accords. These provided Iran a $7.8 billion payment and established the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal — through which businesses and financial institutions could file and obtain compensations for property and contract claims against Iran.
[...]
The accords, however, contained a provision that precluded the 52 hostages and their families from bringing suit against Iran for seizure, detention and injuries. They, and only they, were unable to obtain any compensation for the life-changing injuries they suffered while in the service of our country as volunteers answering the call of our government.
[...]
Congress has passed various statutes, allowing US nationals, victimized by terrorism, to obtain compensation for injuries. Literally hundreds have pursued claims in U.S. courts and received compensation for terrorism sponsored by Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea and Libya.

The Tehran embassy hostages also sought to pursue similar claims in U.S. Courts. In August 2001, we obtained a judgment against Iran — which had refused to appear to defend their indefensible conduct. But the State Department intervened to protect Iran’s interests, asserting that dismissal was necessary to protect U.S. national security interests and uphold the waiver of claims in the Algiers Accords.
[...]
In the next 10 years, all our appeals, and other efforts to obtain justice and compensation, have been defeated by the State Department. At the same time, the department has aggressively protected the rights of all U.S. corporations and banks to seek compensation from Iran. Indeed each claim has been adjudicated, and literally billions of dollars awarded, through these channels and paid by Iran.

The signal that Iran has drawn from this is clear – the U.S. cares about protecting interests of its corporations — but has no real interest in protecting its diplomats, no matter the State Department’s lip service about to the importance of diplomatic immunity and the sacrosanct status of our embassies."

Read in full here.

I think his question deserves an answer.

Here is the relevant part of the Algiers Accords signed on January 19, 1981:

11. Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice and will thereafter bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any pending or future claim of the United States or a United States national arising out of events occurring before the date of this declaration related to (A) the seizure of the 52 United States nationals on November 4, 1979, (B) their subsequent detention, (C) injury to United States property or property of the United States nationals within the United States Embassy compound in Tehran after November 3, 1979, and (D) injury to the United States nationals or their property as a result of popular movements in the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran which were not an act of the Government of Iran. The United States will also bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran in the courts of the United States of any pending or future claim asserted by persons other than the United States nationals arising out of the events specified in the preceding sentence.

The late Warren Christopher, then the State Department's Deputy Secretary negotiated the agreement. He was appointed 63rd Secretary of State from January 20, 1993 – January 17, 1997 by President Clinton.

Related articles

• Whose side is the State Dept. on? (politico.com)
• 'Death to England': British ambassador to Iran kicked out in backlash over sanctions (dailymail.co.uk)
• Tehran votes to expel Britain's ambassador - Telegraph.co.uk (telegraph.co.uk)
• Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain (dailytimes.com.pk)
• US, Allies to Hit Iran With New Sanctions (abcnews.go.com)

Why the FS Should Be More Like the Army -- Esprit de Corps, Taking Care of Troops ... Hey, That Includes EFMs, Right?

The November 2011 issue of the Foreign Service Journal includes a Speaking Out column by Jon P. Dorschner on Why the Foreign Service Should Be More Like the Army. Don't worry, it's not about pumping more testosterone on the Service that's already "deployed" as "boots on the ground" without uniforms in various "expeditionary" war zones. 

Excerpts below on some basic ideas and concepts that he wrote could benefit the Foreign Service plus, our comments, of course! Mr. Dorschner recently retired from the Foreign Service after a 27-year career that included two years on the faculty at West Point, a year with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Iraq, and a stint as political-military adviser in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs, among many other assignments. His last posting was as an economic officer in Berlin.

Excerpts from Mr. Dorschner:

Esprit de Corps
[T]he social base of the Army is broad. Elites are largely absent, and personnel come from a wide variety of social backgrounds. In that sense, the Army is representative of the general American population. I have never heard esprit de corps mentioned in the Foreign Service context. Instead, the Foreign Service emphasizes individuality over collegiality, exclusivity over inclusiveness.

This is a hangover from its earlier history, when its membership was largely restricted to East Coast elites who were “male, pale and Yale.”
[...]
Yet class prejudices still linger and the Foreign Service often continues to connote elitism. What individual officers bring in the form of social class, elite education and family connections can still play a big role in placement and career advancement.

There are several fissures in the Foreign Service whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Just a sampling:

Foreign Service vs. the Civil Service. If you doubt that, read the rants here.

FS officers with their conal designations vs. the FS specialists and their specializations

Political cone officers vs. all other cone-officers

Consular Officers vs. "Just EFM" Consular Associates

Eligible Family Members vs. Foreign Service Nationals

Not surprisingly, esprit de corps is not found anywhere in the Promotion Precepts that will be in effect for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 rating cycles. These precepts are the core precepts which provide the guidelines by which Selection Boards determine the tenure and promotability of U.S. Foreign Service employees. 

More from Mr. Dorschner:

The Mission Comes First
The goal comes first and units are told to work cohesively to ensure successful completion of the mission. Individuals who showboat and subordinate the mission to their individual ambition do not do well and are singled out for correction. By contrast, the Foreign Service spends little or no time explaining to its members why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, duties are often performed mechanically. The mission becomes subordinate to the procedures. This is a common curse of bureaucratic organizations, and State Department bureaucracy is legendary.
[...]
Just as takes place in the Army, Foreign Service personnel should be told how their efforts fit into broader U.S. foreign policy and how their hard work and sacrifice benefit the nation. Otherwise, there is often no sense that a mission has been accomplished.

