Showing posts with label Training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Training. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Insider Quote: I now completely despise these words...


Wall of DeliverablesImage by Yandle via Flickr





"I'm spending all week this week in a training. This is also my last week on my current rotation, which means I have some projects to finish. This makes being unavailable 7 hours a day very inconvenient. Due to said training, I now completely despise the following words: "synergies", "deliverables", "results-oriented" and "tranche". We're only 2.5 days in. I'm sure there will be more."







Carrie in Are You a Whiiiiiiiiiiiner??

from FS Blog: Worldwide Available
My Opinions Are Mine and Mine Alone





















Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Insider Quote: Crash! Boom! Bang!

Crash! Boom! Bang! album coverImage via Wikipedia

"The U.S. Government requires employees going to certain "high threat" areas to take a course that we affectionately call "Crash/Bang." So far this week has been the coolest week of my career. I got to "crash" cars, "bang" guns, drive an armored suburban, drive an up-armored hummer, see things blow up, skid cars around, and generally do all kinds of awesome stuff. I cannot believe I get paid to do this!"

By HollyCrash/Bangfrom FS Blog: Holly in the Foreign Service

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Hard Skills Training Center at Old Smelting Plant Site?

The emblem of Recovery.gov, the official site ...Image via Wikipedia

Our blog friend TSB over at The Skeptical Bureaucrat recently had an interesting post on the Contaminated Industrial Site Proposed for Diplomatic Security Training Center.

A local official was quoted saying "Given that Eastalco was there smelting aluminum and there was enough of a buffer," the 150-acre training center in the middle of a 2,000-acre site shouldn't be a problem.”

TSB’s translation: “By which he apparently meant that the training center's presence shouldn't bother local residents because the center will be right smack in the middle of the hazardous waste left behind by decades of aluminum smelting, and not close to them. Whether that should be a problem for the hundreds of DSS employees who would work and train at the center, Delegate Weldon didn't say.”

The site can be cleaned up for a mere cost of roughly $200 million -- “sufficiently to use it as a landfill.” Politicians are getting into the act, lobbying for the center to be built in their own backyards. Read TSB’s whole post here. Also read this on Eastalco’s plan on marketing the site for new uses.

The State Department is overseeing $600 million of investment for seven projects and a funds transfer to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The training center at issue here is the Hard Skills Training Center, one of its seven projects. The plan calls for its location within 150 miles of Washington, D.C., The Eastalco site is located about 45 miles from D.C.

Here is State Department’s summary for the training center:

Construct a training facility capable of supporting hard skills security-related training for the Department and the wider foreign affairs community. The existing security training infrastructure is not sufficient to meet current and projected training needs. Recovery Act funds along with regular Worldwide Security and Protection (WSP) appropriated funds will enable the Department to construct a hard skills training campus that meets the increased demand for security training and makes the delivery of security training more efficient than the current arrangement of 15 separate locations throughout the United States. Specifically, the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat course, already mandated for federal employees assigned to only five specific posts, will be expanded to include all critical and high threat posts worldwide. This project will enable the Department to provide vital security training to law enforcement and security staff and all foreign affairs employees; especially those assigned to critical and high threat posts.

This hard skills training facility will use both ARRA stimulus funds and WSP funding. Currently, the Department has $105.5 million programmed to support this project ($70 M ARRA, $17.55M FY 2009 WSP, and another $18M in WSP) in FY2009. Subsequent phases of the project will be funded through WSP. The FY 2010 budget request seeks an additional $12.5M to bring annual WSP funding for this project to $30 million/year. As requested in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Div. J, P.L. 110-161), the Department produced a report in May 2008 outlining the Department’s increased need for security training and provided the initial project concepts for a training facility as part of a consolidated security training complex. The report called for the development of a master plan starting with an Architectural & Engineering (A&E) study to help frame the project scope, cost and timelines. Those initial project studies will be completed with ARRA and WSP funds.

In addition, ARRA and FY 2009 WSP funds will be used to complete Phase 1 of the training facility. The consideration and funding of any possible future phases will be subject to annual funding availability and prioritization in the annual budget process. The project concept is to deliver functioning training facilities at the completion of each phase of the project and not have any partially completed training venues.

The State Department is also using ARRA funds for a Data Center – “The Data Center program ($120 million) will build an enterprise data center in the western United States and consolidate all domestic servers into four enterprise data centers.”

I wonder if anyone is interested in pitching for that...

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

A Fall Re-Run: Language Shortfalls at the State Dept

Foreign Language PosterImage by SplaTT via Flickr

The GAO has just released its latest report on the foreign language shortfalls at the State Department. Since 2002, six reports have been issued altogether on this topic alone. This is beginning to look like a TV series with a return engagement every fall-winter season.

The full report has not been posted yet but here is a summary:

Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. diplomats to advance U.S. interests overseas. GAO has issued several reports highlighting the Department of State's (State) persistent foreign language shortages. In 2006, GAO recommended that State evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its staff. State responded by providing examples of activities it believed addressed our recommendation. In this report, which updates the 2006 report, GAO (1) examined the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any shortfall, (2) assessed State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements and described the challenges it faces in doing so, and (3) assessed the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to determine and meet these requirements. GAO analyzed data on State's overseas language-designated positions; reviewed strategic planning and budgetary documents; interviewed State officials; and conducted fieldwork in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey.

