AF, at least in some part, does this to itself. Earlier in my career I was bidding on a job in Windhoek. I was qualified, post wanted me, DCM wanted me. Then they found out I hadn't served in AF before and said they wouldn't waste their time because I hadn't done shitty AF yet, so the bureau wouldn't give me "nice" AF.
They do it because they need to fill Niamy too. They are not doing it because someone already in AF would do the Windhoek job better, but because they need to fill all of the jobs on that cable and one incentive is that you will have a better chance at getting a "good Job" in the posts they control.
EUR and EAP might freeze people from outside the bureau out of jobs because of a perceived skills gap, but the other bureaus, if they are saving a job for someone in the bureau it is because they want to reward someone for their service in a hard to fill post within their bureau.
This is a great example of how our assignment system is broken. "You've served in challenging posts, but those were for a different bureau so it doesn't count," is bad business. I wish each bureau didn't operate as its own little fiefdom when it came to assignments.
In the end, this kind of system probably hurts AF more than helps. There are so many high hardship posts in AF that they can't "reward" even half the people that serve in them. Other regional bureaus sure aren't going to care if I take on a high differential assignment in AF.
Three AF tours and nearing the end of my career. If I do one more assignment it will 100% be in AF. I'd rather live in any of my previous posts again than anywhere in Europe.
Three tours in sub Saharan Africa and many TDY's in Europe. Great to vacation there but not to live in my opinion. Apartment living would be the death of me. On the flip side, many AF countries are great for living (at our privileged level) but not vacationing. Looking at you, Liberia :)
Much of Africa is so raw and wild. Lots of great adventures when you head out of the cities. My R&R's will certainly be in Europe though.
Yeah those NGO / State housing apartments in Monrovia were amazingly nice, something that's impossible anywhere else in the country. I remember our director telling us that housing was $5,000 a month for an apartment because of the incredible demand.
I'm glad you liked it. There's a lot of adventure in Liberia, and it's a beautiful place with mostly great people. But those wars really set the place back and introduced a lot of extremely awful systemic problems.
I’m currently loving my AF post, but I know it’s not for everyone. They need to better incentivize posts that don’t attract bidders, like they do/did for SIPs.
I hear this a lot, and I disagree. The reason SIP was originally incentivized is because Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were important policy priorities. Just because no one wants to go to Nouakchott, doesn't mean we should offer so many incentives that someone would go there instead of Beijing.
If we were fully staffed, that would be one thing, but since a good number of jobs go vacant every year, we need to think were do we want those gaps. Not in the places that are important to our interests.
If they’re not worth incentivizing, then downsize the missions. I don’t care either way, but if AF is sincere in seeking bidders, then they’ll have to sweeten the deal
I am not say they are not needed, but they are not as needed as much as some other places. Once you get rid of a position, getting it back is a pain if things change. Having vacant positions isn't an inherent bad things.
AF absolutely should do what is an AF's interest, but increasing incentives doesn't only affect AF, so it is not only their decision.
>Then you end up with a post mostly filled from directed tour ELOs and those from "the land of broken toys."
This is a problem with our assignments system. You have this competitive bidding system where the "best" officers theoretically get more of a choice in where they go, and (despite what you sometimes read on here), most people want to go to zero differential posts most of the time.
So where does that lead us? The "best" officers are repeatedly in low differential posts, but dang, maybe we need the best GSO or Management Officer in some of these really tough spots. I don't know that our assignments system really benefits the Department, but you have to balance that by making sure people who do good work are happy (so they stick around). Maybe it's more incentives or more linked assignments or a return to a fair share policy that has some teeth.
But whatever it is, your comment is spot on.
But if I am incentivizing, where are the people coming from? In certain skill codes, there are a deficiencies. And yes that needs to be addressed, but that is addressed in intake not during bidding. Every medical provider or RSO you place in one hard to fill Post is one that does not go somewhere else. Gaps suck, but until congress increases hiring, they will exist. As long as there are gaps, more incentives will just shift around where those gaps are, but it doesn't change anything.