Officers are expected to follow instructions and not ask too many questions, huh? Some time back, a first tour officer designated as a visa line chief told a second tour officer which window she should sit when she conducts her interviews.  The second tour officer, having recently arrived from a visa mill post asked why? No particular reason. The visa line chief wanted to exercise the boss muscle. And having just spent two years at a visa mill post, where the Consul General occasionally conducts visa interviews with the junior officers, Ms.Second Tour Officer inquired how come their own Consul General never conducts visa interviews with them. Apparently, this did not please the boss.  She was eventually counseled for the things she was not doing right. Perhaps it was for asking too many questions, for refusing to change interview windows, for talking loud and scaring the cucarachas, for telling Halloween jokes when it wasn't Halloween and scaring the FSNs, who knows? She was lucky she did not get involuntarily curtailed for [fill in the blank], the guy next door was curtailed, for reportedly asking too many questions and telling a shooty-shooty joke. [Thanks A. for the story].

I'm sure others out there have more interesting stories about mission first, or not.  You can also read about bureaucracy (and wet paint) from Eduardo Galeano's Book of Embraces. A most delightful rendition of the function of a mission within a bureaucracy. [Thanks M. for sharing the book]

Also from Mr. Dorschner:

Transparency
Foreign Service members who serve repeatedly in hardship posts are not provided a career advantage. Those who demonstrate dedication, hard work and technical expertise are not necessarily rewarded with regular promotions or choice assignments. This vagueness leads to accusations that “it is not what you know but who you know,” and erodes morale.

Likewise, the Foreign Service seems to assume that everyone in the ranks wants to become an ambassador. Officers who do not aspire to enter the Senior Foreign Service are often regarded as slackers, rather than individuals with their own specific career goals and objectives who make a positive contribution.

“it is not what you know but who you know”

Well, if performance appraisals are meant to honestly show what folks know and how folks work, and are not just an exercise in artful, inflationary rhetoric, then why do folks need to tap what leaks from that infamous hush-hush "corridor reputation" pipe?  Pardon me? The EERs are needed for promotions but not for your next job? So for getting the next job, you need to tap the "who you know" network.  And if you've written somebody's 360 review or put in a good word on behalf of somebody bidding at your post, you certainly can request that somebody to be your 360 reviewer or also ask him/her to put in a good word if you are bidding at his/her post. Tell me again that this is not an elite version of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

And seriously, when folks write their EERs about how great they are, cribbing occasionally from FSN or EFMs successes at work, doesn't that make folks blush just a tad in the privacy of their own conscience?  The folks are thinking ....  um, what?  Not really? Sometimes? But no opportunity should get wasted on the road to promotion.


More from Mr. Dorschner:

A Rule Is a Rule
In contrast, the State Department issues rules and then almost immediately makes exceptions to them. There are limits on how long personnel can serve in Washington, D.C. Those who do not serve in hardship posts are supposed to face negative consequences. Those who do not fulfill their language requirements are supposed to pay the price.

Like the military, we must staff positions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that are dangerous and require separation from family. Everyone is supposed to pull their fair share, but for some reason it just doesn’t happen. There always seem to be people who are able to manipulate the system. They stay in Washington longer than they are supposed to and avoid hardship tours, yet continue to be promoted.
[...]
A rule is a rule and must be enforced. Otherwise, the perception grows that the institution is not interested in fairness.

Aha! And some even get to be ambassadors, like I said, without ever getting Baghdad dust on their shoes. Somebody please start a list of ambassadors who got their ambassadorships without the fast-tracked lanes through Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  While you're at it, somebody please start a list of all senior officers who got mandatory retirement waivers, too.  If I were your HR person, I would put those lists up online.  For clarity sake, for goodness sake! Since I'm not your HR person, go write to DGdirect@state.gov and ask your top HR person about these; what national security excuse is there not to make this information available to the public?

Also from Mr. Dorschner:

Restrain That Ego!
West Point cadets with large egos, who constantly tell their peers that they will become generals and who seek as much “face time” as possible with officers, are known as “tools.” Being a tool is not a good thing. This does not mean that the military does not reward strong personalities, of course. Ambition is the first requirement for anyone aspiring to make the higher grades, after all. But the system teaches such individuals to rein in some of that egoistic behavior.
[...]
West Point cadets learn that the most egotistical general is not always the most successful, and that an effective institution must make room for different leadership styles.  Or, to put it another way: A little humility is not a bad thing. Perhaps the Foreign Service could benefit from a similar teaching model.

It is perhaps telling that Mr. Dorschner's piece came soon after retirement. This reminds me of the Brits' valedictory address, a final cable only this one is in the Speaking Out column in our diplomats' trade publication.  Read it in full here.

But my most favorite part from Mr. Dorschner piece is saved for last. It's the One Army idea of taking care of your troops.

Take Care of Your Troops
Officers and NCOs so egotistical and wrapped up in their own advancement that they do not show concern for the well being of their subordinates receive poor evaluations and do not progress in their careers. From the outset, Army personnel are taught this essential component of leadership. By contrast, concern for subordinates is not part of the State Department evaluation process. Nor is there much emphasis on families. Instead, officers are taught to look after themselves and their careers first and foremost. This can lead, rightly or wrongly, to a perception by subordinates that “successful” Foreign Service officers are those willing to do anything to get ahead, including letting down colleagues and disappointing subordinates.

These allegations arise out of the fact that such self-centered behavior is seldom punished in the Foreign Service. Selfishness and excessive egotism
are not viewed as indicators of poor leadership and a lack of esprit de corps, but are often seen as the norm.

I'll let you chew on that. But this brings us to one of this blog's pet peeves -- on the subject of EFMs --who by the way, I am told, should really be extra grateful for finding work at our embassies/consulates overseas. 

Hey, did you hear about that EFM whose child had sudden dental issues -- broke the tooth, or something? Anyway, she asked her boss, a first tour officer assigned as visa chief for leave so she can bring the child to the dentist one morning. Leave request denied. Because the EFM/Consular Associate should have known better than schedule a dental appointment during visa hours when she was needed at the window; to take saliva samples or something.  Can blame the first tour officer for lack of compassion but the larger blame belongs to the consular manager for absence of leadership by example.  This is not how you take care of the troops, even if you're paying the EFM gazillion dollars to get a security clearance and for the opportunity to contribute to her Social Security. [Thanks L. for the story].

