The Foreign Service Journal, December 2005

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 17 completion of a certain number of assignments. While the details would obviously have to be worked out, each FSO could design an IDP with the geographic bureau responsible for his/her regional “major” under the Career Development Program; with the appropriate functional bureau for his/her major cone under the dual- cone system outlined above; or with the Bureau of International Organi- zations Affairs or one of the bureaus under the under secretary for global affairs. The plan could be flexible in that the order of postings could be rearranged according to available jobs, etc. Using Incentives to Meet Service Needs The other major flaw in the assign- ments system concerns bidders with a pattern of service at differential posts. I have served in four of these in rapid succession: Lagos to Douala to Beirut (via Arabic training) to the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration to Baghdad. So, again, I speak from personal experience when I say that the system does not adequately reward FSOs for meeting service needs. Hard assignments in difficult places do not earn tenured employees equity toward future assignments in nice places. In addition, the very fact that employees are serving in difficult and isolated spots makes them less able to lobby than their colleagues closer to Washington. At present, the only payback in the system for service at hardship posts is the differential-bidder program, which treats bids on one-grade stretches the same as at-grade bids. However, given the natural tendency of the system to favor at-grade bid- ders, in most cases this is a nice but hollow gesture. Moreover, this option only applies to the bidding cycle immediately following the hardship tour. And, because there is no retroactivity to the new rule, those of us who have accepted several substan- tial hardship assignments over the course of our careers are on the same footing as fair-share bidders who took their first hardship tour only under protest. This disparity is effectively a slap in the face to those of us who really came through when asked to meet the needs of the Service. To remedy this, I propose institut- ing a system of hardship equity points that explicitly favors bidders with sub- stantial fair-share service over bidders without it. It would give bidders hardship equity points for every year (i.e., at least 10 months of actual time at post) served at a differential post along the following lines: • One hardship point per year at a 5- or 10-percent differential post. • Two hardship points per year at a 15- or 20-percent differential post. • Three hardship points per year at a 25-percent differential post. • One extra hardship point for every year in which the employ- ee received danger pay for at least six months. • One extra point for each year of service in critical-need/hard-to- fill assignments or at unaccom- panied posts. Employees would accumulate hardship equity points from their date of entry into the Foreign Service. A minimum number of hardship points would be required to bid on any position with no hardship differ- ential. I would suggest a minimum of seven points — i.e., the equivalent of two years of service at a post with a hardship differential of 25 percent, with one year at a danger pay, critical needs, hard-to-fill or unaccompanied post, or one additional year in service at a post with any level of hardship dif- ferential. The required number of hardship points to bid on non-hard- ship jobs would go up according to the grade of the position (perhaps seven points to bid on an FS-3 posi- tion with no hardship differential, 10 for an 02 position, 13 for an 01 posi- tion). Employees would also need to accumulate a minimum number of hardship points to be eligible to bid on any jobs on the DCM/principal officer list — perhaps seven. Similarly, a minimum number of hardship points would be required for an employee to be eligible for promo- tion. The required hardship points for each promotion would increase for each grade (seven for promotion to FS-3, 10 for promotion to FS-2, 13 for promotion to FS-1 and 16 to open one’s window). Employees with fewer points would not be presented to the boards unless/until they had been at grade for at least seven years. And the boards would be instructed to low-rank them unless they had a valid waiver for health reasons (including dependents’ health). Additional Measures I would also propose the following steps: Designate advocates for the bid- ding process. HR should assign advo- cates in the bidding process to all employees coming from 20-percent and above differential posts, as well as all posts with danger pay. This will help level the playing field for those bidding from remote and dangerous locations overseas, who are often “out of sight, out of mind.” Establish directed assignments for “plum” positions. HR should treat all assignments below the DCM level to non-differential posts, and certain “juicy” domestic assignments (such as watch officers in the Operations Center and all country desk officers S P E A K I N G O U T u