As of October 31, 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service officers in overseas language-designated positions (LDP) did not meet both the foreign languages speaking and reading proficiency requirements for their positions. State continues to face foreign language shortfalls in regions of strategic interest--such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, where about 40 percent of officers in LDPs did not meet requirements. Despite efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency in critical languages, shortfalls in supercritical languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, remain at 39 percent.

State trains staff in about 70 languages in Washington and overseas, and has reported a training success rate of 86 percent. Moreover, State offers bonus points for language-proficient applicants who have passed the Foreign Service exam and has hired 445 officers under this program since 2004. However, various challenges limit the effectiveness of these efforts. According to State, a primary challenge is overall staffing shortages, which limit the number of staff available for language training, as well as the recent increase in LDPs. State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements have yielded some results but have not closed persistent gaps and reflect, in part, a lack of a comprehensive, strategic approach.State officials have said that the department's plan for meeting its foreign language requirements is spread throughout a number of documents that address these needs; however these documents are not linked to each other and do not contain measurable goals, objectives, or milestones for reducing the foreign language gaps. blur Because these gaps have persisted over several years despite staffing increases, we believe that a more comprehensive, strategic approach would help State to more effectively guide its efforts and assess its progress in meeting its foreign language requirements.

The GAO report makes two recommendations:

Recommendation: To address State's persistent foreign language proficiency shortfalls in the U.S. Foreign Service, the Secretary of State should develop a comprehensive strategic plan consistent with GAO and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) workforce planning guidance that links all of State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements. Such a plan should include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (1) clearly defined and measurable performance goals and objectives of the department's language proficiency program that reflect the priorities and strategic interests of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy (2) a transparent, comprehensive process for identifying foreign language requirements, based on objective criteria, that goes beyond the current annual process, to determine which positions should be language designated and the proficiency level needed to enable officers to effectively perform their duties; and (3) a more effective mechanism that allows State to gather feedback from FSOs on the relevance of the foreign language skills that they acquired at FSI to their jobs, and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of State's recruitment of critical needs foreign language speakers, and language incentive payments, as well as future efforts toward closing the department's language proficiency gaps.

Recommendation: To address State's persistent foreign language proficiency shortfalls in the U.S. Foreign Service, and to more accurately measure the extent to which language-designated positions are filled with officers who meet the language requirements of the position, the Secretary of State should revise the department's methodology in its Congressional Budget Justifications and annual reports to Congress on foreign language proficiency. Specifically, the department should measure and report on the percentage of officers in language-designated positions who have tested at or above the level of proficiency required for the position, rather than officers who have been assigned to language training but who have not yet completed this training.

* * *

An FS candidate (declined to be publicly identified for fear of adverse reaction) who has a 5/5 in a superhard language wrote to Diplopundit not too long ago. The candidate made it to the orals but scored a teensy weensy point short of the score needed to pass (we’re talking less than a full point). But here’s the contortion in this entrance process that is out of step with current realities – the candidate’s language skills only came into consideration after the applicant passed the orals (by getting a 0.4 - 0.5 boost on the Register). State HR apparently treats a 2/2 in hard and superhard languages the same way as a 5/5 in the application process (QEP and post-orals). But... but ... the difference between an elementary 2/2 and a native speaker 5/5 is almost like an ocean, yes, the Pacific one. Can you really order a beer and also explain our foreign policy in Afghanistan with a 2/2 in Dari? I think not.

A 5/5 in superhard languages like Chinese, Korean, Arabic and Japanese is rarely achieved through a couple of years of training at FSI and even getting to a 4/4 takes years of constant practice. So -- because the FS entry process is wedded to the 1950’s, we instead hire somebody who has no Chinese, no Korean, no Arabic and no Japanese, spend time (a luxury we don’t have) and money (we don’t have, and thus borrowed) training him/her for a language that he/she may never use beyond 3/3 for the near future. In US Embassy Yemen’s example, a senior official complained that a level 3/3 speaking/reading proficiency in Arabic is not enough for mission officers to participate in debates about U.S. foreign policy in Arabic.

And there my friends is a bullheaded strategy for you.

See my previous posts on this topic:

Related Items:

Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls | GAO-09-955, September 17, 2009

State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps | GAO-07-1154T, August 1, 2007

Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps | GAO-06-894, August 4, 2006

State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages | GAO-04-139, November 19, 2003

Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls: GAO-02-514T, March 12, 2002

Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls | GAO-02-375, January 31, 2002

Thursday, July 2, 2009

The CIA's Plan for Improving Foreign Language Capability

The  -foot (  m  )  diameter granite CIA seal ...Image via Wikipedia


Last May, CIA Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon E. Panetta released a statement on strengthening the agency’s foreign language capabilities saying:


Within five years, we aim to:

  • Double the number of analysts and collectors who are proficient in languages, particularly those that are mission critical;
  • Increase by 50% the number of people with the right language skills serving in language-use positions; and
  • Dramatically transform the way CIA trains our officers in foreign language capability.


To reach these goals, we will increase the number of officers in full-time language training. The number of officers from the National Clandestine Service in full-time training will increase by 50% and the number of analysts from the Directorate of Intelligence in full-time training will triple.


We will find innovative ways to acquire, teach, and maintain these skills. I have asked CIA University, our focal point for educational and training initiatives at CIA, to take the lead in identifying a mix of approaches to meet our objectives.