Most jobs for spouses and partners in the Foreign Service are located in consular sections. It must be said that some consular managers do know what it means to take care of their troops, not just their FSOs, but also their EFMS and FSNs. But others have no effing clue. Unfortunately, those who have no idea how to take care of the troops as well, are also given leadership and managerial gigs they try hard to fail. One section chief was huge, huge on outreach to help junior officers develop some important skills until the boss got an award of some sort for that. With that box checked and the next assignment in the bag, the next group of junior officers who arrived at post, poor sods, were all left on their own to  figure out how to do outreach. A great example of taking care of your troops as long as you get something out of it. And then the end. That kind of example, unfortunately rubs off on the more impressionable troops, sometimes. [Thanks E. for the chieftain story].

In some consular sections, EFMs get their performance reviews late or never, get awards or never. Because hey, they're "just EFMs" -- no matter how great they are, how hard they work, they can't get promoted, anyway. So why waste time writing up their EERs or bother with awards?

Not making this up, you guys.  The OIG has actually a catalog of how the State Department take care of its troops particularly its EFMs or eligible family members and partners:

At the US Embassy in the Dominican Republic:

In most instances, American and LE staff evaluation reports and work requirements statements are being completed within the appropriate time frame, but many of the 34 EFM evaluations were not. The EFMs believe that they are being overlooked, Supervisors claim that reminder notices are not sent to them. However, some supervisors were reminded but still did not prepare evaluations by the required due date. Some evaluations were still outstanding at the time of the inspection.

At the US Embassy in Germany:

In some instances, supervisors fail to provide EFMs with evaluation reports within the appropriate time frame or do not complete them at all. EFM evaluations are not tracked with the same regard as American officers and local staff, [REDACTED]

Department guidelines do not currently require supervisors to complete performance evaluations for EFMs. This confusion is even found in the mission’s human resources office, where one supervisor left his position without preparing evaluations for seven EFMs. OIG teams have also found this problem at other inspected posts. This lack of clarity may affect the 2,687 EFMs employed worldwide. It is a detriment to EFMs not to receive an evaluation and impacts their prospective employment.

Also in its Berlin report, the OIG explains why EFMs are cheap, affordable resources, they are practically a sale. Add to that the fact that they all live in a captive labor pool. 

Because they are hired under differing salary schedules and differing authorities, EFMs receive lower salaries than local staff performing comparable duties. They accrue 4 hours of annual leave and sick leave per pay period while their counterparts receive 6 weeks’ vacation and unlimited sick leave. The salaries of EFMs from foreign affairs agencies include Washington, DC, locality pay but not the cost-of-living adjustment their spouses receive. Spouses from non-foreign affairs agencies receive neither locality pay nor the cost-of-living allowance. London and Tokyo have been granted an exception to the rule that employed EFMs are ineligible for cost-of-living allowances.

At the US Embassy in India:

A major impediment to optimizing the contributions of professional associates is the lack of training requirements, and suggested or desired training sometimes comes at personal expense. Distance learning courses are not sufficient in all cases. While there is no cost for FSI courses, the Department does not pay per diem, and the employee must take training during home leave, rest and recuperation, or personal travel. The Department acknowledges that these options may not be feasible for many individuals. Professional associates who have not yet traveled to post to begin employment do not receive salary for time spent in training. Although it is understandable that the Department wants to allocate shrinking training funds to permanent employees, this policy comes at the expense of equipping professional associates to perform as effectively as possible. The Department may want to explore alternatives to the current policy.

At the US Embassy in Pakistan:

Neither of the consular EFMs in Islamabad has work requirements statements or has received a performance evaluation.

EFM personnel files included job announcements, position descriptions, and resumes, but did not include EFM work requirements or evaluations. The OIG team made an informal recommendation that work requirements and evaluations be prepared for all EFMs.

At the US Embassy in Afghanistan, several anomalies, including nepotism "reviews":

The OIG team found several other anomalies: an occasional lack of EFM personnel files, missing EFM work requirements statements, inappropriate procedures to document the superior qualification rate process, and, in one instance, a position description that had not been updated when the employee was assigned to another EFM position. Finally, the selection process could be improved.

Although the Embassy has been requesting the requisite nepotism reviews from the Bureau of Human Resources, the inspectors found that the information the Embassy provided to the Bureau of Human Resources has not been comprehensive or detailed enough for some positions, including those involving EFMs of senior-level officers. The Embassy does not have a standard formal process for developing the information that is needed to conduct the nepotism reviews. A standard checklist that applies to all nepotism reviews, especially those for spouses of senior-level officers and section heads, is a useful tool.

Oops, that's a long section on taking care of the troops.  But that's all good. If you sleep with your EFMs at night, this should make you wonder why the State Department and its hiring, rating, supervising officers do not treat them better? And oh, have you sat in some of those job interviews they conduct with EFMs? Goodness gracious, some of those folks have no idea they could be taken to the EEOC for asking illegal interview questions.  Might you also wonder what you can do to improve their bureaucratic treatment?  Please wonder.  And if you are the FSO, the next EFM denied leave, passed up for performance evaluation, or training (what training?), subjected to inappropriate job interview questions, etc., etc, could be your very own family member. Think about it.

Asst Sec'y for Something Affairs Formally Announced Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit Created in 2009?

This came out recently as a notice from the Something Affairs Bureau (SAB):

"Assistant Secretary [REDACTED] formally established a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit (FDDI/C) within the Something Affairs Front Office in 2009.  FDDI/C advises on and coordinates all issues involving the development, evaluation, and selection of document security features, as well as quality assurance processes of new improvements to all of Something Affair's secure documents to include the U.S. Passport, U.S. Passport Card, U.S. visa foils, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Consular Report of Death Abroad and the Border Crossing Card.

yadda yadda yadda  is developing material testing procedures to provide quality assurance evaluation for all of Something Affairs' secure documents."

