The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

Do allowances play a role in your bidding decisions? Most respondents said that allowances — most significantly the special compensation given for ser- vice at hardship posts — do play a role in bidding decisions, though in most cases not the primary role. The allowances issue has become severe- ly clouded by the Washington locali- ty pay inequity for overseas employ- ees. In the eyes of many FS employ- ees, the fact that non-senior-level employees receive a 14-percent locality pay adjustment while work- ing in Washington in effect serves to cut differentials overseas by the same amount. A number of respondents raised the Washington locality pay disparity as a primary concern that will influ- ence their future bidding decisions. It appears that many of them did not know about the locality pay issue when they submitted their bids for first assignments. “I serve in a hard- ship post based on salary. Of course, learning that I make the same in Washington as I do in a 15-percent differential post makes me think twice about serving in those places,” says a female FSO serving in a South Asia post. “It is absolutely not fair that I have to look for posts that have allowances just to keep my salary competitive with the normal job market, let alone with those who get 14 percent more just for living in Washington, D.C.,” says a single political officer. “We should automatically have incentives given to us for living abroad under the harsh circumstances and living conditions that we do.” “Why should people in D.C. get a locality pay that effectively makes my 25-percent hardship post in reality a 10-percent hardship post?” says a single female economic officer. “People in D.C. don’t have to wait 30 to 40 minutes in line for gas, experi- ence fairly regular harassment from the police, see polio and landmine victims everyday, etc. I find the work here in Africa interesting and will go to more African posts, but hardship pay has to mean something to make people bid on places like Luanda.” What percentage of your Foreign Service career do you intend to serve overseas? Most responses ranged between 70 and 80 percent, with no one stating an intention to spend over 50 percent of their career in the U.S. The State Department has mandated leadership and man- agement training at all levels of the Foreign Service. Should supervisors’ leadership abilities be mentioned in their annual employee evaluation reviews? Should the supervisor’s subordi- nates be polled on this subject and their input considered for the rating? Almost all respondents gave enthusiastic “Yes” votes for leader- ship abilities being covered by the EER and for input from subordi- nates to be included in ratings for supervisors. Several USAID respondents pointed out that the USAID evaluation process already includes a 360-degree review por- tion. An economic officer who previ- ously worked for a Fortune 20 com- pany, writes: “One of the most sig- nificant weaknesses in the State EER process is the lack of some- thing similar to a 360-degree evalua- tion. It is embarrassing, frankly, that there is so much talk about leader- ship in the FS and that leadership isn’t really evaluated through the 46 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U N E 2 0 0 4 By about a 4-to-1 margin, employees of all types said they expect their spouses to have a career. “Traditional” Families I think the State Department is extremely friendly toward traditional families, which to me means a male officer with a wife who has no career aspirations and is content to stay at home with children, do volunteer work, or perform secre- tarial work where she can get it. The Foreign Service is a very difficult lifestyle for less traditional families, including tandem couples and officers with highly educated spouses who want meaningful careers, not just clerical work as an EFM. The State Department has failed completely to meet the needs of same- sex couples. The new MOH policy is meaningless because it imposes no oblig- ations on the department to accommodate the needs of same-sex couples, and it confers no actual benefits, rights or status on unmarried partners. The MOH policy has allowed the State Department to pretend that it is not discriminating against same-sex couples while doing absolutely nothing to make their lives easier. — Management officer with a same-sex partner