Among the initiatives that will be explored:

  • Allowing qualified prospective employees to take language training while they await clearance,
  • Offering night school, more external and online training, and more full-time training overseas, and
  • Providing specialized training to officers who need to reach a higher level of proficiency in mission-critical languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Pushto, Urdu, and Persian.



Another major initiative will be to recruit and retain new officers who have critical language skills. We cannot train our way out of this problem. If we are going to succeed in this effort, we have to further diversify our workforce. I have directed our Human Resources office and our Recruitment and Retention Center to provide a long-term plan for hiring a qualified cadre of Americans who have foreign language skills.


“We cannot train our way out of this problem.”
I agree. I'm just wondering if the State Department still think it can ...





Monday, June 1, 2009

Language Shortfalls at the State Department, Revisited

No money, no people, and a philosophy from an outdated era


Source: OIG Report, 2006


Ken Dilanian of USA Today reported last week on the language shortfalls at the State Department: State Dept. has few who speak language of area where Taliban operates.


His report says that according to records and interviews, State employs just 18 Foreign Service officers who can speak the language of the region where the Taliban insurgency rages. “Two of them work in Afghanistan, both in the capital, Kabul, according to the State Department's Bureau of Human Resources. Five are in Peshawar, Pakistan.” It quoted Ronald Neumann, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007 as saying: "It's a grim illustration of two problems. First, there is no money, and second, there are no people."


Apparently, the Defense Department has trained 200 people in Pashto and 300 in Dari, the primary language of the non-Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. On the other hand, the report says that “The State Department's efforts have been more modest. In addition to the 18 Foreign Service officers who are proficient in Pashto, 82 speak Dari, State's bureau of human resources said in an e-mail. It said 20 Dari speakers are in Afghanistan. Foreign Service Institute is also training 13 diplomats in Pashto and 37 in Dari.” A larger 2010 budget will expand those numbers according to FSI Director Ruth Whiteside quoted in the report.


So that makes 7 Pashto-speaking FSOs in the Af/Pak region right now. Where are the remaining 11 FSOs posted? I don’t know. But assignments in hard locations like Afghanistan and Pakistan are usually “unaccompanied” and have one-year durations. Given that we’re seven years into the Afghan war, even if we reduce the number assigned to that region to 5 FSOs in each of the last 6 years, that still amounts to something like a 1 ½ tour for those qualified speakers. I suspect that almost all of those 18-language qualified employees would have done their second tour in the region by now.

Isn’t this the same old story that happened to the Arabic speakers sent to Iraq? At a certain point, you run out of qualified speakers. What do you do? Make people do repeat tours for a second, third, fourth time? Or maybe give others 3.5hours of Arabic training and send them off to battle sheep, the electric grid, water wells, etc. in the provinces of Baghdad. Only this time they’ll do this now in the rural areas of Afghanistan?


The report also says that State has 82 Dari speakers, and 20 are currently in Afghanistan. The Official Spokesman has recently said that State has “identified more than fifty civilians who will be in position by early summer.” And that “represent a 50 % increase to our current civilian staffing outside of Kabul.”


It is not clear if the number he cited are FSOs, CRS component, 3161 employees or a combined composition of all three. But if all the remaining 62 Dari qualified officers would go to Kabul, that’ll be good until next summer when they rotate out. And then …there are 13 Pashto and 37 Dari officers currently on training at FSI, plus whatever number is added from the FY10 budget. Those can then rotate into the region in summer 2010. What happens in summer 2011? How about summer 2012?


You know what’s going to happen – it happened before when we fumbled into Baghdad. There will be a mad scramble at the Hill to find out more about this language deficit. We don’t have enough people to go; it’s not like this is really news. But Congress will be shocked and the CRS or the GAO will be tasked to review the language shortfalls at the State Department, again. The good thing about that is -- the last report the GAO conducted was way back in August 2006, so it’s about time to check on what strides had been made in the last 30 months.


From publicly available materials from 2006: The Government Accountability Office reported that as of October 2005, there were 3,267 positions (43 percent) in the State Department that required some level of foreign language proficiency. These positions span about 69 languages.


At that time, the GAO compared the language proficiency of staff in all language-designated positions with the requirements for the positions. Its analysis showed that 71 percent of all worldwide language-designated positions were filled by individuals who met the position’s proficiency requirements, while 29 percent of the positions were not. Language deficiencies exist world-wide, but were among the greatest in the Middle East, a region of great importance to the war on terror, where 37 percent of all language-designated positions were filled by staff without the language skills required of their positions. The skills gap was even greater at some critical posts; for example, 59 percent in Cairo, Egypt; and 60 percent in Sana’a, Yemen.


After reading this report, I was not sure which is worse – that there is large skills gap or that the training provided is an ineffective response against the real world requirement. The report cited an example from US Mission Sana’a where even a level-3 Arabic speaking and reading proficiency is not enough for senior officers to participate in debates about U.S. foreign policy in Arabic.


Sigh ... we need an embeddable language microchip, people! This is the consequences of underfunding but also of short-term planning. Even if money is appropriated now, and additional people are hired, time is in extremely short supply.