Wait ...wait a minute ....

This doesn't have anything to do with our post on September 8, 2011 on Spouse of Former Asst Sec'y for Something Affairs Lands Senior Job at Something Affairs?  It doesn't. Right-o. It doesn't have anything to do with it. The two are absolutely not connected whatsoever.

Thank you, that's good to know; did not want to upset our friends at the Something Affairs Bureau.

That is a strange notice though, don't you think? If the Unit was created in 2009, why would the A/S announced it like now? Perhaps the domestic staffers of Something Affairs did not know that they have a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit?  Perhaps the overseas staffers of Something Affairs did not know that they have a Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit since 2009 - they are abroad, after all?  Perhaps the Unit has a new person in charge? Perhaps the Unit has a new fax machine?  Perhaps ... perhaps .... otherwise, it's kinda hard to imagine somebody writing a late announcement like this. And not just late, late but like two years late. If I were A/S, I would fire that announcement drafter already because really -- how long does it take to write a 500-word announcement?

And not to pick on our friends over at SAB or anything but since when has the Consular Report of Death Abroad been considered a "secure document?"  This document is not controlled or numbered in anyway. It's not hidden in the vault under lock and hard to remember combination. If you look in the ACS shelves, you'll probably find these forms hanging out over there without a care in the world.

Pardon me? What, not anymore?  Oh, sorry, you don't actually type on it anymore.

The Consular Report of Death Abroad is now automated, so those forms are not palling around under the shelves anymore.  Although now online, apparently this document still has no control number of any sort.  My beer-buddy complains that it is the most non-user friendly computer thingee to fill out online.  So, this might just be a project that the Forensic Document Design and Integrity Coordination Unit (FDDI/C) can really sink its baby teeth in. The document provides essential facts about the death, disposition of remains, and custody of the estate of the deceased American and generally used in legal proceedings in U.S. as proof of death.  So, of course, it must be made secure, that is, if it's not secure yet.

Why didn't you just say so?
 

Insider Quote: The Problems of Now, the Knee Jerk Variety Response

“Having been assigned to high threat posts and deployments for over eight years, I have seen the strengths and weaknesses inherent with using contractors versus agents. However, as in the case of Iraq, I have also seen the problems with using agents/contractors versus military protection details. Mismanagment and a lack of clear goals, coupled with the fact that the short length of the tour, inhibits any institutional knowledge from being generated. I would also point out that I feel many of DS's reactions and "solutions" to the problems have been short sighted and of a "knee jerk" variety. Often, it would seem that DS is reactionary in their thinking versus being proactive. It would appear that the problems of "now" are receieving the majority of the Department's attention, when some time and planning should be focused on what issues are going to be faced in the future. Many of the individuals making the decisions are from a generation that never faced situations like those that are currently threatening our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, I think that the situation will get worse before it gets better. The nature of protection details are primarily reactionary but the planning that goes into managing these programs needs to be forward thinking.”

Diplomatic Security Agent #9
—p.104 Should the U.S. Department of State Continue to Use Private Security Contractors to Protect U.S. Diplomats?
June 2008 │140 pages PDF
By Special Agent Derek Dela-Cruz
(Master of Military Art and Science, Fort Leavenworth, KS)

Love Letters to Congress and Who Gets Magic Dragoned Between FSI and First Post

I added a new tab in this blog for Love Letters to Congress and Other Notes. I will try to update the page as I am able with appropriate selections. But I hope somebody out there will volunteer to curate the online collection and give it the attention it deserves, a sort of an oral history, the blog edition for the Foreign Service.  

I must add that I have now gotten off this joy ride to nowhere -- for real -- so whatever Congress do to the locality pay will have no effect on my household income. But I still look at this as a fairness issue for those who remains in the Service. I just hope you all don't get get stuck in the OCP fight. If you are a member of the FS community, your main mission if you decide to accept it -- ta-da! --is to to help educate Congress and the American public about your work and your life abroad in the service of this country. Congress is not the enemy, ignorance is.                

The U.S. State Department as an organization has never been good at explaining its work to Congress and the American people. You don't believe me? Ask your neighbors what they know about Foreign Service Officers, and they'd probably ask which foreign country these officers serve. If you tell them, the United States of America, they'd probably ask if these officers are, you know ... real Americans, being foreign and all. And those who are able to identify them as American diplomats would inevitably bring up the words, "pinstriped, cookie pushers," "cocktails", "elite" and most recently, of course, "voluptuous blond" and "WikiLeaks." To others they are nothing more than visa stampers and passport shufflers. A good number of the American public who travel overseas have no reason to see them at US embassies or consulate unless they have lost their passports, marry or adopt a foreigner, lands in the foreign hospital or jail, survives a plane crash, is a victim of crime, is evacuated, or in a host of other emergency crises abroad.

It is a sad truth but the American public know diddly squat about the work diplomats do overseas.  You are in Iraq for a year, and what exactly it is you do there?  You drone on, and the public switches their teevee to American Idol.You will hear officials insisting that State is full of really smart, really talented people. But you just have to take their word for it because the officers themselves, smart as they are, are not allowed to have their own opinions or tell their stories. Even in their private capacity.

What? Like we're afraid FSOs would wikileaked themselves in their blogs? C'mon, now, as the kids say, that is so lame.  Diplomats back from overseas are allowed to do gigs called hometown diplomat or something, but who the heck has heard of those? 

21st century diplomacy, anyone? Why, of course, that seems popular these days.  In real life, this is what it means:

I saw this blog post from an FSO codenamed, Diplochick. She presents us with a new acronym -- "BNA" for "blogs not allowed" and writes:

"So I’m taking down this site – or at least changing the topic of the blog forever more. Maybe i’ll write about gardening or baking…

I love blogging about our crazy new adventure, but the word about town is that Big Brother does not like it at all. Now I could rise up and rebel, but I’m chicken."

