Grounding the Foreign Service

Members of the foreign service were long thought to be the elite of the bureaucracy. It's an elitism that's caused more harm than good.

Becoming a foreign service officer is no easy task. Every year hundreds of Canadians write the test and only a few are selected for interviews. Fewer still are hired into the department.

To be a foreign service officer, or FS, means you are among the best, brightest and most able of public servants – not only a distinct class, but a class above.

But what if this is no longer true? Moreover, what if being a class apart is what's killing the Foreign Service?

When Canada's nascent Foreign Service took shape in the 1930s, the diplomatic world was different. Dominated by Europeans, it was largely populated by quasi royalty – former aristocrats – who had gone to the right schools, spoke the right languages and knew the right protocols. Foreign policy was an elite policy area, not just because it was so important, but also because it was dominated by elites (in the class sense of the word).

While the role of aristocrats in foreign policy faded, the legacy of their culture lingered. As a result, the Foreign Service had to ensure that the right people became foreign service officers. No ordinary person would do. To have influence in the diplomatic world, standards had to be kept.

The FS designation emerged both to satisfy this international culture as well as a domestic one: an era in Ottawa when public servants did not change ministries. In the early and mid 20th century, you could be known as a Finance Man, or a Treasury Board Man, a Natural Resources Man or a Foreign Service Man (and yes, for much of that period you were probably a man). In this world, a strong Foreign Service culture made sense since most ministries had strong culture as well.

But today the world, Canadians and Ottawa are different. Every ministry engages in foreign policy, be it health, the environment, energy, transport, you name it. There is hardly an issue that does not have an international dimension.

Moreover, public servants now frequently move from ministry to ministry. Indeed, a successful career in the public service requires it. A broad set of experience is seen as essential.

Finally, the typical public servant has changed dramatically. Today, Canadians are much more internationalized. Many are born abroad, still more have family abroad, and with (relatively) cheap air travel, many Canadians travel abroad. This is a far cry from even 30 years ago.

But not only do Canadians travel more, they are better educated. There may have been a time when the average foreign service officer was significantly better educated than the average public servant, but this is simply no longer the case. Many public servants now have Master's degrees. Indeed, for a while, you couldn't get hired without one.

This is the world of the public service in the 21st century, and it presents three challenges for the foreign service.

The first is that it has become less clear what makes a foreign service officer unique. An increasing number of public servants outside of DFAIT successfully engage in international work: negotiating treaties, attending international conferences, and working directly with other governments. If this work can be done by non-FSs, the question arises: What is the added value of the foreign service officer? What unique skills and knowledge do they bring? This is not to say foreign service officers are not incredibly talented, but as a class or group, do they offer enough?

This first problem is compounded by a second issue few within DFAIT wish to talk about: elitism. FSs have always thought of themselves as not only different but also (if they are honest with themselves) better than other public servants. There was likely a time when this was true. FSs were better educated and more travelled than their peers.

Today, however, that is no longer the case. The gap simply no longer exists.

The result is that, around Ottawa, FSs are perceived as snobs, a perception that is crippling the department. Not only do many in Ottawa question whether they need DFAIT’s help on international files, they also, quite understandably, don't appreciate being looked down upon. Every day, a thousand small decisions are made to seek ways to work around – rather than with – DFAIT. The consequences of those decisions are adding up.

Finally, the FS designation itself is a problem because it is both keeping Ottawa out and DFAIT down. Today, public servants move around Ottawa getting experience in different departments – this is how the city works. And yet DFAIT sits outside the game. FSs don't want to work in other departments and they resent non-FSs who work in theirs. Consequently, few good ideas developed outside the ministry find their way in.

Moreover, because FSs are isolated, they have neither the network of interdepartmental colleagues nor the experience and knowledge of how Ottawa works that their public service colleagues possess. As a result, they are getting outplayed.

But the problem isn't just about experience. It's also about culture. Take, for example, the answers to the highly subjective Situational Judgment component of the Foreign Service Test. These are determined by senior Foreign Service officers. This means that those who succeed in being hired as FSs are those who are most likely to think like the outgoing generation. This creates a conservative trend within the department that perpetuates old ideas and modes of thinking.

If DFAIT wants a leading role in developing policy, it has a number of obstacles to overcome. The most challenging, however, is reforming the system that shapes the thinking and culture of its employees. One place to start may be acknowledging that the FS designation – while an enormous source of pride – is also a source of significant problems.

Opening up the FS designation to other public servants (treating it more like the ES designation) could be one approach. Alternatively, focusing the FS designation on crisis management in the field and making it a class for people who are going to work in embassies in hostile territory or politically compromising situations may make more sense.

These are just suggestions. What is most important is that the yawning culture gap between DFAIT and the rest of Ottawa must be closed because, increasingly, the rest of Ottawa is discovering it can live without DFAIT, but DFAIT cannot live without the rest of Ottawa.

First published June 24 in Embassy Magazine.