The GAO points out that State’s philosophy is to hire officers with a wide range of skills that it believes are predictors of success in the Foreign Service. It does not hire exclusively for skills that State can train, such as foreign languages. As a result, State’s primary approach to meeting its language requirements is through language training, primarily through classes provided at its training arm, the Foreign Service Institute (FSI). An officer's training can last as short as 3.5 hours (like the Arabic PRT), or from a few months to six months; for harder languages, I think they still go for 12 months or 24 months.


Frankly, this is an old school philosophy that suited the cold-war era of containment where then Soviet power according to George Kennan “does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point.”


Our current universe is everything about risks. The current enemy stretches the globe like a giant octopus, with tentacles in many different hot spots around the world. Do you think our opponents in the "war of ideas" will wait quietly until we’re done and ready to counter them?


If there is ever a time when State’s hiring and recruitment philosophy needs an extreme makeover, that time is now. State does not have the luxury of time for training its officers from scratch whether in functional, regional or language areas. It needs to speed up, and it can't speed up using the same old SOPs from an outdated era.


Retired Army officer, John A. Nagl writing for The Wilson Quarterly on
The Expeditionary Imperative: “The State Department has finally requested the money to hire 1,100 new Foreign Service ­officers—­the biggest increase since ­Vietnam—­but there is no guarantee that it will be approved by Congress, and no understanding that this 15 percent increase must be only a down payment. At a recent conference on building capacity to win the wars of the 21st century, a four-star Army general exploded, “Eleven hundred! I need another 11,000, and I need them now!”


Despite talks about 21st century wars and 21st century diplomacy, one fact remains. In many parts of the bureaucracy, the 20th century is clinging mightily hard to dear life, afraid to budge to a changed world and a new reality. It is time to change that.


Related Items:

  • State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps: GAO-07-1154T, August 1, 2007

  • Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps: GAO-06-894, August 4, 2006

  • State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages: GAO-04-139, November 19, 2003

  • Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls: GAO-02-514T, March 12, 2002

  • Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls: GAO-02-375, January 31, 2002


Monday, April 6, 2009

More on the State Department’s Arabic Training

Arabic alphabet in Kufic script, cropped from page 4 of Fry's Pantographia (1799)
Source: Wikipedia

“State enrollments in Arabic language courses, for example, have nearly quadrupled since 2001, with roughly 450 enrollments in the various types of Arabic courses in Fiscal Year 2006. To date in Fiscal Year 2007, there have already been 306 enrollments of State employees in Arabic language training courses, including full-time FSI courses, the Tunis field training course, online distance learning courses, and early morning language courses.”


That's from Ambassador Heather Hodges’ (currently US Ambassador to Ecuador) statement at the Hearing on Building a Stronger Diplomatic Presence to Meet the Challenges of a Post 9-11 World in August 1, 2007. At that time, she was the Acting Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources for the Department of State.


I wonder what was the Arabic enrollment figure in FY 2008?


In 2008, Ruth A. Whiteside, the Director of the Foreign Service Institute of the Department of State wrote about American Diplomacy and the Foreign Language Challenge in the Fall issue of The Ambassadors Review:


“Arabic enrollments have more than tripled since 2001 while Chinese enrollments have more than doubled. We have expanded and enhanced language and area training to more advanced levels including focused targeted in-language media training and other job-specific modules designed to meet the needs of the 21st century foreign affairs professional.”


Nearly quadrupled in 2007, more than tripled in 2008? Whatever –


What I’d really like to know is if they were both counting the 3.5 hour-Arabic training as part of this “surge” in Arabic enrollment? I mean, this is important -- because eventually, Congress and the American public would ask for some accounting as in -- Where have all the Arabists gone?” So then State could say:

A. These folks are serving in such and such posts overseas

B. These folks were TIC-out
(subjected to “up or out” limitation)

C. These folks were mandatorily retired

OR ...

D. These folks only had 3.5 hours of Arabic training.




Related Posts:



Thursday, April 2, 2009

Take the Ethics Training – In Crossword Puzzles!


Can an ambassador ask his/her staff aide to shop for his/her spouse’s birthday present during duty hours?

Um…hum…nope ---

Your supervisor cannot ask you to shop for his/her spouse’s birthday present during work hours. Official time is to be used for the performance of official duties. You can only use your work hours to perform your job. Shopping for the present would be misuse of your official time.


But that's probably easier said than done if you are at the receiving end of the "request." So supervisors must be cognizant of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705(b) which states:

Use of a subordinate’s time. An employee shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a subordinate to use official time to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties or authorized in accordance with law or regulation.


This comes right from the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), a small agency within the executive branch, established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management, OGE became a separate agency on October 1, 1989 as part of the Office of Government Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988. “The Office of Government Ethics exercises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of Government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do occur. In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, OGE fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public's confidence that the Government's business is conducted with impartiality and integrity.”


Check out the common ethics issues here. OGE has a training page here including the crossword puzzles here. Some of the more common ethical topics from the OGE website are listed below with their corresponding links to the online or downloadable puzzles. Play, have fun, learn the regs!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Misuse of Position Employee Crossword Puzzle (2007)

Everything about your government position — your title and authority, the information you need to do your job, your time and the government property you use to accomplish your work — should be used for the benefit of the American people. You and others you know should not improperly benefit from your government position. This crossword puzzle gives you a chance to test your knowledge of some of the misuse of position rules.