You think Diplochick just got an earful at an A100 training session? Show of hands? Can't blame her for being chicken.

Just so sad.... you see all these wide-eyed newbies entering the service and then puff, their blogs get magic dragoned between FSI and their first posts. But being chicken, I'm sure is better than having trouble as your last name before you even get to your first post. 

Still, that's one less "live" connection between the institution and the public. She's not the first, and she won't be the last. 

Telling the story of the Foreign Service is not an easy thing. You walk that fine line of either coming across as too whiny or as too bland if you've got nothing else to blog but brown grass in your backyard due to drought. A good thing that the FS has some talented writers who are able to straddle the fine line.  May your ranks multiply.
 
Check out my Love Letters to Congress and Other Notes here.

  

Open, transparent and above-board in a closed, secretive and pre-determined sort of way

Image via WikipediaWhat a wonderful turn of phrase to describe the bidding process!

Larry of Beau Geste Mon Ami has written an interesting post about the bidding process in the State Department:

What happened was that, in short order, I received notification from four of the more interesting Posts on my list to "direct your energies towards other positions because, due to the volume of interest we've received for our Management Officer vacancy, we will, unfortunately, not be able to further consider your bid." I even failed to make the short list for a Post that only had five bidders! The whole process seemed to be open, transparent and above-board in a closed, secretive and pre-determined sort of way.

There is an online bid list that we can access to see how many total bids there are for each job to date. The problem here is that our bids don't have to be submitted until October 12th and many people spend a lot of time lobbying prior to actually submitting their list. So, you may be looking at a job that only seems to have five people interested in it and feel you have a pretty good shot at it, but twenty other folks might be calling and writing to the Post expressing their interest prior to putting in their bids. Posts and Bureaus begin to cull their lists of candidates long before the bid lists are officially submitted. Although no jobs can be offered or accepted prior to the date stated in the bidding instructions (in this case it will be November 8th), in reality many decisions are made long before the bids close on Oct. 12th.

Continue reading Reflections from my cage.

Bob Sutton: 12 Things Good Bosses Believe

Image by Kumar Appaiah via FlickrRobert Sutton is a Professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. He studies and writes about management, innovation, and the nitty-gritty of organizational life. He is the author of Weird Ideas That Work and The No Asshole Rule.  His new book is Good Boss, Bad Boss, forthcoming from Business Plus. He also blogs at Work Matters. 

Below is an excerpt from his post in the Harvard Business Review on  the 12 Things Good Bosses Believe:

[I]'ve come to conclude that all the technique and behavior coaching in the world won't make a boss great if that boss doesn't also have a certain mindset.

My readings of peer-reviewed studies, plus my more idiosyncratic experience studying and consulting to managers in many settings, have led me identify some key beliefs that are held by the best bosses — and rejected, or more often simply never even thought about, by the worst bosses. Here they are, presented as a neat dozen:

1. I have a flawed and incomplete understanding of what it feels like to work for me.
   
2. My success — and that of my people — depends largely on being the master of obvious and mundane things, not on magical, obscure, or breakthrough ideas or methods.
   
3. Having ambitious and well-defined goals is important, but it is useless to think about them much. My job is to focus on the small wins that enable my people to make a little progress every day.
   
4. One of the most important, and most difficult, parts of my job is to strike the delicate balance between being too assertive and not assertive enough.
   
5. My job is to serve as a human shield, to protect my people from external intrusions, distractions, and idiocy of every stripe — and to avoid imposing my own idiocy on them as well.
   
6. I strive to be confident enough to convince people that I am in charge, but humble enough to realize that I am often going to be wrong.

Read the whole thing here.  In late July, he also did the keynote at the Summit At Stanford talking about Good Boss, Bad Boss. Click here to see video of his talk.

The 4th of July Celebration in JULY - Part II

Diplopundit's July Blog Index included a brief rant about a couple of unnamed career US ambassadors (also known as chiefs of mission) in a European and African post who have the strangely odd idea that the 4th of July celebration should be celebrated in other months except July. We wrote:

And for that US Ambassador at an African post who had the US mission celebrate the 4th of July in February (nobody knew why February) -- we're told nobody was bold enough to ask why 4th of July in February did not include the singing of the U.S. national anthem.  Is this kind of like Christmas in July advertised foolishly on teevee ---but no caroling?  

We have yet to hear a pip from that European post, but somebody sent us a rejoinder with a few points of polite contention on that post in Africa. Reprinted in full below:

A writes:

The U.S. Diplomatic Post in Africa you mentioned realizes that the purpose of the 4th of July celebration held by the American diplomatic missions around the world is to share some of our values and traditions.  We fought and lost the argument to have the Independence Day celebration on the day AMERICA celebrates its independence (supposedly on the grounds that July is more likely to have rain than February and the rather expensive event more likely to have fair weather if held 4 months before Americans would ever conceive of celebrating it).  Part of the back-and-forth was the American tradition that "rain or shine" we Americans celebrate the 4th, etc. etc. but you know where Chiefs of Mission are in the food chain.

As for the National Anthem: it went back and forth as well until, with no ambiguity, it was tersely dictated that the HOST COUNTRY national anthem would be played at our celebration of American values and traditions but not the American National Anthem (word was our National Anthem was just way too long).  Unbeknownst to the visiting COM, the National Anthem remained on the docket and when she realized the act of insubordination by the community at large at the event, she refused to deliver her scheduled remarks (an act incidentally that also bolstered morale).

We continue to hold the "National Day Celebration" with suits and ties and evening gowns in late-February and the American community (Consulate and U.S. expatriates) gets together and celebrates the 4th of July on the 4th of July (usually with wonderful weather) in shorts and skirts, dunking booths and hot dogs, and a very loud "Star-Spangled Banner".

