| DATE: | July 29, 2004 |
| TO: | Ellen Terpstra Administrator, FAS |
| FROM: | Bill Westman Chairperson 2004 Qualifications Review and Evaluation Panel |
I recently served as Chairperson of the Qualifications Review and Evaluation Panel (QREP) – the committee that develops recommendations on which civil service candidates are eligible to continue to phase two of the Foreign Service lateral entry exam. After the panel's work, I convened a meeting of the panel members to review and discuss ways to improve the recommendation system. As a result of that meeting, we offer the following solutions to correct what we believe are deficiencies in the system or areas that can be improved.
1. Lists of Qualified and Unqualified Candidates: The panel rank orders all applicants and draws a line at a natural break point to determine which applicants should be recommended for the next phase of the lateral entry exam. Since the scoring system to rank the applicants can be arbitrary or inconsistently applied between panel members, we may inadvertently exclude qualified applicants or include unqualified applicants in the "qualified" list.
Solution: Revise the pr ocess to determine first the list of unqualified applicants; this will be labeled the "C list." The panel would then rank order the remaining applicants and group them into two classifications: best qualified (A list) and qualified (B list). Depending on the number of lateral entrants needed, management could invite candidates from the A and/or B list to participate in phase two of the lateral entry exam. To encourage applicants on the C list to gain additional experience and/or training and reapply, there should also be a feedback mechanism that explains why they were deemed unqualified. Counseling should also be provided to help them obtain the needed experience and/or training.
| _____Accept | _____Reject | _____Let's discuss |
2. Supervision/Management KSA: The process gives undue weight to supervisory experience – an unreasonable expectation because successful candidates convert at the GS12/FO4 level. In addition, the criteria used in the evaluation and ranking process favor applicants with experience in more than one program area without communicating this expectation to the applicant or providing a reasonable amount of time to gain the experience. While broad program experience is desirable, we must ensure that applicants are aware that broader experience in FAS/W is a hurdle to surpass before applying for the lateral entry exam.
Solution: The KSA for the ability to manage and supervise people and programs refers to the ability to coordinate and oversee work performed by others. This KSA should be revised so that emphasis is placed on the ability to manage programs because applicants at the GS 11/12/13 level cannot be expected to have significant supervisory experien The lateral entry announcement should also be modified to indicate that, in addition to 12 months of experience with FAS, applicants are encouraged to have experience in more than one program area. FAS could consider creating a Foreign Service track for new hires that would enable them to rotate through at least two program areas in their first two years of employment with the Agency.
| _____Accept | _____Reject | _____Let's discuss |
3. Add Leadership and Initiative KSAs; Drop the Communications KSA: The current process measures an applicant's knowledge in functional areas, such as economic principles, agricultural/marketing programs, and trade policy. In addition, it gauges competencies in management, supervision, communication, and the ability to interact with others. While this is helpful, there are several important areas that are not reviewed by the panel including leadership and initiative – two areas by which Foreign Service Officers are evaluated and ranked during the annual performance evaluations.
Solution: While judging leadership and initiative would require additional KSAs, the required KSAs for oral and written communication could be dropped. Oral communication skills are sufficiently tested in phase two of the process and written communication skills can be judged in the QREP on the basis of responses to the other KSAs and the writing sample. Consideration should also be given to measuring the competencies that are required for the Senior Executive Service such as leading people, leading chan ge, results-orientation, business acumen, and negotiating skills.
| _____Accept | _____Reject | _____Let's discuss |
4. Lack of Consistency in the Ranking Process: The evaluation process is lengthy and, to a large extent, subjective. The panel needs additional tools to facilitate the ranking and evaluation of the applications.
Solution: HRD could develop a matrix-based form for use by the panel members. The applicant and competency would be on one axis and the level of achievement on the other axis. Since all applicants and ratings would be on one page, this tool could improve consistency in scoring and facilitate rank ordering. It could also provide a feedback mechanism for those applicants deemed unqualified.
| _____Accept | _____Reject | _____Let's discuss |
5. Foreign Language Skills KSA—Bring Back the LAT or Drop It: The panel is instructed to use foreign language skills as a tiebreaker when creating the rank order list of applicants. However, there is no objective means to determine the applicant's language aptitude.
Solution: If testing is not possible, language should not be considered in the evaluation process. If we have sufficient funds, we could return to using the Language Apptitude Test (LAT) module to obtain test scores prior to the panel's deliberations.
| _____Accept | _____Reject | _____Let's discuss |
cc: Lyle Sebranek, Chuck Alexander, Sheila Bruce, Debra Donnelly, Laura Scandurra, Mike Conlon
