bout de papier, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1993) — Spring 1993 // Printemps 1993, pp. 2–3
We have been told that changes to the Foreign Service (FS) classification system are necessary. PAFSO says so; and Senior Management now says so too. But — are they both talking about the same thing?
The idea of re-defining the Foreign Service Officer cadre has broad appeal in part because, like the concept of God or beauty, the notion as an ideal means something to everyone irrespective of an individual’s starting point.
For the mandarins of the Public Service (PS), the notion is part and parcel of the hot new trend of downsizing the bureaucracy and of standardizing and sanitizing the government work force by using a multipurpose system of job classification. In doing this, the Public Service believes it will save time, effort and money in having to negotiate with fewer bargaining agents.
Like the Ontario Liquor Control Board’s numerical rating system for measuring the sweetness level of wine, the Public Service’s proposed approach for the year 2000 (PS 2000) would make the new system less complex and much easier to understand. It will still continue to place emphasis on the diversity of the many functions throughout the Public Service, to be free of systemic discrimination or sexual bias, and to ensure equal pay for equal work. This whole process, however, is predicated upon the ability and efficacy of measuring levels of skill, expertise and complexity of work packages and then being able to quantify them based upon a transparent and agreed scale.
Given this movement across government as a starting point, it is not too ominous that External Affairs and International Trade Canada would like to re-design the Foreign Service Officer cadre. There are other reasons, however, behind this too — reasons that are rather more sinistre. Lacking a Consular Corps in Canada, and given that most Foreign Service Officers did not choose to join the Foreign Service to perform consular duties, personnel must be obtained from somewhere to carry out what is the most publicly visible service performed by this Department. Thus, the current movement is underway to convert Administrative Officers (AS) into a separate stream of Foreign Service Officer: the Consular-Administrative stream.
From an individual Administrative Officer’s point of view, this proposed transition is a positive sign that gives due recognition to the talents and attributes of many in that job classification, particularly those who are already rotational. But, will it work? Although there can be areas of overlap (eg. logistics in shipping furniture from Ottawa to a mission abroad and logistics in repatriating an injured Canadian from abroad to Canada), administrative work is generally very different from consular work.
Administrative work requires more of an accounting skill, and tends to concentrate on logistics and management of finances, personnel, materiel and property. On the other hand, consular work demands a different temperament, a willingness to be sympathetic and open to the vagaries of the human condition, as well as the willingness on occasion to be held personally (and legally) responsible for the life and well-being of an individual Canadian in distress. While some individuals are lucky enough to combine both administrative and consular skills in their personae, they are probably the exception rather than the rule. The whole tenor of the nature of the work tends to be one way or the other, not in both directions at the same time.
In the past, there was a Consular-Administrative stream of the Foreign Service. It was abolished when these individuals found that they were being measured against a classification standard that they could not meet. This was not necessarily through lack of ability, but more often through lack of access and opportunity.
The nature of the work performed by these Administrative-Consular Officers was substantively different from the nature of the work of Foreign Service Officers who were carrying out traditional diplomacy. In addition, many lacked the policy and analytical frameworks that would have allowed them to carry out political and economic reporting and trade analysis; to develop, draft and explain policy; and to negotiate in a bilateral or multilateral forum. Many had previously been converted from the ranks of clerks (CR) and lacked the formal educational training required to enter the Foreign Service. It was only as a management expedient that they were converted to the AS category. Neither the Administrative Officers themselves nor Senior Management ever intended that these individuals would become, for example, the Ambassador to the United Nations or to the United States of America. Not that unique individuals might not make the transition, but they would be the exception rather than the rule. This was not seen as the normal job progression. Therefore, viewed from this perspective, the conversion of Administrative Officers to Foreign Service Officers can be seen as leading to an overall downgrading and de-professionalization of the Foreign Service.
From yet another perspective, that of financial and personnel resources management, this is all well and good for Senior Management. It achieves a relatively polyglot workforce that is highly permeable, replaceable and interchangeable, and it does so at a relatively low salary-dollar cost. These factors will become even more tempting for managers when the Public Service moves from a person-year control on the number of government employees to a salary-dollar control. There will then be every incentive to have lots of low-paid staff performing the day-to-day work of the Department.
From the Foreign Service Officer’s perspective, though, members have already spent between three and ten years at university. With ten to twelve years at the FS-1 level becoming the norm, and with only twenty FS-2 officers per year (out of approximately 600 who are eligible) achieving a promotion to the Executive (EX) category, the objectives are different again. Better pay and the illusion of promotion are now viewed by many as the long-sought-for panacea to cure the lack of promotion and the erosion of the practice of diplomacy.
With no hard information available, the rumours throughout the hallways and cafeteria are about the Foreign Service Officer cadre being split once again from two into four levels, with a modest extension of the pay scale. Because the Department, Treasury Board and PAFSO have not, as yet, fleshed out what this new system will mean and how it will operate, it is not clear what it entails other than more of the same or worse.
What is PAFSO’s motive in all this? Well, it has never recovered from the forced conversion over a decade ago when the Department unilaterally converted the FS-3s and FS-4s to the EX category. PAFSO suddenly lost a significant portion of its dues-paying members. This was a serious blow to our financial viability and continues to plague us today. Thus, it appears that for financial reasons, PAFSO had tended to view the AS conversion favourably as a means of expanding its membership. It also appears to have tacitly accepted the lack of consultation and the probable re-introduction of the FS-3 and FS-4 levels as inevitable, given the horizontal structure endemic through industry and the Public Service today.
Where does the trust and confidence come into the picture? Presumably, as individuals and as members of the Foreign Service, we have to take it on trust and remain fully confident that this is not the case. That the seeming erosion of the profession of diplomacy and the downgrading of the Foreign Service is not the intention and that, were this to occur, it would seriously concern the Department, the Public Service, the Canadian public, and the Foreign Service itself. As members of the Foreign Service we have to work together toward improving our profession, by reflecting today’s values of service to the public, and by using technological change to lead us forward beyond the year 2000.
Carol N. Markham
TITDTTUTOTAT •AT TATO→
Editor
Ottawa, April 1993
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1993) — Spring 1993 // Printemps 1993, pp. 2–3. Read the rest of this issue →