Fillable Version (fill out the crossword puzzle online)
Section 508 compliant version
Download Print Versions: Puzzle (PDF) | Answers (PDF)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Grand Slam Employee Crossword Puzzle (2008)

You play a part in making your agency an ethical workplace. The behavior of every Federal employee shapes the public's perception of its Government. Want to be sure you're doing your part? Know the Standards of Conduct, the conflict of interest laws, and how the ethics program works in your agency and the Federal Government. This puzzle gives you a chance to test your knowledge in these areas.

Fillable Version
Section 508 compliant version
Download Print Versions: Puzzle (PDF) | Answers (PDF)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Things You Should Know About Ethics Employee Crossword Puzzle (2007)

You play a part in making your agency an ethical workplace. To do this, you need to appreciate how the ethics program works in your agency and the Federal Government. This crossword puzzle provides an opportunity to test your understanding of the ground rules on ethics.

Fillable Version
Section 508 compliant version
Download Print Versions: Puzzle (PDF) | Answers (PDF)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Gifts Employee Crossword Puzzle (2007)

People give gifts for a variety of reasons. Sometimes gifts are given in an attempt to influence the way federal employees perform their government duties. You want to avoid gifts — whether from outside sources or between employees — that might affect or appear to affect the way you do your job. This crossword puzzle gives you a chance to test your knowledge of some of the gift rules.

Fillable Version
Section 508 compliant version
Download Print Versions: Puzzle (PDF) | Answers (PDF)


There are more
crossword puzzles here.



Monday, March 9, 2009

Arabic 3.5: Better Than Nothing Part II

Lughati al arabic laisat kama yajib. La taqlaq! Adrusu allughah al arabia mundu shahr. Um… kaifa taqoulu kalimat "3.5 hours" bel arabia?

My Arabic is bad. Don't worry! I've been learning Arabic for 1 Month. Um.... how do you say "3.5 hours" in Arabic?

See? It's not that hard. Anyone can learn Arabic in 3.5 hours (that's 210 minutes, by the way). And if this does not impress the bejesus out of you, just think -- that's exactly 12,600 seconds of training! Here's how you might slip this info into a congressional hearing or media event:

We do not send out people without proper training, period. You can be assured that all our personnel going into the war zones have at least 12,600 seconds of Arabic training.

Of course, if 12,600 seconds are really not enough for you, try the 100 most used Arabic phrases to learn here (came with the video/audio below) and here, also with audio.




Insider Quote: A Case of Better Than Nothing?

"I have signed up for the pre-deployment training available to me – including the 3.5 hours (yes hours) of Arabic language training that is apparently deemed sufficient to lead a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Iraq."


John K. Naland
Foreign Service Officer & AFSA President
Reflections│ Precious Times
Foreign Service Journal, March 2009 (p.76)

Note: FSJ is now in Folio format, so you either read it online or you download an executable file.





Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Insider Quote: They Brag About What?

Junior officers have been quick to pick up on the fact that unlike the military, training is not valued in the Foreign Service, that senior officers brag about never having had training except for foreign languages. In contrast to their elders, younger officers regard well-developed training programs as a mark of a “serious organization,” the only kind of an employer they are interested in working for. They want their organization to stake out its mission clearly, define its expectations, develop its people, encourage change and innovation, and either get the resources required or scale back the mission. They do not think it is reasonable to be told that it is their job to “lift the invisible veil and figure out the real questions and answers that lie behind it.”


Developing Diplomats for 2010: If Not Now, When?

Stephanie Smith Kinney

Senior Seminar Project │ February 2000

American Diplomacy Summer 2000

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Reliance on Soft Power: Reforming Public Diplomacy

Earlier this week, Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley, the Vice Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy gave a testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs’ (Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia) on Reliance on Soft Power: Reforming the Public Diplomacy Bureaucracy.

This is part of what she said in her opening statement: “[The] Commission reviewed the extensive recent literature on U.S. public diplomacy and determined that few if any observers had ever sought to “look under the hood” and study the impact of internal human resources practices and structures on our Nation’s efforts to communicate with foreign publics. We decided to explore this basket of issues, our thinking being that, in the final analysis, people are the key to the success of our Nation’s public diplomacy. Over a one-year period, the Commission met with scores of State Department officials and outside experts on PD human resources issues and we learned a great deal in the process.

In sum […], we found that the State Department:

  • recruits smart people, but not necessarily the right people, for the PD career track,
  • tests candidates on the wrong knowledge sets,
  • trains its officers in the wrong skills, and
  • evaluates those officers mostly on the wrong tasks.

In terms of personnel structures:

  • State has a PD bureaucracy in Washington that hasn’t been critically examined since the 1999 merger and that may or may not be functioning optimally,
  • its overseas public affairs officers are spending the majority of their time administering rather than communicating with foreign publics, and
  • meaningful integration of public diplomacy into State Department decision-making and staffing remains elusive.

In short, Mr. Chairman, we’re not “getting the people part right.”


Big ouch! This is bad -- not the bad, bad kind, but the bad, good kind; that is, it’s good that this is out in the open; though some folks may get bitey reading this.

My former boss would simply ask, “Do we have the right people on the bus?” Unfortunately, more than a few would answer “no,” but would argue the Rumsfieldian view that "you go to war with the staff you have, not the staff you might want or wish to have at a later time." And then you just chug along, over the EER humps and everything else.

