The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2005

have never faced civil turmoil or ter- rorist bombings that represented mortal threats to themselves and their families; have never experienced an evacuation or drawdown of depen- dents; and have never proven that they can function — even thrive — in a foreign environment. Instead, HR prefers to bet the farm on starry-eyed hopefuls who, as likely as not, have no clue about how hard, limiting, threat- ening and unfair life can be overseas (and are thus far more susceptible to washing out early). Where are the cost efficiencies in choosing the unknown over the known? Why ignore the obvious morale benefit inherent in hiring the spouses of exist- ing FSOs, creating tandems and reducing the total costs of maintain- ing FS households abroad? What the Program Could Be The State Department should shake off its myopia and create a win- win environment. One small step would be to value honestly and objec- tively the work experience of an EFM when he/she applies for permanent department employment. It should also count all those months of waiting for a security clearance toward work experience (and develop effective ways to utilize existing clearances for newly-hired EFMs). In addition, State (and its sister agencies) should count time spent on “24/7” call as a rover OMS or escort as “full-time” employment, rather than relying on some abstract assessment of how much time it would have equaled if the EFM had “really worked,” say as a temp in a placement service in Tallahassee. State could even provide added weight in its hir- ing decision matrix to qualifying work experience acquired abroad, since it provides a better predictor for suc- cess in an FS career than equivalent work experience stateside. Other good ideas for cost mini- J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 S P E A K I N G O U T u