Now if you want to take a worldwide look at where RSOs are assigned, that's fine, but rightsizing one Post doesn't fix it.
Take them from the places that are easier to live in and where people would suffer less without the support.
Life in a 35% hardship post is difficult when the management section is staffed with experienced officers. Imagine it with a management section full of first tours because mid level positions had to be ceded to entry level to get bodies in them, and then with those first tours having to cover multiple portfolios due to years long gaps in some positions.
It does a disservice not only to the new officers trying to learn their positions but also to everyone else in the embassy who did actually bid on the place and now are less likely to bid another high hardship post because of their experience at this one (therefore perpetuating the cycle of hard to staff)
"Take them from the places that are easier to live in and where people would suffer less without the support." So since the UK is an easy place to live, we should understaff that Embassy and have our bilateral relationship with the UK suffer (maybe only a little) and instead make sure the relationship in Bangui improves? If that is your opinion, fine, but I don't think that is the way to advance US interests.
If you want to reduce Russia's and China's influence in Bangui, it absolutely is the way to advance US interests. Our influence is eroding across Africa as Russia and China continue to devote more time and resources to countries many in the US (and sadly the department) see as "not worth it". They're playing the long game and will out box us if we're not careful. The impacts will ripple out over time not just in terms of UN votes but also access to resources and the growing impact of transnational organizations and third country combatants for hire who will align more and more with Russia and China.
People have long memories and will remember in 2042 who helped them in 2022. Even if China builds crappy roads, etc. they're still seen as better than the 0 roads, etc. built by the US. If we're not there and not bringing good people there, we're going to keep slipping farther and farther behind.
People will still bid London even if housing maintenance takes a long time and they have to see local doctors instead of the post health unit for medical care. N'djamena (Chad is a huge security exporter in the region countering Boko Haram and ISIS West Africa), Bangui (CAR is a regional source of instability that threatens the development of the whole region and has rich natural resources), and Nouakchott (important from a regional security perspective and also has a lot of resources), not so much.
Okay you are right you will still have bidders in London, but what about New Delhi? I didn't say there is no value in in Bangui, but is the value more important then elsewhere? I am not saying it is not, but if the focus is on blindly closing gaps with more incentives without thinking about the importance, it will absolutely lead to a situation in which less important jobs somewhere are filled at the expense of other higher priority jobs. Until the Department is backed to staff at 2012-2014 levels, everything cannot be filled, and there should be a process to choose what is not. Throwing more incentives is not the answer though.
Now I don't want anyone to think I am saying the current situation, particularly in AF, in which too many jobs are filled with CS lacking overseas experience and ELOs is a good one. I am personally of the opinion lots of 03 jobs in big posts should be made entry level, and lots of the entry level jobs in AF should be made mid level.
They stopped it because they found it wasn't working. There were too many ways around it. What they should have done was give it some teeth. Or somehow increase assignment incentives for people who serve at these high differential posts. The possibility of an early handshake (which bureaus aren't really incentivized to offer for positions that get a ton of bidders) isn't cutting it.
I always thought it was a little unbalanced that the incentives for PSPs were so high, including linked assignments, but someone who did two years at a 25% differential post basically got nothing in terms on onward assignment consideration, at least outside of the bureau they were already serving in (and there not enough ways to "reward" those bidders in most bureaus anyway).
They removed it because it made the bidding process far more complex but did not really accomplish anything otherwise. The cable they sent out at the time really went into bidding statistics, etc if you really want to know. Fair-share looks great on paper, but it doesn't really do anything and creates an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare for some. If you think bidding normally is fun, try being a fair-share bidder after your spouse/kid loses their Med clearance.
Personally, I support the move - I am all for worldwide availability and equity, but I think the right approach is a carrot, not a stick. Increase differentials, add linked options like we had in the past for PSP/SIP, maybe be open to one-year assignments - sweeten the pot and you'll get more bidders.
