The Foreign Service Journal, April 2008

8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 8 L E T T E R S institute a mid-level hiring program. The writers ask for a rationale from those opposed to making that change. First, a clarification: some who have written in favor of mid-level hir- ing seem to equate that policy with an exemption from visa-line work. But the two are not the same. I suspect few people who would object to be- ginning their Foreign Service careers by working on a visa line as entry-level officers would want to do the same work as mid-level employees. There are plenty of talented, expe- rienced professionals who happily dive into a Foreign Service career knowing that their grade will be entry-level. Our top performers routinely begin their diplomatic careers handling the requests of the everyday, regular peo- ple who come to us seeking visas. In addition, consular work is an excellent education and a useful intro- duction to the Service. If you doubt it, go to the nearest career FSO ambas- sador’s office and ask about his or her early years in the Service. Or think of it this way. You would not suggest someone wishing to become a physician skip his first year of medical school because he’s got experience as an investment banker, would you? So why suggest people do without the strong foundation of diplomatic skills that a few years as an entry-level officer can help build? Whatever your cone may be, entry- level work is a great education in your chosen profession. It is not a pointless detour. Second, the only people who feel that consular work is beneath them are dilettantes. We don’t need that kind of officer. If the mere idea of doing entry-level work for a few years keeps some people from applying for Foreign Service commissions, then an important screening function has been served. Third, good employers promote from within when possible. Not doing so, when there are already well-quali- fied employees who could be expect- ed to excel at a higher pay grade, would be a morale-destroying policy. If I am wrong in my reasoning, that opens up numerous interesting possi- bilities for me personally. If mid-level hiring truly benefits an organization, then perhaps by the time I retire from the Foreign Service our nation’s mili- tary will realize the error of its current ways and begin commissioning offi- cers at mid-level ranks. Just as certain “acquaintances and schoolmates” with no experience in the Foreign Service feel they’d make excellent mid-level FSOs from day one, I fancy I’d make a fine com- manding officer of an aircraft carrier, a mid-level job (O-6 in military terms, roughly equivalent to FS-1) in the Navy. Of course, I shouldn’t have to start with the responsibilities of a newly commissioned ensign, because that would “merely perpetuate the flawed mentality that only years of service bring competence and success,” to quote one letter-writer. Sure, I’d have to learn to drive a big boat and stuff like that, but I’m a quick study; I’ve watched several episodes of “Love Boat,” so it shouldn’t take long. I would just hope there would always be a lot of people around me who actual- ly have years of experience in the run- ning of a carrier, people of proven competence, so they’ll be able to tell me what I should do and how I should do it if I’m ever stuck. William E. Shea FSO Consulate Matamoros An Apology Owed to Leahy In sniffing (I use the term deliber- ately) that Don Leahy had “only one previous Foreign Service posting,” and was “the very opposite of a bon vivant,” Carman Cunningham totally dismissed the record of a dedicated, effective Foreign Service veteran in her January letter. Mr. Leahy actually served in at least three posts — Moscow in the 1950s at the height of the Cold War, Kinshasa in the 1960s and another in Latin America — before his arrival in Santa Isabel (now Malabo) in 1971, where his life was ended violently and too soon at the hands of his principal officer. Ms. Cunningham owes the Leahy family an apology. Wayne Hoshal FSO, retired Grand Rapids, Minn. Interagency Cooperation Month The December issue focusing on country team management was espe- cially timely in this day of multiple agencies and uncoordinated marching orders, including the key question of chief-of-mission authority. When I was a Foreign Service offi- cer in the 1980s, in order to mitigate jealousies and turf battles overseas, I found it instructive to make myself available to the different groups and sections in order to show a genuine interest in their work and to invite their personnel to my office through an open-door policy. I’ll admit many seemed shocked by this surprisingly novel approach, but I believe it paid dividends. Often at mission meetings, one agency would take advantage of the occasion to gratuitously criticize another. I remember one such inci- dent where the visa section was target- ed. After the accuser had finished, as was his custom, the chief of mission asked if there were any comments. I was the only one to raise a hand, and asked the critical party if he had any experience in visa work. Hardly sur- prising, the answer was “Why, no!”