The Foreign Service Journal, May 2011

M A Y 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 59 one-time experience. But from what I’ve observed from col- leagues (and fully anticipate for myself), there are lingering re- sults: sixth-graders who still sleep in their parents’ room; long-term resentment and anger toward a missing parent; a spouse who felt abandoned in favor of the FSO spouse’s career; divorce papers handed to a spouse returning from an unaccompanied post. Studies have already found high levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among For- eign Service personnel returning from high-threat posts, and this is bound to have long-term implications for mar- riages and families. Moreover, the assumption that all Foreign Service per- sonnel start with a strong, healthy family and marriage as a base can’t possibly be true. The regular and consistent presence of a spouse or parent (whether it’s every two weeks or every three weeks) makes a major difference in the quality of relationships and in the morale of the em- ployee. Finally, it is deeply disruptive to posts to have totally new staff every year. Senior officers spend the first months of their tours recruiting to fill positions that will turn over in one year. Recruiting a new team upon arrival takes up a huge percentage of the time an officer that he/she is sup- posed to be using to learn and do his or her new job. So one of the strongest arguments for creating these flexible “off- site” positions is that they will foster continuity, allowing in- dividuals to do the jobs for a much longer period of time. Especially in development, this longer-term perspective is critical. • Single officers would find this proposal unfair. Per- haps, but fair and equal are not necessarily the same thing. Otherwise, everyone should be assigned a one-bedroom apartment and given no school allowances or rest-and-re- laxation tickets for anyone but themselves. Conversely, tan- dem couples should be assigned two houses. Fair is giving everyone the same opportunities and find- ing ways to meet their particular needs, given their cir- cumstances. The Foreign Service finds ways to accommodate FSOs with family members who have Class 2 medical clearances, for example. This is fair, but arguably not equal. This only bolsters the argument for identifying positions at unaccompanied posts that lend themselves to this kind of flexibility, rather than viewing it as a “concession” to people with spouses and families. Everyone will have an equal right to compete for them, while being aware that they don’t have the same benefits and advantages as a full-time, one-year, “onsite” tour would — e.g., extra pay, linked assignments and faster promotions. Things Can Change • Others have faced these issues, made sacrifices and survived. So can you. Yes, there are a few who say “I suf- fered, my family suffered — so should you.” But many more say, “Why should anyone suffer?” Most FSOs who joined before 9/11, particularly Senior Foreign Service of- ficers, had no expectation of ever serving an unaccompa- nied tour. Everyone understands that the world — and the For- eign Service — have both changed. No matter how flexi- ble the system ever becomes, many of us will willingly make sacrifices, as will our immediate families and our extended families. But we don’t need to accept that things cannot change. I have seen the transformation that the Foreign Service has undergone in the past two decades. There are more women in leadership positions (although still not enough), more respect for same-sex couples and members of house- hold and an increase in the number of single parents — all good. So I also wonder: Can those who didn’t benefit from any flexibility in the system honestly claim that it was bet- ter that way? Can they say that there weren’t divorces and negatively affected children as a result of the “toughen up” attitude? In any case, the ideas I’ve offered here are about inno- vation and evolution, not a rejection or disrespect for what others have endured. Yes, only a minority of jobs could be done this way, and clearly this approach lends itself better to some types of jobs than others. At first glance, I can’t quite picture how a virtual consular office would work — but an argument can be made that there is little difference between a visa window and a computer screen. If families are willing to be flexible in the face of new demands and use all of the new technologies available to us, shouldn’t our employer learn from our experience? F O C U S An “offsite” officer could be assigned to an unaccompanied post for two, three or four years, rather than the typical one- or two-year assignment.