bout de papier, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1984) — June 1984 // Juin 1984, p. 15
It is somewhat perturbing to read of the manner in which concerns of the Foreign Service Group, in relation to Commerce Officers, have been expressed in your article.
Concerns that career prospects for FSO’s might be affected by an “invasion” of CO’s are understandable but the number of CO’s who have opted to try to convert to FSO’s is small. The CO’s have been merged into a department predominantly staffed by rotational officers. Rotationality extends beyond periodic changes of location, involves different procedures for staffing for specific positions, distinctly different promotion procedures, etc. As a minority group governed by regulations, little understood by many FSO’s the CO’s feel much more threatened especially when a FSO is put into a position vacated by a CO, when CO’s are diminished in title and position and when there would appear to be possibilities of downward reclassification of CO’s.
Both the FSO and CO groups comprise professionals with a wide divergence of training, expertise and experience and each group has special contributions to make in the wide-ranging commercial, economic and political relations with the world outside Canada. Dialogue between the FSO and CO groups should be encouraged and joint activities, such as the much appreciated invitations extended by PAFSO for CO’s to attend the breakfast seminars, could be expanded. Such a positive approach could avoid misapprehensions and misunderstandings which might degenerate into petty differences to the detriment of both groups.
John A. Quarrington
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1984) — June 1984 // Juin 1984, p. 15. Read the rest of this issue →
