The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2016

30 JULY-AUGUST 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL The Challenge of Tour Lengths One element of the bidding process that is particularly chal- lenging for tandem couples is tour lengths. It is noteworthy that while the foreign affairs agencies affirm that they would like to keep families together wherever possible, one of the most foun- dational components of the bidding process undercuts that goal. Assignments for State employees are generally two years at the entry level and two or three years at the mid-level. Assign- ments for USAID employees are typically four years (two posi- tions, two years each at one post), although some are just two years. Foreign Commercial Service tours last three years, while those for the Foreign Agricultural Service range from three to four years. Mix in tour lengths for the Broadcast Board of Governors , the curious fact that more than half of the positions for security officers—who outnumber all other cones except political—are not even foreign but domestic, varying language and training requirements, and a host of other assignment peculiarities, and you may start to appreciate the level of complexity in bidding as a tandem couple. Extensions, curtailments and separations are not the exception; they are the rule. The solution is to standardize tour lengths across all agencies and departments, allowing posts to determine the tour length that is optimal for them given a fixed set of objective criteria. Tour lengths for entry-level employees can remain shorter than mid- and senior-level employees; but standardize them through- out the entire Foreign Service. Currently, when a tandem couple receives staggered assign- ments, one of themmust request an extension or curtailment to align their tours. Instead, automatically align the tour ending dates for members of the tandem couple, eliminating the need for the couple to submit the extension or curtailment request. Once the tandem’s second member arrives at post, both officers would arrange with post management to align their tour dates. If the post insists on keeping their tour ending dates stag- gered, then the onus is on the post to submit a request for non- curtailment or non-extension to Washington, explaining why they want to place an undue burden on the family by forcing a separation. Should Washington concur with post’s request, the period of separation would become akin to a directed assign- ment. These basic structural changes to tour lengths would reduce some of the frustration felt by many tandem couples by minimiz- ing the likelihood of separation. “Two Is One, One Is None” Beyond tour lengths, the core challenge is the availabil- ity of assignments. The directive nature of the Department of Defense’s assignments process, in comparison to the selective nature of the Foreign Service’s assignments process, allows DOD to be much clearer and more definitive in its approach to assign- ing tandem couples. To the question of whether federal depart- ments should have a responsibility to assign tandem couples together, the Department of Defense’s answer is a resounding yes —so much so that the title of its tandem assignments policy is “Joint Domicile.” Foreign Service senior management has a different perspec- tive. Given a selective assignments process where employees bid on available positions and posts select individuals from a list of interested candidates, all available positions should be open to all qualified employees, without special treatment for any, including tandem couples. But is the alleged mountain of anti-nepotism and nondiscrimination provisions merely a molehill? How could the Foreign Service ensure tandem couples are assigned jointly to posts, while at the same time not disenfranchising married or single non-tandems in the bidding process? Here is one possible solution. Tandem couples already have to designate one member as the primary bidder. That person’s bidding, assignment and career take precedence over the spouse’s, and the couple can change the primary designation every bidding cycle. When an entry-level employee has a mid- level spouse, the career of the untenured employee automati- cally takes precedence. Building on this process, begin by treating tandem couples as one bidding unit. One member of the tandem—the primary— participates in the bidding process, while the other member of the tandem does not and silently accepts their joint fate. Once the primary member of the tandem is paneled for the next assignment, there are two possible ways to accommodate the other member of the tandem. The first option would be to create a separate pool of During every bidding cycle, tandem couples place their fate in a complex game of chance.