bout de papier, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2005) — Summer/Fall 2005 // Été/Automne 2005, pp. 4–5
Dear colleagues:
Our profession is facing a bizarre challenge. Like the Cheshire cat, the rotational foreign service is slowly disappearing before our eyes. More and more positions abroad-officer, program manager and even head of mission—are being opened to non-rotational, non foreign service people. Consider the evidence:
• in 2002, six trade positions around the world were offered to employees of Team Canada Inc departments and agencies;
• starting in 2003, all openings in the US, both trade and PERPA, were offered to employees of Enhanced Representation Initiative partner departments and agencies;
• starting in 2005, HOM appointments are open to applicants from across the government;
• and it is still departmental policy to permit lateral entry into FS ranks as soon as possible.
Why is this happening? Is it because there aren’t enough experienced foreign service officers to fill the jobs? In fact, it is getting harder to find people to go on postings some years, but there are still plenty of candidates to fill the available jobs. Is it because we’re perceived as incompetent? Well, there have been many instances of sub-standard performance at both HOM level and below, but an ever-increasing emphasis on training and leadership over the past decade is addressing that, and the vast majority of foreign service officers perform at a very high level. Look at the list of nominees each year for the PAESO awards.
Or is the pressure coming from somewhere else, from outside the Department? We know that other government departments have become deeply interested in the international facets of their work and are not always comfortable letting us represent them in discussions with their foreign counterparts. We know, too, that Ministers have recognized the need for a stronger sense within the federal bureaucracy of the impact that globalization is having on virtually every area of the government’s work.
This is certainly one of the key factors creating the pressure to open up foreign service jobs to others. Many mid-level and senior level officers in other departments have had experience abroad, for example as members of a team negotiating an agreement with a foreign government, or participating in a conference or accompanying a ministerial mission. They probably found this experience challenging and interesting and they had an opportunity to observe our colleagues at posts doing their regular jobs. Employees of other government departments tend to see themselves as specialists and us, by contrast, as generalists. They assume, therefore, that-given the opportunity- they could do our jobs as well as we do, or better even, since they can bring some specialized expertise.
There’s a serious fallacy in this, however. We are certainly generalists in terms of Ottawa issues, because we work on behalf of all government departments when we’re abroad and must switch from trade policy work to corporate liaison to advocacy to consular work rapidly and efficiently. But we ourselves are specialists too; our unique expertise is in delivering Canadian government programs abroad.
We have been recruited and trained (both in the classroom and in the field) to work abroad. We know how to prepare for an assignment abroad, how to get established in the new environment, and how to make contacts and build a support network quickly. We speak the local language, and may even know and admire the local culture if we’ve had an earlier assignment in the same region.
We know how the embassy or consulate functions and how it relates to headquarters. We know security and consular and protocol rules and techniques, and a smattering of international law. Perhaps most important, we-and our spouses, partners and dependents-have developed the ability to deal with the psychological effects of long-term absence from family and friends, of material deprivation and of danger.
In short, we are capable of delivering on Canadian government objectives, whatever they may be at a given moment, because we know how to work in the local milieu. (The magnificent performance of our colleagues in responding to the tsunami crisis is an excellent example.) This is a specialization, and it’s one that our colleagues from other government departments do not have. They can acquire it, of course, but only by spending years abroad
What I’m talking about here, of course, is rotationality. Rotationality is many things. First, it is a condition of employment for all those recruited to fill positions which will require them from time to time to go abroad on posting. We are required to reconfirm each year that we remain rotational so our employer can gauge the pool it has to draw from for assignments.
Rotationality is also an entitlement; employees who are in the rotational category are entitled to the benefits of the Foreign Service Directives, including those which are enjoyed while in Canada, such as maintenance foreign language training and payment of the cost of dependents’ schooling at the Lycée Claudel.
Rotationality is also a classification factor. Rotational employees do not “own” their job positions as most other government employees do. They are appointed to a level rather than a specific position and can be moved to another position at the same level or even a level above or below their own, either abroad or at headquarters, upon the simple agreement of the employee, the manager and human resources.
Finally, rotationality signifies a lifestyle choice. Since the imperative to pull up stakes and move every three or four years has enormous implications for spouses, partners and children, for parents and siblings, and for friends and community, rotational employees organize their lives and their resources to maximize their flexibility. Many do not own homes, for instance, to avoid the complications of frequent selling or renting; many spouses do not have careers of their own because of the regular moves; children frequently need special tutoring to compensate for the interruptions in their schooling.
But, beyond all of that, rotationality is also a skill. We were recruited by boards that perceived that we had the necessary ingredients to become rotational foreign service employees. The Department has deployed us over the years with a view to refining and deepening that skill. The Canadian Foreign Service Institute was created in 1992 to identify the core competencies of foreign service work and to develop continuing education programs for every level of responsibility from HOM to program manager abroad, to middle level manager, to new director at headquarters. (All of this is similar to what other professions do as well: lawyers, doctors, economists, engineers, architects, etc.)