"On recruitment, very simply, the Department of State makes no special effort to recruit individuals into the public diplomacy (or “PD”) career track who would bring into the Foreign Service experience or skills specifically relevant to the work of communicating with and influencing foreign publics. No serious presidential or Congressional campaign, or private-sector company, would hire communications personnel who have no background in communications, but to a large degree, that is exactly what the United States Government is doing."

In fairness to the State Department, the agency makes no special effort to recruit folks into the PD track or any other track based on experience or skills relevant to the work in the other four career tracks (political, economics, management, consular). I do think that State prides itself with growing its own people which has its merits. But whereas in the past we have the luxury of time to grow and teach new graduates on how the world works, in this new universe of constant change, we don’t have that luxury. Why spend two years training an Arabic speaker, if you can hire somebody who already speaks Arabic, or Chinese, or Urdu?

"Turning to the Foreign Service examination process, we found that the Foreign Service Officer Test and Oral Assessment do not specifically test for public diplomacy instincts and communication skills. Since we neither recruit for, nor test for, these skills, it is thus possible for candidates to enter the PD career track – and, for that matter, the other four Foreign Service career tracks – without having any documented proficiency in core PD-related skills. This is problematic. The Commission believes we need to modify the exam – particularly the Oral Assessment – to include more substantive PD content."

Actually, not just core PD-related skills but other skills as well. The thing that’s inherently problematic in the process is applicants for entry level jobs in all the career tracks have to select their cone/track during the application stage. I have seen some officers with minimal interpersonal skills ending up as Consular Officers, or folks with no stage presence ending up as communicators in chief. How that happened? Blind spots. What we think we know and how we think we are, or where we are good at, does not always reflect as clearly when we peer into the looking glass of real life. Exacerbating this is the fact that switching cone is as fun as having a root canal.

"In terms of public diplomacy training, though there have clearly been some improvements in recent years, a number of conspicuous, and serious, blind-spots persist. For one, we make virtually no effort to train our PD officers in either the science of persuasive communication or the nuts and bolts of how to craft and run sophisticated message campaigns. The Commission believes we need to rectify this. We would like to see more substantive PD offerings at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute, including a rigorous nine-month course analogous to the highly regarded one currently offered to economic officers."

We have some missions where entry level officers on their first tour are sent out to perform public outreach in print/online media, tv, and radio with close to no training. Well, actually as I’ve heard it told, one boss saw it fit to work with the PD officer to give one batch of officers some training, including apparently “murder boards,” but after that outreach program received an award, the next batch of officers got zero guidance (short term goals are terribly popular in some parts of this universe) but the public outreach nonetheless continued. I can understand why an officer, even a smart one who’s never been on television would lose sleep and sweat bullets over this one. Public diplomacy is not the area where you want to throw your staff members into the water to see who sinks or floats! Good grief! If we don’t send a soldier to war without training them how to shot, we definitely should not send any of our officers to fight the war of ideas without "weapons" training. In a war zone, bullets are fired and spent and you die, in this other war, ideas, even the unkind ones have the tendency to live on and thrive. Seriously, if our officers have to be effective warriors of ideas, we cannot afford to let them simply wing it -- no matter how smart they may be.


"With respect to the State Department’s employee evaluation report (or “EER”) form, the essential problem is that it lacks a section specifically devoted to PD outreach, and thus contains no inherent requirement that State Department employees actually engage in such outreach. Until it does, PD officers overseas will continue to spend the overwhelming majority of their time behind their desks administering, rather than out directly engaging foreign publics. The Commission wants to see outreach built into the EER form and we also want to see at least one substantive PD communication task built into the work requirements of every PD officer in the field."

Drat! Don’t get me started on this one. The EER is supposedly a performance evaluation report but in reality, it is performance negotiation document that flies back and forth between the ratee, the rating officer and the reviewing officer. I’ve seen folks negotiate to remove a damning line; negotiate to insert a favorable line, rating officers fluffing the accomplishments of protégées, and I’ve also seen rating officers who worked hard and long on an accurate evaluation of performance. But it takes all kinds to make the world go round, even this one. Suffice to say that EER time sucks a lot of energy, and endless milliseconds out of human existence. If you read, Chris Argyris’ “Some Causes of Organizational Effectiveness Within the State Department,” from the 1960’s, you’ll be surprised how things have changed, and have not really changed (sorry, can’t provide a link; you’d have to hunt this paper down at the Bunche Library in Main State).

It is true that there is no specific box for PD outreach in the EER form, but the promotion precepts list public outreach as a subset under Communication and Foreign Language Skills. The form is also used by all officers not just PD officers. However, should the PD outreach becomes a primary or secondary requirement for all officers, then I see the need to tweak the form. Alas, I see a need to tweak more than the EER form.

"Finally, a few words about the integration of public diplomacy officers into State Department staffing. The stated goal of the 1999 merger of the USIA into the State Department was to integrate PD considerations, and PD personnel, more fully into the “mainstream” of State Department planning and policymaking. The Commission has found that this integration remains largely elusive, and, concomitantly, that PD officers continue to be significantly under-represented in the ranks of the Department’s senior management. As we put it in the report, “The PD career track is no longer ‘separate,’ but it certainly is not yet ‘equal.’” If the Department is to attract and retain first-rate PD officers, then it needs to demonstrate that these officers will be regarded as capable of holding senior Department positions."