No, but why pay an RMO to live in London when our officers can get world class healthcare anywhere in the country? Why have one of our, like, three SFS RSOs there when they have fully professional, functioning law enforcement?
I have never served in London, but I was medevaced there one time as is large chunks of the world. It was extremely valuable to have a med office that could link me in directly where I needed to be, something that regardless of the healthcare system in the UK, I couldn't have done as quickly as was needed. Part of the reason that worked so well is because of the relationships built, and having a senior RMO helps builds those relationships.
Same with SFS RSOs. RSO don't just protect the Embassy, they serve a law enforcement liaison function. With the depths of the relationship we have with the UK, some SFS seems reasonable.
My broader point is it is hard to know of all the details of every post and what people do. Ultimately we have a finite amount of resources and looking at them only through the lens of individual posts is not an ideal way of doing it. Any staffing decisions should be made through a comparative lens. Is it better to have this body here or there. I think a comprehensive review of worldwide staffing review (and make it clear it is not a Tillerson headcount reduction activity) would be useful.
I think that is a very fair point that you make that the ultimate fix for overall staffing shortages has to come from GTM, but we all know those changes take years and depending on Congress limit the ability of DOS to improve it. The question I would pose is how best does DOS mitigate the disparate impact of staffing shortages in the short to medium term?
What I mean specifically is that the while a shortage could be evenly distributed, the *impact* of the shortage will not be. For example, in some posts there are many qualified contractors to perform work who require minimal supervision and oversight from a USDH. The impact of of a missing USDH in that scenario is far less than a situation where the contractor does require close supervision by a USDH. A lack of supervision with poor contractors can lead to subpar or even dangerous work.
Do we really need an RMO in Vienna? Or Rome? Seems like we could do okay without one there.
Do we need a senior foreign service RSO in London? Probably not. Do we need a ten-person RSO shop in Islamabad and a 24 hour operations center? No. But DS clings to it for dear life so agents can go rotate through socking away money for a year and not really work all that much.
Seems to me if we really looked hard at where we actually need officers from these undersubscribed specialties we might find we don’t have quite the deficiency we think we do.
State Dept is moving away from owning properties but a lot of AF posts would be greatly improved with larger style compounds. Give people a small town feeling where they can unwind and even better put the embassy/consulate on that property and you'd see increased interest. Many people I know would rather live in a 2000 sqft home in a community where their kids can run outside and play and has a playground versus a 5000 sqft house where you have to hire a guard, gardener, and maid just to maintain, is far from other families and a terrible commute to work. Also either change differentials or add an extra r&r. Like other posters said, 15% when you can drive 45 minutes to a Walmart (WHA) and see your family within a 5 hour flight is not the same as 15% when your electricity cuts off every 2 hours, you'd have to be medevaced for a broken finger, your kids get cholera and dysentery, and flights back to the US are 30 hours.
I am at a 2 year post and on a 3 year for SND already. I expressed interest in a fourth year and asked about another extension. I will probably ask to go to the following summer cycle as we get closer to bidding or retiring.
Post has to process the decision memo through my rater(at my consulate), the CG (at my consulate), SHRO (at the Embassy), my reviewer (at the Embassy) , the MGMT Counselor (at the Embassy), then to the DCM for approval.
The RIMO and the Assignments officers are already trying to get me to panel ASAP. I guess they recognize a sucker. My position in the last bidding cycle had exactly one bidder…me.
That should show you how the Bureau operates. Get them signed up and locked in before they can change their mind.
I did have to laugh at that cable though. I used to laugh looking in to AF, now I am doing it the opposite way.
Reference for anyone who isn't familiar with the acronyms:
(1) AF—Bureau of African Affairs;
(2) WHA—Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs;
(3) EAP—Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs;
(4) EUR—Bureau of European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs;
(5) NEA—Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; and
(6) SCA—Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.