Oh, dear!  Yes, we are aware who sits at the top of the embassy food chain.  Refusing to deliver the prepared remarks sounds a lot like a kid throwing a tantrum, doesn't it?  Seems to us like a tip of the iceberg kind of thing. Makes one wonder how many staffer would follow this chief of mission to another post, or walk on coals for that matter, on her behalf ... 

Do we have some sympathy for the COM for the insubordination of the staff? Um ... nope. Embassies may not be democracies where everyone gets a vote but they certainly are not kingdoms; to reinvent a quote from Louis XIV of France, "the embassy, is not I."

Just because you can, does not mean you should ... besides how long is the "Star Spangled Banner" really, especially when you get to sing it but once a year?

Anyway-- we take back what we said about nobody there being "bold enough." Some bold souls apparently fought and lost that battle in Africa; we shudder (brrr) to think what damn with praise exhibits their EERs now contained.

Speaking of the 4th of July in JULY, we have put together a second round up of celebration -- this time of constituent posts celebrating American independence day overseas. We could not locate any mission with fireworks display, if you're aware of one do let us know:

Update 8/14: One of our readers wrote: "U.S. Embassy Manila's Independence Day reception included a massive fireworks display; the Embassy is by Manila Bay, and a ship in the bay provided the launching platform." Embassy Manila's Flickr page does include one fireworks snapshot and you can see it here.Also see comments section on Guayaquil's fireworks.


US Consulate General Montreal, Canada:

Photo from US ConGen Montreal

Ambassador David Jacobson hosted the Consulate General’s annual Independence Day reception in Montreal (July 6). The evening was a celebration of the close ties and history that the U.S. and Canada share. Guests from around the region joined Consulate staff as a flag party from the Royal Montreal Regiment present the colors. The voice of the Montreal Canadiens, Charles Prévost-Linton, offered stirring renditions of the national anthems of both nations. On behalf of President Obama, Ambassador Jacobson wished those attending a happy 4th of July and expressed gratitude to the people of Canada for their hospitality and friendship.


US Consulate General St. Petersburg, Russia

Photo from US ConGen St Petersburg

On July 7th, U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle joined his host Consul General Sheila Gwaltney in celebrating U.S. Independence Day in St. Petersburg.  Over 250 of the U.S. Mission’s closest contacts in northwest Russia showed up at the Consul General’s Residence to sample real American food, listen to jazz performed by a St. Petersburg trio, and speak to the U.S. Ambassador and his Consulate staff. 


US Consulate General Istanbul, Turkey

Photo from US ConGen Istanbul/Facebook

Consul General Sharon Wiener and Ambassador James Jeffrey

From Remarks by U.S. Consul General Sharon Anderholm Wiener at the Celebration of the 234th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 (July 1):

Welcome to the American Consulate General in Istanbul.  Thank you for joining us tonight.  I would like to begin by thanking the American companies who have sponsored this event by generously providing the food and drink.  And, for our music tonight, we are grateful to the Panorama Band, joining us from New Orleans, and, for the second year in a row, the Yale University women’s a cappella group Whim ‘n Rhythm.  Finally, and most importantly, I would like to convey my most sincere thanks to the staff of the U.S. Consulate General, who have worked for months to make this event a success.


US Consulate General Karachi, Pakistan
(Celebration in Quetta):

Photo from US ConGen Karachi/Facebook

A festive celebration was held by U.S. Consulate General Karachi to commemorate the 234th anniversary of U.S. independence in Quetta on July 26, 2010. The new Consul General, William J. Martin, paid tribute to U.S.-Pakistan friendship. American diplomat shared that U.S. is initiating projects which will directly benefit people of Balochistan. The Speaker Balochistan Assembly, Muhammad Aslam Bhotani, and various other distinguished guests, were also present during the cake cutting ceremony.


US Consulate General Auckland, New Zealand:
  

Photo from Ambassador Huebner's blog

Dr. McWaine (Ambassador Huebner's spouse) greeting guests
at the Auckland event, including (from left) Anjum Rahman
of the Islamic Women's Council of New Zealand, Fatima Leung-Wai
of the University of Auckland, and Aliya Danzeisen of the Women's
Organization of the Waikato Muslim Association.

From Ambassador David Huebner's blog: We celebrated the 4th here in Wellington on the 2nd – which is, historically speaking, the date on which the delegates of the American Colonies actually voted to declare their independence from Great Britain. [...] The prior evening we held a similar reception in Auckland at the Northern Club for approximately 250 guests including Lady Hillary, the Rt. Hon. Paul East, students from my groups at the University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology, and Jools of the Topp Twins (Lynda was under the weather).  The Hon. Jonathan Coleman, Minister of Immigration, delivered remarks on behalf of the Government of New Zealand. Entertainment included a live Blue Grass band and a selection of Broadway show tunes sung by my colleague Nick and his wife. 


US Consulate General Lahore, Pakistan:

Photo from US ConGen Lahore/Facebook

Consul General Carmela Conroy’s U.S. Independence Day address. (excerpt)
“We are here today in Pakistan, in the 63rd year of its existence, to celebrate the 234th year of America’s existence. And there is so much evidence here to give us hope that one day people will celebrate the 234th year of Pakistan’s independence."


US Consulate General Mumbai, India:

Photo from US CG Mumbai

U.S. Consul General Paul A. Folmsbee hosted a celebration on July 1, 2010, at the Grand Hyatt, commemorating the United States’ 234th Independence Day.  The Chief Guest of the evening was Chief Protocol Officer, Government of Maharashtra Sumit Mullik and the Guest of Honor was author Chetan Bhagat, who was recently named by Time as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.


US Consulate General Vancouver, Canada:

Photo from US CG Vancouver/Facebook

Anyone passing the residence of U.S. Consul General Phillip Chicola July 6 couldn’t help but notice the festive atmosphere. Flags waved from the balcony. Music drifted from the garden. Red, white and blue decorated every corner. The occasion? A belated celebration of the United States’ Independence Day. Consul General Chicola and his wife Vicky welcomed more than 250 friends and colleagues to their garden party to celebrate the United States’ 234th birthday, which was actually on July 4.