I don’t have the stats for this but my bare understanding was that when USIA was folded into State in 1999, a considerable number of old hands left. If true, I deduce that some mid-level officers in 1999 who would have been in the Senior Foreign Service now are no longer working for State. Public Diplomacy, the first fifth generalist cone also did not come into being until USIA was abolished in October 1, 1999. If I remember correctly, the average time between promotions is 7 years. Even if State hired PD officers in 1999, and I don't know offhand if it did, that leave us with mid-level folks anywhere between the FS01-FS03 ranks. Add to that the mid-level staffing deficits that State has been experiencing and you get to the country of "no longer separate but not yet equal" that the report is talking about.

I actually would really like to revised the report's last line above: If the Department is to attract and retain first-rate PD officers, then it needs to demonstrate that career Foreign Service Public Diplomacy officers not political appointees or Fifth Avenue marketing hacks, will be regarded as capable of holding senior Department positions. And State could start the broom in its Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Bureau (“R”) as a brilliant example.


I’m still hunting for the copy of the full 2008 report but you can read the full text of Ambassador Bagley’s testimony here. Gotta run, have to feed a screaming baby and hamster.


Saturday, May 31, 2008

On Cube Monkeys & Other Animal Lessons for the Foreign Service

I’ve heard of workplaces being referred to as “the zoo,” as in “it’s a zoo out there,” usually from a departing person with relief in his voice and obviously happy to be on his way elsewhere. I was never sure if the phrase was uncomplimentary to the “zoo keepers” unable to “tame” their charges, or to the “animals,” unwilling to follow the direction of their keepers. Other times, even offices are referred to as “bullpens” as in a “bullpen in the visa section” a large open work area consisting of modular cubicles with no separating walls and private offices where most of the staff works (in the urban dictionary, one who does not have an office at work is a “cube monkey”).

Both references are instructive from a management’s perspective. First, it presumes the interaction between two groups of players, the smaller group of zoo keepers or boss monkeys (management) and the larger groups of various animals in the zoo (cube monkeys and the rest of us). Second, the term presents an image of herded animals (the rest of us) within a specific kind of enclosure (herder unseen). Apparently, late comers to ball games in the late 19th century were cordoned off into standing-room areas in foul territory’ and because the fans were herded like cattle, this area became known as the bullpen. Not really a far-fetched metaphor for people working in large organizations who must follow the rules within the chalked lines.

I’m not sure why the term “bullpen” seems preferable in workplace usage than the word “zoo,” unless we also assume some hierarchy of good behavior and order; that is, simply that the bullpen is chaotic but not as chaotic as the zoo. Translation, if you’re the boss you probably would not mind having your office called a bullpen but would be offended if it were known as “the zoo.”

In any case, there are basic management lessons here. And since I’ve been here awhile, I don’t feel too forward when I say I am qualified to render management lessons from a peel of banana up, so to speak. If you’re a boss monkey and you happen to stumble upon this blog, please don’t take offense. Except for one or two instances, I’ve been treated rather well by most of my keepers; I did not turn out so badly and I’ve even learned to appreciate the purpose of a slice of banana and a whole banana (or crummy little fish and a large mackerel, take your pick) equally. The lessons here are written for the boss monkeys who are not quite sure how to handle the diverse animals in this kingdom. I don’t want them to get bitten, you see or to train some poor souls the wrong way, unintentionally.

You probably know these lessons, as might your other keepers and boss monkeys, but sometimes, just shoveling crap makes folks and relations display displaced aggression and strike out at whatever is near. Before anyone takes offense, the word "animal" comes from the Latin word animale and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. So, the biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia, which includes you, me and them, and everything in between that bites (diplomats and ambassadors not excluded). Below are a few lessons on how to manage your menagerie (cube monkeys or otherwise) adapted from Ms. Sutherland’s very instructive book.


“Know your animals”

Just because I would somersault for a slice of mango does not mean that Shamu in the next cubicle would. Trainers may use the same basic principles in training animals but they can’t train all their animals in exactly the same way. As Amy Sutherland writes in What Shamu Taught Me About Love and Marriage, “a cookie-cutter approach would fail because Mother Nature likes her diversity, and so the animal kingdom brims with individuality.” So it is important to get to know your animals – what makes them tick, what are their strengths, their natural talents, and what are they not good at.

You can train a dolphin to jump because it can but what’s the point in teaching an elephant to jump when it can’t? Same goes for your human animals. Just because one of your charges could easily substitute as a talking head on TV with very little training does not mean that everyone can do exactly the same thing. You should know that some cube monkeys subjected to intense media attention without proper acclimation develop tics and insomnia and forever shuns public appearances later in life. The truth is - there’s nothing more important than knowing your two-legged animals. This is the foundation after which your entire relationship is built upon. Without this knowledge, you cannot presume to influence, motivate, train, or teach any of them, much less march them willingly into the middle of a food fight.


“Keep your animals happy”

Sutherland says that the “traditional training technique is to withhold food from an animal, the thinking being that if an animal is famished, it will be more motivated to do as asked. But apparently, progressive trainers do not withhold food from their animals, they don’t withhold toys, play sessions or whatever makes the animal’s life a good one. Instead, they work on making sure their animals are healthy and happy. Why? Because that’s when animals are most able and willing to do the things you want them to do. Heck, just try getting a spider monkey to do acrobatic tricks on an empty stomach – no, can’t do, not when all the brain could think about is that darn hanging banana!

