The attached report at TAB A presents some of the basic issues that were
discussed at a meeting on November 30 with a group of officers who
entered the Service through one of the two Affirmative Action programs.
The meeting, which was chaired by John Burroughs and Ron Palmer, was one of several efforts
made by PER/FCA with M/EEO within the past few weeks to carry
out the consensus reached at our Airlie House Conference2 for finding more
effective ways to carry out the Affirmative Action Program.
Tab A
Memorandum From the Director of the Office of
Foreign Service Career Development and Assignments (Palmer) to the Director General
of the Foreign Service and Director of Personnel (Barnes)6
Washington, December 8, 1978
SUBJECT
- Affirmative Action Problems and Plans
BACKGROUND
John Burroughs and I met November 30 with 16 present and former
participants in the FSR/JO and
Mid-Level Programs. Doug Watson and Joyce Smith, who are responsible
for the FCA Affirmative Action
effort, Idris Rossell of PER/PE,
Charlie Tanguy, Georgiana Prince and Margaret Anderson of M/EEO, and Mike Durkee sat in. John
Gravely of M/MO attended as well as
Glenn Mabray of REE/EMP. The
stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss draft letters and
information sheets which John Burroughs and the FCA staff have drafted and intend to
send to all people now on the rolls who came in under either of the
special hiring programs, in an effort to zero in on the problems the
FSR/JO’s and Mid-Level
entrants face in becoming successful FSO’s. The purpose of the letter is to get more
specific information from recipients on what they think their
problems are so that we can attempt to undertake more individualized
counseling in an effort to help them to survive better in the
system. (Package attached at TAB A).7
The meeting was characterized by candor. Specific cases dominated the
discussion but proved to be useful prisms through which to view the
overall situation. There are problems. Personnel and the Department
are not trusted. Among blacks, there is a perception that EEO entrants are persistently
discriminated against. We have already started to try to deal with
some of the most glaring problem areas, but others
[Page 897]
are more long-range or fundamental;
attitudes as well as policies may have to be changed. This memo
notes certain items we can and will work on now and also flags some
of the longer-term problems.
ISSUES
This is not an all-inclusive list of problems discussed in the
meeting, or those which others might raise. But there were several
major and interrelated problem sets, as illustrated by several
specific cases which were volunteered.
1. Lateral Entry Exam
It is very clear that the lateral entry exam is seen as an
unnecessary, arbitrary, and even discriminatory hurdle. The process
itself is not fully understood by many of those subject to it, but
the strong consensus at the meeting was that it operates in a way
which does not properly reflect what people have done on assignments
and which does not clearly relate to what
is needed to be successful in the Service. [2
names not declassified] described their recent unsuccessful
exams and drew considerable peer support for their contention that
they were not given a fair shot.
[name not declassified] case is troubling
because it suggests that the conduct of the exam was not all it
should have been. He is a bright, articulate and vigorous person who
should be able to excel in an oral exam situation. [name not declassified] on the other hand,
claims that his oral exam was unfair because the Department failed
to provide assignment opportunities which would enable him to
develop the knowledge and skills needed to pass it. This falls into
the category of career development, which is discussed below.
2. Tenure/Promotion
The FSR/JO’s, like most other
junior officers, remain puzzled about the tenure process, especially
as it relates to the lateral entry exam. We hope that the
information prepared by FCA/JO
will help answer these questions, and we intend to provide the same
information to the Mustangers. With adequate explanation, there
should be no major problem with the tenure process per se, but several participants argued that there is
double jeopardy for FSR/JO’s, in
that they face the lateral entry exam as well as the tenure
review.
The instant case is that of [name not
declassified] who believes that he, as an FSR/JO who converted to FSO–6 through the lateral exam, has
been held back in terms of promotion to O–5 because he is still
untenured after five years in the Service. (He is in no immediate
danger, having five years to pass the threshold after converting to
FSO in 1976.)
A more complex problem was raised by several of the people who had
successfully converted and were now FSO–5s. Their perception is
[Page 898]
that, relative to their A–1008 classmates who entered as
FSO’s, they have been promoted
more slowly. Although suspicions were voiced about prejudice in OERs
or by selection boards, there was no clear consensus that there was
an institutional problem amenable to policy
or procedural changes. Several participants argued that black
officers were affected most severely, other minorities or women less
so.
3. Career Development and Counseling
While the subject of career development did not come up as an
explicit problem area, the burden of [name not
declassified] complaint, as well as side comments by
others, is that the Department does not provide proper developmental
opportunities or advice. Specifically, [name not
declassified]—and others—believe that the Department has an
obligation to give people a range of
experiences so that they will be prepared to handle the range of questions in the lateral entry exam,
covering all aspects of Foreign Service work. They also believe that
they receive conflicting or misleading information about positions,
language probation, and promotion prospects.
The [name not declassified] case provides
evidence that we need to do better; it also illustrates that not
everyone can be a winner in what remains, after all, a competitive
system. [name not declassified] spent two
years doing visa work at Toronto as his first tour, then came back
at his request and spent nearly four years in the Visa Office. He
has wanted to remain in Washington and was not accepted for several
possible assignments out of VO.
Despite specific advice before and after his first try in 1977 at
the lateral exam, there is no evidence that he did much to prepare
himself in non-consular areas; on the second lateral exam try in
September, he was found inadequate even in consular matters.
4. Mid-Level Program
While much of the discussion centered on the FSR/JO Program, the Mid-Level FSR’s confirmed that they need more
help, too. Career counseling was identified as an essential
ingredient, especially counseling that gave a better perspective of
the institution and culture of the Service, well beyond assignment
matters. The need for initial training/orientation was also
stressed, both as a way to learn who does what to whom and as a way
to start building contacts.
