The Foreign Service Journal, March 2016

12 MARCH 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL work on our behalf in places of conflict, crisis or instability. Lee R. Briggs Siddharth Ashvin Shah Greenleaf Integrative Strategies Arlington, Virginia Toxic Workplaces As I read through the “Foreign Service Members Weigh In” section of the Jour- nal’s January-February “Mental Health” issue, I chuckled—but the mirth was bitter. Throughout the litany of uncaring and suspicious bureaucrats, toxic workplaces and vicious bosses, I recognized all too clearly the Foreign Service in which I— and a vast majority of my colleagues— worked. “Stress and anxiety” were as com- mon as breathing and about as healthy as a winter’s worth of air in 1970s Ankara, when the sidewalks sizzled in the dilute sulfuric acid falling from the sky. The problem is that the Foreign Service seems to see itself as a collegial service of intelligent, creative people working together to advance the national interest and to protect our citizens. But it is noth- ing of the sort. Most higher-ranking super- visors wouldn’t recognize “collegiality” if it walked up and smacked them across the face with a mackerel. But they—and their lower-level colleagues destined to rise—would be perfectly familiar with other interpersonal behaviors: shameless self-promotion, bootlicking, backstabbing for fun and profit, and whispering campaigns appro- priate to a gaggle of 15-year-old Valley Girls. All of this takes place in a climate of frenzied competition through a lottery of supervisors able to write well and suf- ficiently interested to do so, presided over by a charmed circle of those with con- nections, family ties or education at the proper schools. Amore perfect recipe to brewmadness I cannot imagine. In my 26 years in the Foreign Service, I saw five years’ worth of supervisors who functionally understood “collegial.”They were the jewels that made the rest bearable. I see one way to fix the problem: each morning, supervisors should look in the mirror and ask, “What will I do today to show those working for me that I appreci- ate what they do? How can I help them achieve their goals?” The level of self-examination being what it is in the Foreign Service, I look for- ward to the Journal revisiting the problem of mental health care in a future issue. In the meantime, Prozac and Johnny Walker all around. Morgan Liddick FSO, retired Stuarts Draft, Virginia An FS Reserve Still Needed Thank you for the great review of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 in the Septem- ber issue (“The Foreign Service Act of 1980 Turns 35”). One unfortunate result of the act was to eliminate the Foreign Service Reserve corps. At the time it probably made sense to consolidate, either allowing corps members to convert to the Foreign Service proper or revert to the Civil Service. However, practice has shown that the State Department cannot do without such employees brought into the Foreign Ser- vice for limited appointments. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, in particular, is leading the way with creative programs to fill vital adjudicator slots that cannot all be filled by incoming entry-level FSO classes. Originally created as the Foreign Ser- vice Auxiliary during World War II to bring additional employees on board quickly outside of the FS examination process, the Foreign Service Reserve was codified under the 1946 Foreign Service Act but eliminated in 1980. Perhaps it is time to consider its reinstatement. The department currently has dispa- rate programs that would be best unified under a single reserve corps: the Civil Ser- vice “hard to fill” program, the Overseas Development Program (for civil servants), limited non-career appointment (LNA) consular adjudicators, A-EFM consular adjudicators, EFM professional associ- ates, WAE (“While Actually Employed”) FS retirees, flyaway teams (e.g., a civil servant who provides three weeks of press support leading up to a Secretary of State visit, or supports a post during a consular evacua- tion) and technical experts brought from outside of the State Department to assist in post-conflict stabilization situations. A revived reserve corps could be a single cadre with a common entry pro- gram and its own esprit de corps. It would serve the combined goals of filling unmet needs in the Foreign Service and provid- ing career development for qualified civil servants. It could incorporate all those civil servants who pass an examination and have worldwide availability; but like current LNAs and WAEs, the appoint- ments would be for a limited duration. (LNAs are limited to no more than 5 years continuous overseas service.) At the end of this period, the employee could compete for entry into the Foreign Service officer or specialist corps, or return to the Civil Service. The newly constituted Foreign Service Reserve could incorporate a registry, cre- ating a common pool centrally managed by the Bureau of Human Resources, of the hitherto separately maintained groups. The registry would include information on skills, training, language ability and medi- cal clearance. All reservists would possess a diplomatic passport to allow travel on short notice.