Employees of other government departments may well possess some of the elements of rotationality, but they have not been selected or trained against a rotationality criterion, and they have not been tested in the crucible of a foreign assignment.
As others challenge us for our role as Canada’s official representatives abroad, the strongest thing we have going for us is our rotationality. I’ve interviewed many of those who apply to work in the US. They all express a hearttelt desire to represent Canada abroad. Then we talk about the practicalities. Is there a job guaranteed for my spouse in the mission?, they ask. No. Will my kids go to a private school? Not necessarily. Can we pick where we want to live? Well, some missions have assigned staff quarters; in the others, you have to try to find something suitable within the floor space and rental cost criteria set by the mission housing committee. And you’ll have a week to do it.
Many ask, Will I continue to report to my home department? No, you’ll report through our system. They say, I don’t want to do any hospitality stuff, or Team Canada, or consular work. Well, I tell them, you have to do whatever your head of mission asks you to do. Then, there’s the clincher:
Could I just go for two years instead of four? Answer: No.
After this kind of conversation and a careful perusal of the Foreign Service Directives, about half of the non foreign service candidates decide to forego the opportunity. Many say, “I had no idea you people had to make so many sacrifices.” Some conclude that working abroad would be financially disadvantageous. One told me his family considered living in the United States was too dangerous (terrorist attacks, anthrax, road rage, guns in schools, drugs, etc.).
So having our positions thrown open to outsiders will likely have a limited impact in the long run. And to be fair, there are examples of superb appointments from outside the foreign service; our new ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, for instance. The danger, though, is that in the short run many important positions abroad will be filled by amateurs who will do a minimally acceptable job (with our help!) and then return to their cozy Ottawa positions. Since we save them from disaster, the media and the public never see what a bad idea this is. Imagine the outcry if someone were put in charge of a warship or an air traffic control tower because the people in charge decided there should be more cross-fertilization in the public service. But apparently anyone can be a diplomat.
We should not be under any illusions about this threat. There is a firm intention in certain quarters to curtail the rotational foreign service. A senior ADM refers to it openly as “a mediaeval guild that should have been abolished decades ago.”
Is there anything we can do to stem this erosion of the foreign service? Our position is tenuous because we have not maintained rigorous standards of professional skill over the years. We only began to define our competencies and build training around them in the 1990s. The FS group calls itself a “professional association” but it has done nothing to establish certification standards, discipline guidelines and continuing education requirements as other professions have. And we have done little to explain to Canadians what we contribute. In all of these areas, we have left it to the employer department to do the job for us, and now that employer has decided that we can be replaced.
Still, something of great value is being lost. Canada needs a dedicated corps of specialists in international relations who can identify the opportunities-and the threats—for Canadian interests in the wider world and devise effective responses. This should not be entrusted to dilettantes. If we really believe this is our role, we had better start saying so, loudly and clearly.
PAFSO must take the lead here. There are a number of things PAFSO can do to strengthen the position of the rotational foreign service:
First, take the necessary steps to convert the membership into a true professional association. This will require working with selected universities to establish courses leading to a Masters level degree in international relations management. All holders of that degree, whether they are recruited into the foreign service or opt to work in international business, academia, nongovernmental organizations or other government departments, would be recognized as specialists in the same area. (This would be roughly parallel to the LLB for aspiring lawyers. Recruitment into the foreign service and the attendant training would be the equivalent of completing the Bar Admission Course in order to practice law.)
Second, apply to Treasury Board for the right to negotiate with the employer as part of the Professional Institute of the Public Service. This will require demonstrating that there are professionals outside the public service using the same core skills in international relations management as PAFSO members. Salaries paid for similar work outside the government will then provide a benchmark for salaries inside.
Third, establish a permanent mechanism to work with the Canadian Foreign Service Institute in defining competencies for all areas of foreign service work, and building appropriate training around them. Successful completion of a training program should then be certified by PAFSO. Officers who do not maintain the required level of competence would risk losing their membership status (as in other professions).
Fourth, establish another permanent mechanism to work with human resources in handling discipline issues and the counselling out of under-performing members.
Fifth, allocate a portion of PAFSO revenues to ongoing communications and outreach activities to educate Canadians on the role of the foreign service.
If measures such as these are not taken, and soon, rotational foreign service officers risk being marginalized, becoming a sort of B Team to be drawn on to staff positions that no one else wants. This would be deeply frustrating for members of the foreign service, but more importantly it would undermine-perhaps for a generation-the ability of Canadians to deal effectively with the world beyond our borders.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2005) — Summer/Fall 2005 // Été/Automne 2005, pp. 4–5. Read the rest of this issue →
