bout de papier, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2009) — Summer/Fall 2009 // Été/Automne 2009, pp. 28–29
nan article in this magazine in 2005,
I suggested a number of ways in which PAFSO could act to stem the steady erosion of the professional foreign service. One of these was to work closely with the Canadian Foreign Service Institute (CFSI) to define competencies for all areas of our work and build appropriate training around them. Not only would this reinforce our professionalism, it would also make clear the inappropriateness of deploying people without adequate experience or training into positions that would normally be reserved for career foreign service officers.
At the time, the CFSI had been working to develop an “International Affairs Curriculum” that had as its objective “a comprehensive program providing continuous learning opportunities to officers dealing specifically with the international affairs area.” The CFSI plan acknowledged that foreign service officers are recruited against a specific statement of qualifications (relevant education, positive personality traits, ability to adapt, ability to learn foreign languages) and then acquire practical experience through work at headquarters and in the field. The goal of training, consequently, is to focus and reinforce each officer’s skills.
That training should start at the very beginning of one’s career — no one arrives with a complete skill set — and continue to the end. Accordingly, the CFSI organized the training around the skills needed at each stage of a typical career. This work coincided with the restructuring of the FS group to a four-level system. By definition, each level would have different and advancing requirements, as do the ascending levels of the EX group. The Human Resources Branch, working in parallel, was engaged in defining the behavioural and technical competencies required by foreign service officers at each level.
The CFSI curriculum was focussed on the knowledge and skills pertinent to the professional management of international relations, and to the management of our missions abroad. Training in areas common to employees and managers all across the government,
… our responsibilities as p providing advice to the gov companies, or assisting ini require us to have high sta «22 Other professional grou; economists and accountan all have to undertake regu!
for example — financial or HR management at headquarters — is provided by the Canada School.
The CFSI plan, however, acknowledged that there are DFAIT employees who are not rotational foreign service officers who may also need training in some areas of international affairs management, as there are employees of other government departments with the same need. The goal of the [AC was to offer a common international affairs program to all officers involved in the delivery of the government’s foreign policy and international trade agenda, geared to their level of responsibility.
So for both political-economic and commercial-economic stream officers, a series of seven “principal competencies” were defined, and under each competency a number of sub-competencies. For instance, under the competency “Promoting Canadian interests” there were two sub-competencies, ‘Representational skills” and “Advocacy skills.’ The intention was to build appropriate training modules for each of these, with ascending levels of complexity and sophistication as officers progressed through their careers.
The IAC was also linked to career development. For each level of the FS
structure, there would be both mandatory public servanis, »vernment and to ndividual Canadians, landards of competency ips such as doctors and ints and military officers ular refresher training.
and elective training. An officer would need to complete a certain number of credits, all the mandatory ones and some elective ones, before being able to apply for promotion to the next level. This is crucial to establishing the foreign service as a professional group.
Finally, the training would be more rigorous. No more CFSI certificates saying you participated in the three-day such-and-such course when you missed half of it and spent the other half on your BlackBerry. Knowledge uptake would be tested at the end of each course and a mark assigned.
So, what happened to the LAC? Well, it exists, but only as a pale shadow of what was originally intended. A list of courses is offered, but they are not organized by level. There is no roadmap charting the training that an officer needs in order to progress from recruit to desk officer to manager. And there is very little mandatory training.
For example, last year for the political— economic stream, there was Human Rights I and Human Rights IT. But these were not linked to different levels of officers. There was no requirement to have completed Human Rights II before becoming a program manager abroad. For the commercial-economic stream, there was Competitive Intelligence I and Competitive Intelligence II. But again, no stipulation that an officer had to complete both courses successfully before being considered for promotion to the FS-04 level.
This is not to criticize the quality of the courses. To the best of my knowledge, they are well-designed, relevant, and well-delivered. My point is that the international affairs training as it currently stands is merely an a la carte offering of a wide variety of courses, not the backbone of a professional foreign service.
There are a number of reasons why the original vision for the IAC has not been realized. One is that linking the training to FS levels seemed to some people to make it too exclusive and elitist. They wanted all the courses to be available to all employees. Since the department was re-deploying non FS officers into FS positions at that point, it seemed logical to some to simply have an a /a carte menu so that newly minted FS officers could quickly fill in the holes in their resumes, regardless of whether they had the basic skills to be foreign service professionals or any experience in the field.
Another reason, perhaps related to the first, is that an evaluation of the CFS] at about this time laid emphasis on making managers responsible for meeting the training needs of their employees. This makes sense in principle, but managers don’t always have a good understanding of the needs of their employees, nor are they aware of the progressive approach proposed in the IAC. To many managers, an a la carte curriculum that combines simple information sessions with some actual skills training looks just fine. In any event, many managers did not endorse the increased training time called for by the IAC, probably fearing that their employees would be away from their desks too often.
Comparison with other professions is illuminating. The professional group that is most similar to foreign service officers is lawyers. In fact, many foreign service officers are themselves lawyers, or at least have had some legal training. However, unlike foreign service officers, lawyers are required constantly to refresh their training. If they do not, they can face serious consequences in defending themselves against a claim of negligence by a client.
Here is what the Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body of lawyers in Ontario, says about training. “Being a competent lawyer involves a career-long commitment to education and professional development — from self-study approaches … to attending and participating in Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Programs.”
The Law Society’s Statement of Minimum Expectations says this: “The Law Society’s professional development expectation is articulated as a minimum: a basic number of hours of self-study and CLE that all lawyers should undertake … A reasonable minimum expectation for self-study hours is 50 hours per year. A reasonable minimum expectation for participation in CLE activities is 12 hours per year.”
Some readers will argue that we are not all lawyers and should not be held to this standard. But surely our responsibilities as public servants, providing advice to the government and to companies, or assisting individual Canadians, require us to have high standards of competency. In any event, other professional groups such as doctors and economists and accountants and military officers all have to undertake regular refresher training. If they don’t, or don’t pass the tests, they lose their professional accreditation. Why should we be different?
An additional advantage to a solid curriculum, one that provides certification at each step, is that it would enable our colleagues who choose to leave the foreign service to prove their capabilities to prospective employers. Instead of a resume that simply says “I spent x years with DFAIT,” they would have independent confirmation of their accreditation as mid or senior level foreign service officers. Younger employees are more mobile than older ones, and there is important work to be done in the international sphere in other government departments, in the provinces, in NGOs and in large corporations and banks. It’s clearly in our interest to facilitate smooth transfers of trained and experienced employees to other areas of Canadian society.
I encourage PAFSO members, working through their executive, to make an improved International Affairs Curriculum an urgent objective. This is not a lot to ask of the department; the basic elements are already in place or can be created within a year or two. But it is essential to maintaining a professional foreign service that can promote and defend Canadian interests abroad with skill and experience.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 24, No. 3 (2009) — Summer/Fall 2009 // Été/Automne 2009, pp. 28–29. Read the rest of this issue →
