Directed assignments:

I can't be bothered to drag out the link here, but I read that the State Department is considering using directed assignments for hazardous duty locations. While I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea, I think that the fact that directed assignments are required is a symptom of what's wrong with the US Foreign Service.

I've read somewhere that the US has fewer foreign service officers than Australia, despite having more than ten times the population (and probably more than that in international influence...I kid because I love!). The American Foreign Service is insanely competitive largely as a result of the small number of positions. The State Department tends to weight experience very highly in this process, and it indirectly seems to favor people who've been with other government agencies.

Nothing wrong with this, I guess, except that it brings in people who are risk-averse, who are precisely the sort of people who won't choose that posting as a consular officer in Baghdad. Add this to a much older population of FSOs than the equivalent in most other countries (in the UK and Aus, it's pretty much a job that most people start fresh out of uni, whereas in the US, the average age of a new FSO is upwards of 30), and you get a problem filling the dangerous positions.

I personally know many people who have volunteered for hazardous duty locations, for time periods from two weeks to two years. All of these people have something in common: they don't have any kids. A guy I know told me he would have been willing to go to Iraq up until the moment that his wife got pregnant with their daughter. And this is a totally reasonable position in my opinion. Beyond the obvious of "what would my family do if I got killed?" there's also the fact that families, for obvious reasons, do not accompany the employee to a hazardous duty post. That's an awful lot of time away from your child.

I learned a few weeks ago that technically I serve anywhere in the world at the direction of my way up the chain boss. That means that legally they can direct me to go anywhere, and, after I take my home leave, I can't even quit to avoid the assignment (without paying the government a large sum of money). However, my job hasn't had to invoke this yet because there have been enough volunteers for the positions.

If I were Secretary of State, I'd start by begging Congress for money to expand the Foreign Service. If that failed, I would change the hiring to weight more highly people who've lived overseas (and not just people who studied in Europe). I would do less recruiting from government agencies and more from NGOs. I'd make it worthwhile, both during the post and afterwards, for people to choose to take the postings. I'd make it very difficult to get promoted unless you had taken a hazardous duty posting and I'd make damn sure anyone sent out on them was appropriately trained in the language and culture of the country. And, if necessary, I would use directed assignments to bring experienced people to hardship posts.

I'd also work on changing the culture that makes it much easier to get promoted if one is in Washington than in the field, so that my bright new risk-takers that I am bringing in won't get disillusioned TOO fast, but that's another post.

The State Department is changing their hiring and assignment processes now, though I have little hope that it will change the fundamental culture, and that's too bad.

*Note-- I am not a foreign service officer, but I have worked as a US government employee at two embassies. For a junior FSOs perspective, see this old, but in my opinion not outdated at all, article.
** Here's a link about directed assignments. I do not think what they are currently doing is the right way to go about the problem either and I sort of resent the thing about the money. People do these things for a variety of reasons, but the money can help compensate you for losing a year with your family, for sharing a room with 4 other people who are on different shifts from you, for all sorts of things that it's reasonable to expect compensation for.