The Foreign Service Journal, June 2007

V.P. VOICE: STATE n BY STEVE KASHKETT Today’s Foreign Service: Love It or Leave It? T here is agreat—andwidening—dividewithin theForeign Service. The changingnatureofmanyoverseas assignments in the global-repositioning era, the proliferation of extreme-hardship and unaccompanied posts, and the need to fill hundreds of war-zone positions throughout Iraq and Afghanistan have all polarized our once tightly-knit profession- al community. Two very different visions of the ForeignService career are competing against each other. The thousands of comments that AFSA received in response toour latest electronic surveyof active-dutyStatemembersworld- wide revealeddeeppassions, bitterness and—tomy surprise and regret—a profound lack of sympathy among our colleagues on both sides of this divide. On the one hand, there are the people (a vocalminority)who feel they have unfairly spent a disproportionate amount of their careers in hardship assignments—often going fromone dusty ThirdWorld country to another—while nursing a simmering resentment of those who they see as slackers interested only in Washington,WesternEurope anda fewother cushyposts. Many of thesemultiple-hardship veterans sent us comments accusing a whole class of colleagues of craftily avoiding the tough assign- ments by “gaming” the systemand exploiting seventh-floor con- nections and personal ties to certain bureau front offices. These people are often so angry about this perceived inequity that they areprepared toaccept virtually any changes in the assign- ment rules thatmight put the squeeze on anyonewho has failed to do a recent hardship tour, regardless of the reason. On this side of the divide, the AFSA survey responses were full of harsh comments directed at colleagues along the lines of: “This is the Foreign Service, after all …” and, “If they can’t be worldwide- available, they should just get out.” On the other hand, there are the people (a slight majority) who feel equally strongly that the Foreign Service needs to pre- serve some balance between the demands of hardship service and the demands of family-friendliness and career planning. These members argue that people who are committed to the Foreign Service career often reach a point in their lives where personal circumstances might make it impossible for them to take certain kinds of assignments for a period of time. Many of them insist that they have done more than their fair share of hardship postings at an earlier time, but that it is a perfect- ly legitimate expectation at some point to be able to put a cou- ple of teenage kids through a decent high school. They also note that, while we have to fill differ- ential positions, we also need Europe/ Japan/Canada specialists and people working on important policy issues in Washington. Many of those currently in Washington or at less difficult overseas posts express frustration over the increasingly exclu- sive focus on hardship, which they believe is penalizing them in promotions and onward assignments andmaking them feel as if their hard work is not valued any more. These people are urging AFSA to fight for Foreign Service assignment rules that allow members to have some control over their careers and to preserve the ability to deal with family issues when they arise, without being threatened with expulsion from a profes- sion they love. Both sides in this debate, I think,might show just a littlemore understanding for the other. The hardliners should realize that, regardless of their perceptions and the fact that we all know of a handful of egregious individual cases, the total number of true hardshipavoiders in theForeignService is quite small: only a cou- ple of hundred FSmembers (out of 11,300) are technically sub- ject to “fair share” bidding requirements. They shouldalsoknow thatmanyof thosenowarguing for family-friendlinesswere them- selves in the hard-line camp just a fewyears ago, until something —often a personal development beyond their control—forced them to shift gears. Inmany cases, they are coping with a dying parent, a health crisis involving their spouse, or a painful child custody situation that changes their outlook for awhile. But these people still remain devoted to the Foreign Service and cannot just pick up and leave after putting in 10 or 15 years. The facile suggestion that they should just “switch to the Civil Service” is utterly unrealistic (as is obvious to anyonewho knows how lim- ited such opportunities are at State). Conversely, the family-friendly crowd should showsome sym- pathy for the legitimate concerns of members who are current- lybearing the heaviest burdenof service inextreme-hardshipand unaccompanied posts. Conditions at some of these posts are much tougher than in the past, and life for multiple-hardship veterans is no cakewalk. Yetwemust all face the unpleasant real- ity that our system does not really spread the pain evenly. Andwhilewe’re at it… Howabout a little bit of understand- ing for AFSA’s efforts to represent in good faith our members on both sides of this divide? o J UN E 2 0 0 7 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 55 A F S A N E W S