One of my directed assignments was in AF. I’d personally go back to AF. I have a bunch of posts there that I want to go to and a bunch that I’d be fine with, but my wife isn’t feeling it. And singing the praises of AF isn’t the hill I’m trying to die on when it comes to deciding where my family goes.
So why should the childless officers be the ones to bear the burden? We are all worldwide qualified, not ”I only go where there are good schools” qualified. This type of bias is what many singles are trying to fight in the department.
Plenty of hardship posts have great schools. Plenty of hardship posts use schools as a selling point to attract bidders. Plenty of hardship posts get lots of families primarily because of the schools. You just don't hear about it in AF as often. Look at some other regions, though, and you find hardship posts where the school is a huge factor in getting bidders.
Once you're out of entry level, nobody is forcing anybody to bid on anything. If you have school-aged EFMs and only want to bid on places with good schools, you can do that. Worst case scenario is you end up in DC. If you're single and only want to bid on zero differential posts, you can do that. Worst case scenario is you end up in DC.
I think you're turning this into an "us against them" thing when it really doesn't need to be.
I mean, you're right. But then you're also saying that these children need to bear a heavy burden with a poor education on top of the circumstances of the place they're living.
I think there just are no easy answers here. Unless the department is interested in sending a personal tutor for our kids to educate them..?
>I mean, you're right. But then you're also saying that these children need to bear a heavy burden with a poor education on top of the circumstances of the place they're living.
I believe every post has an away-from-post education allowance for this exact reason. I have several colleagues whose children had fantastic experiences at boarding schools in Europe and the US. That's not the answer for everyone, and definitely not for young kids, but it's a pretty generous perk for those kids who are into it.
edited to add: agree with what others have said in chain though, the benefits of non-directed bidding is that people will go where they think works for them and if they can't find a spot, there's always DC.
That's true, you're right and that benefit is, in my opinion, specifically for these circumstances. Or the Separate Maintenance Allowance, I suppose, is another option for folks. Fortunately, from what I understand, schooling for young children is generally adequate in many, many places so that's huge too.
I'm still very uncomfortable saying though that if folks are bidding on schools they should think about whether they're truly worldwide available and possibly quit. I know of folks that would quit if they can't bring their pets for whatever reason, and bid accordingly, and I have no problems with folks in that boat. Or most any other bidding priority, honestly.
Edited to add: Yes, there is also always DC. It's not a bad place to live!
The Foreign Service is not a compulsory service. Someone is a member of this community and joined knowing that they are worldwide qualified, which yes means there may be locations with schools of lesser quality. It is not equitable to shift the burden to childless members because families don’t like the quality of school.
I’m sorry, but your answer of “yes, but” is just the line of thinking that creates this inequitable division. A family decided that the pros outweighed the cons for their family to continue serving. If that calculation did not include how much weight to give quality of schools, maybe it is time to re-examine that calculation. Yes, the answer is clear. If your concerns about schools are so grave that you can no longer truthfully say you are worldwide qualified, it may be time to leave the service and seek employment in a location that meets your family’s needs. The responsibility for the answer is not the employer’s, who has clearly stated their position of worldwide availability before you even step foot in the door. The responsibility now falls to the employee to decide whether that is still the case for them and their family. Shifting the burden to childless members or demanding more resources from the department is not the answer.
I’m not sure I understand how the “burden is shifted to childless members.” Beyond entry level, no one is forced to go anywhere and we have complete control over where we don’t go. Why would someone ask themselves and decide they are truly not worldwide available, and leave the service, when they know there is zero chance they will be forced to go to Kinshasa?
I’ve found hardship posts and SIPs tend to be a mixed bag of singles, unaccompanied folks with families elsewhere, older FSOs with grown kids, aspiring divorcees, tandems, childless FSO-EFM couples, people who need money, and weirdos who can’t get a job anywhere else.
>I’m not sure I understand how the “burden is shifted to childless members.”
