The Foreign Service Journal, January 2007

work, but usually have few major complaints about living conditions. Conversely, those serving in less developed places tend to enjoy what they do, but feel isolated and vulnerable to health problems, crime, etc. A sampling of member comments starts on p. 28. If you could choose any post today, where would you want to be? And why (briefly)? “Dream” Posts (in descending order) Rome London Bangkok Madrid Buenos Aires Paris Tokyo New Delhi Istanbul Bogota This was the only question in the entire survey not necessarily based on direct personal knowledge. And the responses to it certainly confirmed the old saying that one person’s dream post is another’s nightmare. Some members elected to describe the attributes of an ideal post, or to say that anywhere in a particular region would suit them. Others philosophized about wanting to do meaningful work even if living conditions were difficult or, conversely, wanting to be posted where they (and their families) could get to know the country and enjoy life outside the office. And many said they would like to stay right where they are — or would go anywhere else. A sampling of member comments begins on p. 32. Demographics of Respondents The response rates track closely with each foreign affairs agency’s share of the Foreign Service population. State Department employees account for 84 percent, fol- lowed by the U.S. Agency for International Development with 12 percent, the Foreign Commercial Service with 3 percent, the Foreign Agricultural Service with 1 percent, and the International Broadcasting Bureau at less than 0.5 percent. The largest contingent (39 percent) joined the Foreign Service within the past four years. As many respondents in this category noted, their newness to the Service meant they had the least experience to draw on in making comparisons. But it also meant that their responses reflect the current situation at their posts, a tradeoff we felt was worthwhile. Another quarter of the respondents joined the Service between 1996 and 2001, and another quarter entered between 1985 and 1995. Though we did not ask for cur- rent employment status, presumably at least some of those members are retirees who served in a temporary or When Actually Employed capacity. However, from other answers we received, it appears that the bulk of survey participants are active-duty. We asked for each individual’s cone or specialization, but as noted above, we inadvertently failed to give non- State personnel a way to be counted in that respect. Our apologies. Of those who did answer that question, Foreign Service specialists collectively accounted for 29 percent of responses, the largest single grouping. Generalists in the management cone represented 18 per- cent of respondents; consular, 16 percent; economic, 13 percent; political, 12 percent; and public diplomacy, 11 percent. Asked what section they worked in at post; man- agement and consular section employees were tied at 26 percent each, and political and USAID officers were tied at 13 percent; the remaining respondents were split among economic, public diplomacy, FCS and FAS. Seven in ten respondents (69 percent) were at the post they evaluated in 2006, and another 18 percent had been there as late as 2005. A clear majority (62 percent) are in middle management, while another third are untenured; just 5 percent are in the Senior Foreign Service. Of the 69 percent who are married, 14 percent are serving at unaccompanied posts, while 5 percent are tan- dem couples. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents identified themselves as single, while another 4 percent are unmarried with members of household at post. The majority have no children with them at post; of the remainder, 22 percent have two children with them and 16 percent have one child. Working Conditions The core of the survey was a series of positive state- ments divided into three categories: working conditions, family issues and quality of life. Respondents were asked to react to each statement, drawing on their own experi- ence, according to the following scale: 1 = strongly dis- agree; 2 = disagree somewhat; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree C O V E R S T O R Y J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 25