That's it! And they all did it.  In July.

Net-Generation: the workforce of the future is here

Image by jovike via Flickr

The Chief Information Officers Council issued a report that you should read if you are a supervisor, a manager or a senior executive or want to be one.

The report, "Net Generation: Preparing for Change in the Federal Information Technology Workforce," is not only relevant to IT employees but to the large, incoming generation of federal new hires who will bring new dynamics to the entire federal workplace. And to their managers who will face this challenge: "to reconcile the distinct, and sometimes conflicting, expectations, needs, and experiences of their workforce and to establish a context for success that allows the strengths of each generation to shine."

The Norms of the Net-Gen World.

They don’t want to be labeled.
They want continuous feedback and recognition.
They value genuine mentoring.
They want autonomy, responsibility, and challenges.
They need structured accountability.
They’re not interested in “paying their dues.”
They’re used to having their opinions heard.
They’re used to group/team problem solving.
They expect high tech/constant stimulation.
They’re used to living in a 24/7 environment.

Read more here.


Curious about what contributes to their engagement?

Pride in One’s Work or Workplace
Satisfaction with Leadership
Opportunity to Perform Well at Work
Satisfaction with the Recognition Received
Prospect for Future Personal and Professional Growth
Positive Work Environment with Some Focus on Teamwork

Read more here.

THE NET GENERATION TOP 20 “TO DO” LIST

   1. Show that the organization understands their world.
   2. Rethink authority and hierarchy within the organization.
   3. Include Net-Geners in re-designing work practices.
   4. Design jobs and work spaces to support collaboration.
   5. Become social media savvy
   6. Invest in technology to power high performance, creativity, and collaboration.
   7. Examine how new technology is deployed within the organization.
   8. Refresh organization websites and their capabilities.
   9. Re-examine career paths for all generations.
  10. Customize training programs for individual workers.
  11. Encourage and incentivize Boomer and Net-Gen mentors.
  12. Examine current and future supervisory bench strength.
  13. Measure performance by productivity, not physical presence.
  14. Retool performance recognition programs and provide more continuous feedback.
  15. Create dynamic recruiting programs that employ a cross section of media.
  16. Be authentic when recruiting; emphasize organization values and strengths.
  17. Create a dynamic onboarding program.
  18. Fund and use hiring flexibilities strategically.
  19. Create a more flexible and fun working environment.
  20. Craft lasting networking relationships with employees who leave the organization.

Read the whole thing here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Federal CIOs Urge Changes To Entice IT Workers (informationweek.com)
• OMG! TEKsystems Finds That 73% of the IT Workforce Is Under the Age of 45! (eon.businesswire.com)

Ops Center: the charm of going blue in a Barbie-size wooden outhouse with a mini blue bulb

In case you did not see this exclusive from WaPo, a peek into the State Department's Operations Center. Excerpt: 

Every secret federal command center has its charms. At the Pentagon, vents slit the floor to block fumes, in case of a chemical attack. At the National Counterterrorism Center, an electric current excites gas between glass panes, fogging over for top-secret meetings. At the White House, the Situation Room seals so tightly that closing the door creates a sucking sound.

But none comes close to the State Department's Operations Center. Or its Barbie-size wooden outhouse, nailed to a beam, fitted with a miniature blue bulb.

"I'm going blue!" duty desk officers call out when they stand up to go to the bathroom. They flip a switch, triggering a blue glow from the outhouse. As on an airplane, the light signals: Bathroom occupied; remain in your seats. Work stations must be staffed in case of an emergency.

The ops center at State mixes, inimitably, an offbeat sense of humor and an obsessive sense of mission, with its round-the-clock, windowless, weight-gaining jobs. Down the hall from the secretary of state's suite, the center is a secure, adrenalin-injected space, accessed through the swipe of a badge and the peck of a keypad code.
[...]
The ops center handles about 340,000 calls on 244 lines a year, not all of them momentous. "Sir, Puerto Rico is not governed by the State Department," an officer drones to a man in San Juan. "You need to contact local authorities. Puerto Rico is actually a U.S. territory."

During shuttle launches, State officers stand by in case the flight aborts and orbits back to earth. They use a pea-green, 1960s-style phone, a dedicated line to the NASA flight director. If the shuttle has to divert to land in Spain, for example, they'll call Madrid and say: 1. Don't panic. 2. Clear the airspace. 3. It's coming your way.
[...]
What matters is you're on shift, in the right chair."

Which is why ops officers take bathroom breaks so deliberately. You might call it a unique approach to government waste. Officers announce, "I'm going blue!" And when they reach the bathroom door, a red-lettered sign admonishes:

"Limit Your Visit."

Continue reading, For State Department officers directing calls, adrenaline always on the line.

Do you want to give this Front Office a grade?

Below is an excerpt from a couple years old OIG report on US Embassy Brasilia and its constituent posts. Names of key officials are normally listed at the end of the report, but since this is two years old, most are  certain to have left the embassy or have rotated to other posts already. But here's a chance to peak peek at one more Front Office:     

The fact that country team members work well together does not mask the level of tension among those country team members whose portfolios include areas that the Ambassador considers mission priorities. Country team members reported to the OIG team that their lack of understanding of the Ambassador’s prioritization among the many new initiatives has inhibited their ability to meet all of their mandated goals and objectives. The Ambassador’s personal working style, his heavy travel and official appointment schedule, and his infrequent contact with U.S. Mission staff, other than country team members and substantive officers, have contributed to communication lapses and morale issues among the embassy community. Confirming this, the scores given to the Ambassador and the DCM on the personal questionnaires were well below average in such categories as allowing dissent, clarity, feedback, and coordination.

