The Foreign Service Journal, May 2006

increasingly valuable commodity who will likely have employment options with other U.S. govern- ment agencies and industry. Second, among specialists only a few officers represent the second- and third-generations of families who served in the department. As a result, they do not embrace the same long-established ties that can link their officer colleagues to the Foreign Service. Losing a Foreign Service IRM specialist is expensive: State’s typical investment in such an employee is on the order of $200,000. Then there are the replacement costs, such as severance pay, opportuni- ty time lost, interviewing time, travel expenses, testing costs and the learning curve for the replacement employee. The loss of corporate knowledge is espe- cially devastating if replacements are not quickly forth- coming. As the smallest U.S. Cabinet agency, State is inher- ently vulnerable to attrition, particularly in regard to per- sonnel with critical skills such as IT management. Recruiting can be difficult due to the relatively low pay and the hardships and danger associated with many top- priority postings. It can take one to two years just to bring a new specialist through the pipeline, after which the employee must complete four to six months of special- ized training. (Another two years are required to master IRM’s business systems.) For a manager, an additional two years are needed before it is possible to fully under- stand the department’s political and cultural nuances, including comprehending the ins and outs of headquar- ters. Thus, the average lead time for replacing an IRM specialist is three to five years. If those being groomed to be IRM managers do not intend to remain with the bureau, or at least with State, then the organization faces a serious crisis. Effective management practices can mitigate attrition, to be sure. But employees new to the work force may see service in the sometimes-turbulent computers and communications groups as inhibiting their professional advancement — a national trend that is not limited to the U.S. government — and they may campaign to work with other corporate entities. To prevent migra- tion, it is crucial to retain strong IRM managers. Future Managers Will there be enough Genera- tion X specialists to replace depart- ing Boomer IRM managers? Dis- appointingly, the department has not kept sufficient attrition data on its newly-hired Foreign Service Gen X work force, so no baseline data was available. In order to forecast the number of specialists required, I based my estimates on current research trends and State’s 2006 staffing profiles. The 2010 projections indicate that if at least 14 percent of the Boomer managers depart, there will not be enough qual- ified Generation X IRM specialists (see bar chart below). Correspondingly, if the attrition rate for specialists is at least 15 percent, the number of specialists will be insuf- ficient to replace departing managers. (If the attrition rate either for departing managers or specialists is below 13 percent, there should be sufficient specialists to replace departing managers.) F O C U S M A Y 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 5 10 12.5 15 20 Attrition Rates and Availability of IT Managers at State: Projections for 2010 IT Managers Departing Baby Boomer IT Manager Positions Potential Generation X Managers Attrition Losing a Foreign Service IRM specialist is expensive: State’s typical investment in such an employee is on the order of $200,000.