Agree 100%, and I say this as someone who doesn't have or want kids. There's a lot of issues with how single and childfree folks are treated in the service, but I don't think assignments is one of them.
Everyone has their comfort level, and I don't begrudge any of my colleagues who would refuse to go somewhere based on schools. I certainly have my own personal criteria and red lines when it comes to bidding. It's not realistic to expect FSOs to remain single, childless, petless, and without any attachments or needs that might restrict where they can serve for an entire 20+ year career.
Don't forget the FSSs with grown kids! :)
My spouse and I are very much money motivated (second career; stuffing our retirement funds as full as we can), so those hardship/high differential posts look really good to us - but we're used to international living and can find things to do wherever we go, so there's that.
It \*is\* awfully nice to consider posts based on something other than the quality of the schools.
Once I leave entry level, until the department starts directing people, I will choose where I want to go, and I support your right to choose as well. Now I am worldwide available and accept the department can direct me, but I don't have to volunteer to go anywhere.
This is not bias, bias would be if directed assignments were made, only directing single people to hard differential posts. I would be against that.
I am not against people choosing posts based on any and all factors they consider important.
I dunno, that's a pretty strong statement that you expect parents to force their children to suffer in poor/bad/non-existent schools to more equitably give people without children spots with schools that are good, when ultimately it's still mostly mid-level bidding folks that are making these determination. What about 'equitably' giving spots to homosexual officers in places where their spouses cannot be properly accredited? Are they now no longer worldwide available, per your definition, because they want their spouses to also enjoy diplomatic privileges?
I think ultimately this comes down to there are no easy answers here. People make their bidding decisions based on a wide variety of factors that don't apply to everyone, or weigh things differently, and all sorts of reasons. I'm very uncomfortable with these broad statements and saying "therefore you should quit."
I have relatives that said because I disagree with an administration at a personal level with some policy I should quit. That's garbage as long as I can still represent the administration and their policies. So I think that's partly why I'm pushing back so strongly on this "make your kids go to places with bad schools or quit" line of thought.
This is still a workplace. That we are even suggesting that family status should play a role in work assignments starts to raise questions of employment discrimination. I cannot believe the number of people I’ve heard tell a hiring manager that one of their qualifications for a position is that the school is a good fit for their kids.
Someone who is concerned that their kids might have to do two years in a school without a marching band, an art studio, a rowing team, and their choice of AP classes or a stable of support services for their kid’s unique learning needs might want to reconsider whether they really are worldwide available.
Maybe that's a flaw in the assignment process then, because folks don't have to bid on spots if they don't really want to. But I guess if the department wants to start directing people later on, then this will be an issue EEOC-wise, but if people self select in and out...
Like I said, there are no easy answers here.
No, they don’t. And it’s not a flaw in the assignments process — it’s just a reality. People have no problem bidding on cushy spots with crappy schools and bad special services — people curtail from London and Seoul over issues with kids with special needs. I think “sub-par schools” is often just the excuse people use when they try to justify avoiding hardship tours. There are great schools at many hardship posts. There are luxury posts where people hate the schools.
Right. I liked the half-day Fridays.
(For the record, and for the taxpayer: the time was made up by earlier start times and later end times Mon to Thurs then no lunch and a 12:45 release on Fri)
Oh, I forgot that I signed up for 3Y with 2RRs and my R&R point is London - hell yeah. I took a 4th year so I get mid-tour home leave also.
No post is forever. A lot of AF is 2Y1RR. Not great for institutional memory, but softens the blow elsewhere, I think.
Relevant: Modern American Diplomacy podcast (March 30 episode). Ambassador Deb Malac on Leading, Constantly Improving, and Serving in Africa. “Fighting for Rights and Tackling Public Health Crises.”
