The Foreign Service Journal, October 2012

expected,” says a consular officer serving in South Asia. “But work in the Foreign Service has been eye-opening. For one, I wasn’t expecting such an emphasis on quantity of work, at the expense of quality. In the evaluation process, I was also surprised by the lack of mechanisms that objectively measure merit.” “I did my homework,” says econ officer Mark Palermo. “It is about what I expected. It is an odd hybrid, not quite the usual insular bureaucracy, but not entrepreneurial in big ways. People working here know they are part of a relatively small, elite agency. The mission is big but vague. Innovation happens in many small ways, but we are absolutely horrible at capturing it and propagating best ideas. We are atomized at times. We are a team, but one with many highly individualistic people who get paid to think for themselves. The relationship between Washington and the field is baffling and Byzantine. We have little or no ‘brand identity’ inside or outside the State Department.” Most Satisfying and Least Satisfying We asked respondents to share the most- and least-satis- fying elements of their work in the Foreign Service to date. Nearly one-third of the State FSOs cite consular work as highly satisfying (every new-hire State FSO must serve at least one year in a consular position before tenure). “The most satisfy- ing elements have been helping American citizens in need and meeting foreigners who do awe-inspiring work for their own countries as well as for bilateral relations with the U.S.,” says Tressa Weyer, a consular track officer serving in Moscow. Least satisfying for her are “the cumbersome bureaucratic tools such as E2solutions [for travel/voucher management] and Ariba [for procurement].” Many point to “helping others” or “helping colleagues” as most satisfying. Some say working with great people is the most satisfying element of their job, and others mention “mak- ing a difference.” Still others point to travel and discovering