The Foreign Service Journal, October 2014

28 OCTOBER 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL families, making sure they get to safety, and helping reintegrate them at post when the crisis is resolved is a huge challenge, but an incredibly important job.” Foreign Service Construction Engineers are posted more frequently to high-threat posts, says OBO’s Rumpf. ose are the locations that the department identi es as “[having] the most vulnerable facilities to be replaced,” Rumpf explains. “With the challenges that these di cult environments present (e.g., violence, corruption, unskilled work forces, extreme weather), I consider the FSCEs to be some of the most determined, goal- oriented professionals in the department.” MED’s Lockman says, “Foreign Service Medical Providers are located around the globe. Eighty percent of the 99 FSMP posts are 15-percent or greater hardship posts. ese posts have signi cant health risks, and the local medical facilities are often inadequate to cope with these health concerns.” For their part, Information Resource O cers are working with American Corners—small U.S. cultural and information centers often located in remote areas. Several Diplomatic Couriers have pointed out that working in hard-to-reach locations often involves a degradation of safety and security standards. Despite State Department policies dic- tating no-smoking zones on transport planes, for example, what does a courier do when he’s 30,000 feet in the air, surrounded by a local crew who are all chain-smoking? And who stays with the pouch on a two-person, 10-hour drive when the courier needs a bathroom break, and the driver is a local hire? Career Development, Management and Morale In 2005-2006, the Director General of the Foreign Service issued a series of cables detailing a new Career Development Plan for specialists. In essence, on a specialty-by-specialty basis, certain steps were outlined as prerequisites for promotion. ese steps include language and other training, advanced certi ca- tion and supervisory experience. For specialists, this was, in theory, a means of making the promotion process more trans- parent. In practice? Results vary. Many of those in the OMS and IMS tracks—coincidentally, two of the specialties with the largest numbers— nd promo- tion opportunities discouraging, but for di erent reasons. Some OMSs are particularly frustrated that they cannot be promoted above the FS-3 rank. However, promotion opportunities have improved in the past decade, explains Babroski, currently O ce Manager to the ambassador to the Vatican. She points to perks such as mandatory training and a variety of assignments, includ- ing in the front o ce and hardships, over a career span: “I think it’s been a good thing because it provides more training oppor- tunities. And it’s easy to meet the requirements to be eligible for promotion to FS-4, which is the senior tier, over a regular career span.” While acknowledging that the OMS specialty has “extremely low promotion rates,” she keeps a positive attitude. “ e naysayers think it restricts training opportunities, forces hardships and disad- vantages those withmedical/special needs. I’m living proof that’s not true, and I know I’mnot alone. I think the CDP has brought order and reasonable expectations to the OMS career span.” On a dissenting note, an OMS who wishes to remain anony- mous did send FSJ a comment on the “horrible promotion rates” within the O ce Management specialty. And Teresa Yata, a GSO specialist who started out as an OMS, maintains: “OMSs are still thought of as menial secretaries and are often treated as such.” Overall, reviews of the CDP are mixed. One Diplomatic Cou- rier says: “ e CDP is meaningless; promotion is based on who management likes. Unless the promotion panel sees you sitting in a management/stretch position, you’re not getting promoted.” Yata, however, sees some good aspects to the new program: “One positive change I have seen over the past several years is AFSA/Jeff Lau