The Ambassador believes that he has worked hard to improve mission morale by expending a significant amount of personal resources hosting newcomers’ luncheons and by participating in efforts to support community activities such as holiday parties and the Marine Ball. He attends TGIF events whenever he is at the embassy or a constituent post, and he has met with the Foreign Service national committee. That said, he accepted, gracefully, the fact the workplace and quality of life scores indicate mission staff members are experiencing morale problems, and at least some of them want to see a more overt indication of his concern for their well-being.

Finally, neither the Ambassador nor the DCM is a financial or management expert. That said, it is still incumbent upon them to ensure that internal and management controls are properly exercised. Due to the division of labor described above, it is the DCM who bears the responsibility for testing and validating the internal and management control systems in use at the mission. During the course of the inspection, a number of programs such as premium class travel, representational travel, invitational travel, and other authorized use of U.S. government resources were found to be out of compliance with the Foreign Affairs Manual.

Related Item:OIG |Embassy Brasilia and Constituent Posts, Brazil (ISP-I-08-15A) March 2008  -03/31/08  

One of the saddest comments ever received here…

Image by KaJo 123 via Flickr

In April, I posted about the IT Consolidation at the State Department based on a published OIG review (read State Dept IRM’s IT Consolidation Gets a Screaming "F"): This week, this blog received exactly one comment on that post. I normally do not re-post comments. But I thought this one was different.

Gary  said...

Your quote,

"...if somebody had the courage to say “hey, this idea is full of sh*t.” But that’s only like, well like committing career hara-kiri, and nobody does that too often in the bureaucracy. Because when you "die" in a bureaucracy, you don't necessarily get kicked out, you just get ignored in your cubicle until you, well -- dry out, crisp as autumn leaves and get swept out by the char force one night when nobody is looking...."

That was me.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:27:00 PM

“That was me.”

Three words, no fluff. That probably is one of the saddest lines I’ve ever received in this blog.

Foreign Service 2009 Promotion Statistics

If you've been promoted the last go around, congratulations. If your name was not on that list last year, you most probably have seen the published stats already.  If you are just joining the Service or looking to join, you might be interested in the conal promotion stats. If you're wondering if the pyramid shrinks at the top, yes it does.  Take a look. 

Foreign Service 2009 Promotion Statistics | Extracted from State Mag April 2010

Because you'll be mandatorily retired this year ...

Congress says that your service can be extended beyond your 65th birthday if it is in the public interest.  Of course, they were too busy to bother listing down what constitutes "public interest;" and since nobody wants to bother finding out what that exactly means, and no transparent guidelines happen to be available on it, you need to get out no later than the last day of the month when you turn sixty and five. 

Oh, it doesn't matter whether you have a month left on your tour or a few months; you get chuck out the airlock as soon as you hit the magic number. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

We can't really tell where AFSA sits on this issue but we happen to think that this is quite cruel, especially after years of exemplary service to our country.  It's not as if a few months staying on to fully conclude a tour of duty can really significantly impact the promotion of fresher blood within the Service.  It makes folks think that -- well,  65=airlock. 65, airlock, 65, airlock. Yea, you get it?  A great feeling I'm sure to be treated like a dish rag ...   

Since there are no Hallmark cards that can quite express the sentiments of this life changing event, we thought we'd make a series of ecards just for this special occasion.  First one below.  It's a way to show how we really, truly, appreciate your talents and experience and service to this country. 

We are happy to entertain other sentiments for additional ecards that you can send to yourself and your friends.  But don't send these ecards to political appointees; they all have the anti-airlock device. As far as we know, they all are unchuckable at 65. Unchuckable, that is -- until the next election!

The Case of a First-Tour FSO and His First Two EERs

This is an old case from 2001; might even be called part of history now. For some reason, the last time I look through the cases in the FSGB website this one kept popping on top. Anyway, the grievant, a State Department first tour junior officer in the consular cone, grieved, as inaccurate and falsely prejudicial, the two employee evaluation reports (EER), he received while serving as a consular/administrative officer in [Blank]. The EERs were written by the same rating and reviewing officers. According to the FSGB record, the grievant was also “is a lawyer and a naturalized American citizen, born in France. He was naturalized in 1993 and was 50 years old when he joined the Foreign Service in 1998 to " ... put more than three decades of overseas experience to the service of his country."

“On March 6, 2001, [Grievant] appealed to this Board, in essence requesting the same relief as stated above, as well as compensatory time off for time spent defending against false accusations. There followed, inter alia, voluminous submissions of documents and extensive discovery. Additional interrogatories and motions were denied as unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial by this Board. The Record of Proceedings (ROP) was closed on October 23, 2001.”

One part of the Board’s decision jumped out the page when I was reading this:

“Grievant clearly believes that his interpretations of Department "directives" were the only correct conclusions. He continues to insist that his implementation of Consular Best Practices "was merely following Departmental instructions." He admits to arguing, persisting, and confronting his supervisors. He admits to seeking guidance and then ignoring it. His civility, patience and courtliness with others aside, it is obvious to this Board that he considered himself to be older and more experienced than his supervisors and that he had little to learn from them.”

Read more below if you have the time or the interest:

FSGB_First Tour ConOff

April pain and suffering: Life is so Unfair!

Watch out for more DS ecards from someecards where you go "when you care enough to hit send." 

Warning: Someecards.com is not intended for use by people under 18 years of age. It is as they claim - possibly to probably the best site on the Web for free, funny ecards. I can assure you that you won't find their bitey cards in your grocery aisle or anywhere else.  They have greeting cards for every occasion - from important to utterly pointless. Send greetings for apology, birthday, baby, breakup, congratulations, encouragement, farewell, flirting, friendship, get well, sympathy, thanks, thinking of you, wedding, workplace, and holidays. They suggest you e-mail them to friends, family, coworkers, loved ones, liked ones, and anyone else with fingers.

Be forewarned -- just like the Foreign Service -- it is not for everyone, people!