bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1986) — Spring/Summer 1986 // Printemps/Été 1986, p. 4
Appraisal time is rolling around once again. The timing is perfect. As one wag put it: during the spring we live in hope, in the summer we like to think we have cause for expectation, with the fall leaves we begin to size up the odds and, for all but the lucky, realize another winter of discontent.
Promotions are slow and the prospects for the future are not encouraging. There is a feeling amongst the Powers that Be that there are already too many senior positions. Until the balance is restored we will have to settle for what one undersecretary euphemistically called “job enhancement” which usually means the layers of supervision endured by first tour officers now extends over successive assignments at home and abroad. About the only real change is that both supervised and supervisors get longer in the tooth. Such is one consequence of cutbacks and non-recruitment. And as management has pointed out, financial restraint will be a continuing reality.
Making the best of one’s lot, therefore, becomes of principal importance if for no other reason than because one is likely to be there for some time. Finding the right area of personal interest is part of the answer. Of equal, if not greater significance, is one’s supervisors. They not only determine what you do but their appraisal of you is critical for future success.
Like wine, all bosses are not created equal. We have our share of plonk, although we are probably no worse off than our colleagues in other departments or in the private sector. However, unlike them, the rotationality of the Foreign Service provides a greater choice — at least in theory — over future assignments. To that extent, at least, one can exercise some choice over supervisor. We can always examine old diaries and talk to those in the area to get a handle on the job package. But in choosing a boss there is only the wisdom of cafeteria chatter. And as one old hand has put it, “There are no hardship posts, only hardship ambassadors”
There may be a better system. PAFSO is now considering the idea of appraising the appraisers. An evaluation form which would assess management skills, vision, and general disposition is being prepared and it will float, like the proverbial trial balloon, later this summer. The objective, in their own rather clever turn of phrase, is to “pull open the louvers from below and let some clear dry light shine upwards”. The results may by published in some future bout de papier as a kind of Guide to the Wary.
It’s now accepted practice and in some cases forms part of the evaluation process for professors: not only must they be seen to teach but they must be good teachers, as well. While management may not want to follow up this latter course, I have no doubt they too would carefully scrutinize such a document.
Certainly the experience of assessing managers can only help to develop an appreciation of the art amongst junior officers, who after all, are the future generation of managers. And, if past practice holds, it is the Foreign Service which provides government departments, especially the so-called central agencies, with many of its senior managers. It would provide, moreover, management with a bottoms-up view of supervisors to complement their top-down perspective — in short, a sense of balance.
Who knows, it may not be long before the rest of government decides to follow suit. As government contracts, the importance of working as a team looms larger. Effective and personable managers will best serve this cause — an idea first practised by the Japanese and now endorsed by management schools and the leading private sector firms.
It is one thing to supervise, to manage well is too often something more honoured in the breach. In an army of generals, letting the privates have a say may not be a bad thing.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1986) — Spring/Summer 1986 // Printemps/Été 1986, p. 4. Read the rest of this issue →
