The Foreign Service Journal, November 2006

86 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / NOV EMB E R 2 0 0 6 A F S A N E W S September 15 Letter fromBelgrade: New Assignment Rules A groupof officers andAFSAmembers at EmbassyBelgrade metrecentlytodiscussthenewassignmentrules. Thegroup included a cross-section of Foreign Service employees at post, from the junior to the senior level, and from various sec- tions of the embassy. Whilewe agreed thatmanyof thenewrules couldhaveapositive impact, employees alsoexpressedcertaincon- cerns,manyofwhichareobviouslysharedbyourcolleaguesworld- wide as expressed in AFSA’s Aug. 31 message. All of us recognize that it is a privilege to serve the U.S. gov- ernment as Foreign Service employees. We also recognize that FSemployeescommittobeingavailableforworldwideservicewhen they join the Service. Moreover, we fully respect the authority of the Secretaryof State tomanage the assignments process inaway that best serves the interests of the U.S.— including her author- ity to direct assignments to high-priority posts tomeet the needs of the Service. We also agree that one of the main strengths of the Foreign Service is its flexibility in adapting to reflect the priorities of the United States. As we are all currently serving in a hardship post, we certainly agree with the “fair share” rules that require all offi- cers to serve in difficult posts. However, we are concerned that the new assignment rules announced by the department leader- shiparemotivatedprimarilyby theneed to staff positions in Iraq. TheAug. 31e-mail fromAFSAsuccinctlyaddressesmanyof these fears in its opening paragraph: “No one can doubt the intent of these changes,whichweredesigned to increase the incentives and pressureonForeignServicemembers tobidon thegrowingnum- ber of extreme hardship, danger-pay and unaccompanied posi- tions that nowneed to be filled every summer, particularly those in Iraq.” We strongly believe that service in Iraq, as well as service in most otherhardshipposts, ismotivated lessby incentives andpres- sure thanbya senseof loyaltyandcommitment. We are all proud to serve our country—we do so willingly and out of a sense of duty to our country andour fellowAmericans. We aremotivat- edneitherbymoneynorglory. WelovetheForeignServicebecause it not only gives us a clear way to fulfill these drives, but a flexi- ble career path that also allows us to have fulfilling personal and family lives. All of us in Belgrade have chosen a hardship tour; indeed, many of us have only served in hardship posts. Not one of the officers in this discussion has regretted serving in hardship posts, and most have enjoyed it (personally and professionally). Financial incentives or promised future benefits didnot figure as primary motivators for assignment to this post. Rather than cajoling officers to serve in Iraq—by changing thebiddingprocess, or by raising the specter that non-servicewill haveanimpactonone’scareer—andratherthanpromisingincen- tives like a top-fivebid, the StateDepartment should instead look for ways to attract good officers to serve in Iraq, or other hard- ship tours, and tomake these jobs desirable. What is “desirable”? Ourgroupwants thepromiseof an interesting job, a fulfillingexpe- rience and, especially, great leadership. We want to know that our service in Iraq, or another hardship post, will make a differ- ence to theU.S. and to our host country. Wewant toworkwith inspired colleagues and for excellent leaders who will make this entire experience evenmore fulfilling. We alsowant tohave con- fidence that thedepartment is staffing Iraqandother active com- bat zones in a way that is consistent with past practice and with realities on the ground. As one member of our group pointed out, if Iraq were any other country ina similar situation (say, SierraLeone or Liberia), thedepartmentwouldbedrawingdown tominimal staffing, not exposing anadditional 200officers and support and security staff to hostile action directed at them. As in other posts with hard- to-fill positions, thedepartmentmight alsoconsider accepting that certain jobs in Baghdad may simply be unable to attract strong, qualified bidders, and that such positions could remain vacant. This is not to say we do not appreciate the benefits of hard- ship service— in particular, assurances that our families will be cared for while we are gone and that we will be cared for while we serve. In order to encourage greater interest in Iraq service, several ideaswerementioned, includingnon-monetaryassurances suchas proper training for service inahardshipzone (suggestions for making us safer in hardship posts included everything from defensive driving classes to serious combat-zone training with weapons and first aid) and assurances that our familieswouldbe supported at our “losing post” or in the U.S., including housing for our families, schooling for our kids and jobassurances for our spouses (whether tandemFSor accompanying familymember). Finally, we are concerned that the new bidding unnecessari- ly complicates the Foreign Service system by valuing location of service rather thanqualityof service, andby adding another layer FS VOICE: AFSA MEMBER MATTERS In place of the FamilyMemberMatters column thismonth, we are printing a submission froma group of Foreign Service employees calling themselves “Concerned AFSA Members in Belgrade.” They are reacting to the recent assignment rules changes, which are being discussed around water coolers in the State Department and in embassies and consulates world- wide (summary in October AFSA News at www.afsa.org/news) . AFSA heard frommore than 200 members in response to its Aug. 31message, “Straight Talk on the NewAssignment Rules.” Many issues of concernwith the new rules have been raised by AFSAmembers. While little debate was possible before the new rules were announced, AFSA believes that a dia- logue between employees (directly and through AFSA) and management will be of great value as the department imple- ments the new procedures that directly affect the way employees are assigned.