1. This year's Foreign Service Selection Boards repeatedly emphasized that employees serving in high- differential posts, like employees serving elsewhere, must demonstrate outstanding performance, documented in their evaluations, in order to earn promotion. At the same time, employees at all posts must take ownership of the evaluation process in order to present as strong a file as possible. These recommendations dominated the comments coming out of this past summer's tenure and promotion boards for Foreign Service Generalists and Specialists at all levels.
2. The boards commended employees for their courage and commitment in serving in danger posts and noted that employees with no record of service in hardship posts were less competitive. Yet the boards made clear that employees in the high-differential posts must nonetheless focus on superior performance, well-presented in a timely EER, since this is the primary means by which they will be compared with employees at other posts. Further, employees at all posts need to actively engage their supervisors in order to ensure that work requirements are drafted and employee counseling sessions scheduled.
3. The selection boards repeatedly emphasized the need for clear examples of performance, demonstrating core competencies, and explaining why a particular tasking is important. If an employee has performed broader service to the mission beyond the assigned duties, for example serving on the Housing Board or conducting public outreach, the rater should provide adequate documentation. If an employee takes on a TDY assignment, the duties performed should be highlighted rather than simply the location of the TDY and the circumstances prompting it. When an employee has supervisory responsibilities, the EER should indicate the number of employees supervised and the volume of resources managed. Besides the need for geographic diversity, as employees rise past the mid-levels, they should also consider the need to demonstrate breadth of experience, showing not just skill in their cone but also the ability to lead teams and to manage significant resources, to be adept in both policy and management, regardless of cone.
4. Since promotion is closely tied to the ability to perform at a higher level, it is highly relevant to the selection board when an employee is serving in a stretch assignment. Yet, too often, the fact that an employee is filling a higher grade position goes unmentioned in the EER. Supervisors and employees should ensure that stretch status is mentioned in the Special Circumstances portion of the position description or in the text of the evaluation. Likewise, if an employee takes on higher level duties on an acting basis, this should be clearly noted, together with some description of the work performed.
5. Several panels repeated the reminder that the non-public member on each board is an "outsider" to the ways and jargon of the service, and that even many Foreign Service members are non-specialists without significant knowledge of the day-to-day work of other employees. Thus employees should avoid excessive use of acronyms in their EERs, and should take care to ensure that their work is described in layman's terms.
6. Selection boards have historically commented that Areas for Improvement are too often insubstantial, such as recommending an employee for training or more public outreach. Lack of a credible Area for Improvement can cast doubt on the rest of the EER. Given that the boards are now required to low-rank the bottom two percent of candidates rather than the lowest five percent, supervisors are encouraged to be honest in their evaluations as a whole, including in the Areas for Improvement. A thoughtful Area of Improvement can help all employees by providing constructive direction and feedback.
7. Awards are useful when they document that an employee has excelled among peers at the same level, or when an employee has successfully carried out a special project outside the work requirements. Selection boards look favorably on a strong award justification highlighting performance and potential.
8. Nearly all the boards recommended that employees devote close personal attention to their own performance file, not simply to check for typos and inadmissible statements, but also to ensure that the file is complete and up-to-date. Before submitting input to the Rater and Reviewer and composing the employee statement, each employee should look through all EERs since the last promotion and be cognizant of the need to avoid repetition, to address previous areas for improvement, and to show consistent professional development. Further, performance management is a year-long activity rather than a rushed last-minute process. Throughout the review cycle, employees may need to remind supervisors to hold counseling sessions, devoted to discussion of the employee's performance as a whole, including shortcomings, not simply tasks for the day or ongoing projects.
9. As always, boards commented on their strong preference for employees' not filling up the entire page with a block of text uninterrupted by white space. Multiple shorter paragraphs are easier for the boards to read.
10. Several boards mentioned that files are reviewed, tracked, and corrected more efficiently through ePerformance than with the previous systems. E-Performance also permitted timely receipt of files that otherwise would have arrived after the boards started their work.
11. We encourage all employees to visit the ePerformance Homepage at http://intranet.hr.state.sbu/Workforce/PerformanceManagement/Pages/ePerformance.aspx for more information on training tools and resources available to them (e.g. ePerformance Reference Guide, Job Aids, OnDemand Online Training, Frequently Asked Questions, and the distance learning course (PA497) that is in place for all FS employees.