The Foreign Service Journal, February 2007

those guarantees (as of this writing in late 2006 things were looking good) and, if so, what the impact will be on other bidders and the receiving posts. The next proposal was to give what amounted to an automatic promotion to everyone serving in Iraq or Af- ghanistan. While AFSA ultimately agreed to revised promotion precepts that instructed selection boards to “weigh positively creditable and exemplary performance” in Iraq and Afghanistan, it did not agree to make promotions automatic for those employees. The association’s position was that promotions must continue to be based on one’s potential for service at the next higher grade as demon- strated by performance over a multi- year period. Thus, the simple will- ingness to be in a war zone for 365 days should not automatically push every one of those employees to the front of the promotion line, ahead of colleagues who performed superbly elsewhere (including at other hard- ship posts) over a period of years. Hot on the heels of the controver- sy over promotion rules, the Bureau of Human Resources came to AFSA in mid-2006 with proposals to dramat- ically re-engineer the Open Assign- ments System to address State’s chronic inability to fully staff hardship posts. Key changes, to which AFSA agreed, included: 1) prohibit tour extensions except at greater hardship posts (to force those employees into the available pool to staff hardship posts), 2) require “fair share” bidders without recent service at a hardship post to bid on three greater hardship (15-percent or higher) posts and to accept one of them if selected, and 3) establish a new assignment “pre-sea- son” during which all open unaccom- panied positions will be filled before any other assignments are made. These changes, coupled with the long-term provisions of the Career Development Program, represent a concerted push to steer employees toward hardship assignments. Only time will tell if the new rules succeed in meeting the staffing needs in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hardship posts over the next few years. If they do not, State has said that the director general is prepared to use his statuto- ry authority to direct the assignment of Foreign Service members to Iraq or other hardship assignments. Views from the Front Lines According to polling done by AFSA, many Foreign Service mem- bers feel uneasy about the hasty revi- sion of so many long-standing poli- cies. For example, many question State’s move to fill all unaccompanied positions before making assignments elsewhere (employees ask, for exam- ple, if an unaccompanied post like Bangui is really more important to U.S. interests than Beijing, Mexico City or U.S.’s NATO mission in Brus- sels). Some employees with exten- sive, but not recent, service at hard- ship posts feel that their past sacri- fices are not being recognized. Others serving outside the Middle East fear that their work is no longer valued or rewarded. Like their colleagues in the armed forces, many Foreign Service mem- bers are concerned about the quick- ened overseas “operational tempo.” For example, because most unac- companied positions are filled by assignments lasting one year, most need to be completely restaffed every 12 months. By 2006, that meant that upward of 20 percent of Foreign Service members had served in an unaccompanied position within the past five years. Adding in the accom- panied hardship positions, by 2006 some 64 percent of overseas Foreign Service positions were in hardship posts (half of which are at or above the 15-percent differential level). As a result, perhaps half of the Foreign Service corps has served at a hardship post within the past five years. Many employees also express con- cerns that recent developments are making the Foreign Service less “family-friendly.” On this point, un- accompanied tours are Exhibit A, especially for employees with difficult personal situations. Elsewhere, the decision to fund higher differentials at extreme hardship posts by sum- marily zeroing out the 5-percent dif- ferentials at 14 other posts certainly disappointed the employees there. Finally, some employees who have been around for a while are skeptical that all these new rules will be applied equitably. For example, will “high-flying” 7th floor staffers who lack recent overseas experience really be assigned to extreme hardship posts? Domestic Service Limits Given recent changes, some employees worry that today’s “expedi- tionary” Foreign Service risks becom- ing an expatriate Foreign Service. For decades, the average Foreign Service member has spent two-thirds of his or her career overseas. According to an October 2006 State Department tele- gram, the current director general of the Foreign Service, Ambassador George Staples, wants to see that pro- portion rise. Toward that end, the DG pressed 44 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 7 The “ticket-punching” program represents an historic hardening of the conditions of service for America’s career diplomats.