One salutary note—of the seven Mid-Level entry officers at the
meeting, two recent entries felt the A–100 orientation in which they
participated was extremely useful. As you are aware, we are now
[Page 899]
timing the entry of
Mid-Level hires to permit their participation in this course.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
As the list of problems herein is not all-inclusive, neither are our
recommended actions. To move sensibly towards implementation of a
comprehensive action plan will require more time and effort on our
part. Let me note several steps I think we can now take.
1. Analysis and comparison of promotion rates
for minority program JO’s with all
other JO’s
Working with John Burroughs’ staff, MGT/HRM and MGT/OS,
we should be able to capture this data. If the promotion rates of
minority JO’s are significantly
lower (and this is indeed the perception of minority officers), then
we may attempt to discover ways to remedy this, more particularly so
if the degree of difference constitutes an “adverse impact” on
minority personnel. Actions could range from exhortations to rating
and reviewing officers, to additional language and other training,
to creation of a point system to improve the rank ordering of
minority personnel on lists submitted by Selection and/or
Commissioning & Tenure Boards. The first step clearly is to
obtain the data and make promotion rate comparisons.
2. Identification of and counseling by more
senior minority personnel (using the role model)
I’m not quite sure how to go about this, but I’d like to urge the
attention of all mid and senior level
officers (including minority officers) to take an interest in the
supervision, counseling and career development of all junior
officers (including minority officers). In the most acceptable yet
forthright way, I’d particularly want to emphasize this challenge to
senior minority and women officers. I have not quite figured out how
but we need to ask such officers to join in our outreach
program.
A first step in this direction might be a first person cable from you
to all Ambassadors and DCMs (and a
personal letter to all Assistant and Deputy Assistant Secretaries)
urging them to take a more aggressive interest in the development of
all junior officers, with particular concern for the counseling and
career development of minority, women and mustang personnel. I think our
basic theme would be that study of the overall junior officer
situation indicates a serious need to improve the supervision and
counseling of such officers at the workplace.
3. Apparent inconsistency between evaluations
by BEX lateral boards, Selection
Boards and Commissioning & Tenure Boards
Various “horror” stories were cited at our meeting: an officer who
passed the lateral, yet failed the C&T Board; another who received
[Page 900]
tenure, but failed the subsequent
lateral exam. The second lateral (the abolishment of which is now
pending our and AFSA’s
concurrence) is clearly seen by minority officers as redundant and
unfair. Even should it be abolished for future entrants, it still
will apply to those minority and mid-level officers now on board. It
would seem that officers recommended for tenure should by virtue of
demonstrated performance be defined as career material. The lateral
entry exam should be waived for these personnel. Any question
regarding their suitability has effectively been answered. Similarly
it would seem that those officers who have successfully passed the
lateral exam hurdle, demonstrating interpersonal skills, substantive
knowledge, synthesizing and analytic ability, as well as some
intangible savoir faire, should be judged as
fit for career status as FSO’s,
hence imminently tenureable. Tenure status should be awarded them on
passing the lateral exam.
I understand that these possibilities have been studied earlier and
that there are problems of implementation, but I believe we should
take another look.
4. Additional focus by PER travellers on JO’s
Our PER travellers, fully briefed on
EEO concerns, should meet
one-on-one with all
JO’s, and take special interest in
minority officers. This extra attention is in my view easily
justifiable. Minority officers are in a unique situation, and our
investment in them as individuals, and in the Affirmative Action
program, merit special efforts for their retention and development.
Our travellers should identify these personnel prior to departing
Washington, and be fully briefed by JO and conal CDO’s on
each officer, with special attention to problem situations. At post
their in and out-briefings with the Ambassador and DCM should address JO’s, and especially all minority
officers. On return to Washington each traveller should submit a
short paper on discussions with each minority officer to the
appropriate CDO.
We should likewise ask S/IG to give
similar attention to minority officers during inspections.
The cost in time and attention do not appear inordinate, but more
importantly, we can’t afford not to follow
through with our interest in these personnel.
5. Specific cases for consideration
Finally, with regard to [3 names not
declassified] we are studying their cases to determine
whether remedial action is warranted. Our lateral entry/tenure
recommendation would take care of [name not
declassified]. Perhaps [name not
declassified] case has gone too far for us to be helpful.
It appears [name not declassified] case may
be worth taking a closer look. I shall prepare reports on these
cases to share with you.
[Page 901]
I
think if one or more of these cases could be put back on the tracks
our credibility would be improved. We have little credibility with
this group now.
NEXT STEPS WITHIN PER
We are moving perhaps slowly, but, I hope, surely. And, we are
sharpening our focus on a couple of areas where we can take positive
steps. Improvement in our Affirmative Action efforts, as in many
other personnel management concerns, will come about largely through
doing more of what we are doing, doing it consistently and doing it
better until, as the old saw goes, we finally get it right.
With this paper perhaps as a focal point you may wish to have a
meeting to discuss areas of concern, identify actions we are taking,
and describe plans and responsibilities for further implementation.
Some of the Airlie House participants and M/EEO staff might attend. Also, considering Ben’s9
participation in the Airlie House Conference and interest in our
Affirmative Action program, you may wish to share the material in
this package with him to foster further discussion. A draft memo to
Ben is attached at TAB B.10
At TAB C11 I have also attached for your information a memo
just received from M/EEO
illustrating the status of 22 minority officers, some of whom are in
difficult straits regarding the lateral exam and/or tenure. We may
wish to focus our efforts towards assisting several of these
officers.