So, if you’d like your cube monkeys to willingly stay after 6 pm to help with last minute Front Office “taskers” and whatnots, don’t make them miserable with 30-minute lunch breaks, especially if they’re lunch is already delayed by two hours in the visa window! And now that I’m thinking about this with my monkey brains, I understand that the “business class perk” was taken away recently due to a few bad eggs. Just so you know - any time you put an animal in a tiny space over 14 hours, they get grouchy and bitey. Do we really want our human animals grouchy, cranky and bitey negotiating across the table with those North Koreans? Just think about it. There are obviously lots of things we can’t do given that even a crummy banana is expensive these days, but perhaps we can start thinking more about what we can do to make our animals happy instead of what we can’t do?



“Rewards work better than punishment”

Human animals like all animals do not want to be forced to do anything whether it’s jumping or peeing, drinking kool-aid or balancing the ball on their noses (try it and they bite). The problem with most keepers is they want to show us who’s boss, so animals must do what they are told or else; which is very 16th century. As Sutherland writes, progressive trainers think of training as communication. They teach rather than tame and the goal is not to break the animal’s spirit (good grief!); the goal is engagement not obedience.

I used to work for somebody who did not believe in rewarding anyone, even with a crummy little fish, but believed firmly in punishment for every infraction, however minor. It was a zoo for sure and everyone could not wait to get out of that zoo. When giving a reward was unavoidable, this monkey boss’ timing was not only wrong, often the citation was also wrong, and a mackerel was given when a crummy fish would have done the trick. But worse yet, the fish often went to a dolphin that did not even do the trick. What signal did that send to the rest of us? That if we are quiet and hang around long enough, that the boss might just toss us fish for being kiss-up spineless creatures of the wild. That unintentional lesson was not lost on anyone and just as in good leadership, bad leadership and management has a multiplier effect.

Sutherland has some good points about rewards – get your timing right, match the reward to the task, reward for doing not trying and give your animals something better than what it already has. I think that perhaps one part of the zoo got this right. Apparently, one recent ambassadorial appointee has, in a role of a lifetime as back-up tippy top boss, has been imploring (i.e. putting a squeeze) others to put their lives on the line and “volunteer” for an expedition to Iraq or Afghanistan, but has herself never served in either country. Our friends in WhirledView have more on this here and here and decried the blatant favoritism based on the numbers. But perhaps we’re looking at this the wrong way – they’ve done the work they were asked to do (I bet they’ve read Sutherland’s treatise on rewards!) Just trying to put the squeeze is not career enhancing, but actually doing the squeeze is worth something – the harder the squeeze, the bigger the fish. Here, enjoy a fat mackerel on your way to Ecuador!


“Teach your animals what you want them to do”

Sutherland tells the story of Kaleb, the camel who likes to throw tantrums. When he’s in a fit, there would be lots of yelling and leash jerking and eventually the trainers calm the camel down. But as Sutherland points out, keeping the camel from thrashing was not the same as teaching him what the trainers wanted which was “to walk nicely on the lead.” When you scold your cube monkey for screaming at the applicants in the visa window, you’re discouraging unacceptable behavior for sure, but it does not teach your cube monkey how to deal professionally with the people at the window. So, you need to teach them what you want them to do and not leave it to chance that they could “intuit” what you want them to do. Sure, they are smart, but don’t expect their smart brains to read your smart cells; nature has yet to equip us with that function. Say clearly what you want done, then toss the fish when appropriate not six months later (and for goodness sake, stop hovering around unless you want to do the job for them).


Avoid trial by fire; it’s a lazy way to teach

“Trainers basically construct a behavior from the bottom up, starting by teaching an action that will be the foundation and then building from there,” Sutherland writes. “Nothing makes the blood pressure spike like working at warp speed and trying to impress a new boss when you don’t even know where the delete key is in your computer.” Have we ever seen a Sea World trainer asked a whale to jump simply by saying “Just do it because I say so?” Most certainly not. Unfortunately, we have no inoculation for this type of behavior from boss monkeys, past or present. We have some who fervently believed that the sink-or-swim approach is not only instructive but a necessary lesson before anyone can become an effective interlocutor in the wild. If you are a boss monkey who subscribe to this principle, you must understand that without the basic foundation, most of us simply flounder. And in our relief for not drowning as we struggle in the deep end of the sea, we learn to appreciate survival but missed out on the larger lesson altogether. I am happy to be alive, the heck with the rest of it!

Besides being a lazy way to teach, Sutherland cautions the effect of the trial by fire and the sink-or-swim approach because they “take an energetic, eager employee and in short order, turn them into an exhausted, resentful underling.” If we’re lucky, the cube monkey would have enough sense and say, “I’ll never be like this when I become boss monkey” or if we’re not so lucky, we’ll have a cube monkey who’ll think “Why should I do this differently, this was how I was treated when I came into the zoo?” And so, on and on, it goes ...

In the animal kingdom, the bottom line is really simple - there are no deadbeat whales, only deadbeat trainers. If your cube monkeys and other animals are not doing things right – you might try asking yourself - “What am I doing wrong?”

This works the other way around too; so next time it will be for the cube monkeys – “how to shamu your boss without getting wet” or something like that….