The Foreign Service Journal, September 2020

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2020 21 SPEAKING OUT Why “27 Years and Out” Should Be Retired BY TED CRA I G T his September I will retire from the U.S. Foreign Service. Not for lack of energy and commitment, as I sit squarely in my mid-50s and am in good health. Nor for lack of capability, if my last employee evaluation report in a senior overseas leadership position is to be credited. And not for any constraints on my readiness to serve. Along with scores of other capable colleagues every year, I am moving on because of the Service’s long-standing requirement that we retire after 27 years unless selected to the Senior Foreign Service. It is the deal we signed up for, so those of us who don’t cross the threshold must accept the outcome. Whether this deal still makes sense for the Foreign Service is another question. The 27-year threshold is the relic of an age of one-career couples and unsuited to the professional constraints faced today by single parents, dual- career partners, or just about anyone with a substantial life challenge. It is draining away experienced and skilled officers at a time of unprecedented challenge to our interests and ideals overseas, and it may play a role in limit- ing diversity in our senior ranks. The 27-year “Time in Service” (TIS) limit in the Foreign Service mirrors the U.S. military, where officers have that number of years to make flag rank—the one-star ranks of brigadier general for the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, and rear admiral for the Navy—or face mandatory retirement. And some of the justifications for the system are similar for both the military and the diplomatic corps. First, the limitation ensures “pass- through” in the ranks, opening oppor- tunities for the next generation of officers to move through the system as longer-serving officers are retired. Like most bureaucracies, we have a pyra- mid-shaped organization at the State Department. We need more mid-level diplomats than we do ambassadors and deputy assistant secretaries. There is not room for everyone to be selected for the Senior Foreign Service, and using upward progression as an incentive for superior performance is beneficial. A second argument for the TIS limit, unspoken in polite company, is that it rids the system of underperforming bureaucratic deadwood. This argument is less convincing. Like the military, the Foreign Service uses up-or-out all along the way, thinning the ranks at each step in promotion; anyone making our Ser- vice’s most senior “pre-flag” rank (FS-1, the protocol equivalent of a colo- nel) has been pushed forward by at least three promotion boards and should be a strong officer. While we still occasionally see underperformers marking time at the FS-1 rank, the reality is that most of those pushed out of the Service are still capable of strong contributions and valuable mentoring. Many will have been recommended for elevation to the Senior Foreign Service by the annual selection panels, falling short because of limited allotted slots for new senior officers. Why 27 Is Not Working The arbitrary 27-year TIS limit, insti- tuted almost 75 years ago, is a throw- back to a time when Foreign Service officers were male, and uncompensated wives were expected to promote their husbands’ careers by organizing and hosting dinner parties. Men could be expected to make assignment choices based solely on advancing their career path toward promotion to flag rank, even though it meant expecting their wives to shoulder family responsibilities in addition to representational duties. Ted Craig has been a member of the Foreign Service since 1991, serving overseas most recently in Islamabad. The 27-year rule is draining away experienced and skilled officers at a time of unprecedented challenge to our interests and ideals overseas, and it may play a role in limiting diversity in our senior ranks.