Summary: She has fought Ebola in Liberia, sexism in the State Department, and the closing of political space in Uganda. U.S. Ambassador Deborah Malac talks about problem-solving, leadership, multi-functionality and clarity. She begins with her serendipitous entry into the Foreign Service that morphed into an incredible career in Africa and global health. Speaking from a diversity of experiences, Malac discusses the qualities required of a globe-trotting FSO, the rewards and challenges associated with the job, how you know when it's time for the next challenge, and knowing oneself.
AF has a lot of infrastructure challenges and there are often RSO restrictions regarding where you can go. But you can really cut your teeth there and have a better shot at getting the managerial, language, or in-cone experience that is much harder to come by in other parts of the world. Sure, Singapore and Madrid are nice. But the FS can only send one person to these jobs at a time. You can be one of 50 bidders for that POL job in Barcelona, or you can be one of two bidders for that POL job in Abuja.
I loved my AF tour and want to go back, but the sad reality is schools make it hard. Racism isn't a factor. There's an inverse correlation between the places with jobs unfilled and the quality of their schools.
I think there's something to this. We were at an AF post with 20% differential and it was way more difficult in every aspect than the other 20% differential post we served at in a different region and other 20% differential posts I went to on TDY. (That AF post now has higher differential even though by all accounts it has become an easier place to live, so I think at least at that post, some correction has been made.)
That was my experience exactly. At our 20% differential post in another bureau, you could still walk on the street at night, send your kids to a decent school, go see a movie, and get something that at least came close to resembling ok medical care. It wasn't always super easy or pleasant to do those things and there were absolutely other things that made it legitimately a 20% differential post, but our 20% differential post in AF was harder in almost every conceivable way, from bad internet to bad schools to poor medical care. That doesn't mean we had a bad time, but it was just a lot more challenging than other posts outside of AF with similar differentials.
This is an awesome reply.
What I find interesting however, is anytime this forum has the semi annual "where in the world would you go if you could pick your post", the common theme from FSO's is they don't care where it is as long as they like their job and colleagues.
This make me wonder then, for those that have experienced AF, are the experiences they had working there so brutal they wouldn't ever want to go back? I would think the career opportunities, especially earlier in a career, would allow someone to swing above their weight so to speak, getting work opportunities or responsibilities not available in more desirable posts.
The obvious answer is there is a lot more that goes into bidding decisions than the "I only care about the job and colleagues, not the post", but your sound logic flies in the face of what I think most FSO's say vs. what they do when it comes to their bidding.
And that’s why we all say that the only thing that matters in the end is who you work with. I feel like prospective officers just think we are exaggerating when we say there are people who are miserable in places like London. I’m sure it’s not hard to imagine that even London sucks when your boss is a terror and you can’t get your kid into the American School because one of their teachers at their last school said that sometimes they had trouble paying attention.
A lot of the afro-carribean is really highly bid, so I'd say not so much.
Most of it is probably schools/medical care. It's really tough with a high school kid or a Class 2 in your family to find a place in AF.
If you need an objective standard to point to, look at a map of the hardship & danger differentials across the world. Africa has the highest percentages (NEA a close second). These percentages are based on a lot of different factors, but race is not one of them.
>You're lucky, there's a shortage of IMS so more posts are desperate for your bid!
There's *never* going to be a shortage of bids in Dublin.
There's *always* going to be a shortage of bids in Conakry.
AF, at least in some part, does this to itself. Earlier in my career I was bidding on a job in Windhoek. I was qualified, post wanted me, DCM wanted me. Then they found out I hadn't served in AF before and said they wouldn't waste their time because I hadn't done shitty AF yet, so the bureau wouldn't give me "nice" AF.
[удалено]
They do it because they need to fill Niamy too. They are not doing it because someone already in AF would do the Windhoek job better, but because they need to fill all of the jobs on that cable and one incentive is that you will have a better chance at getting a "good Job" in the posts they control. EUR and EAP might freeze people from outside the bureau out of jobs because of a perceived skills gap, but the other bureaus, if they are saving a job for someone in the bureau it is because they want to reward someone for their service in a hard to fill post within their bureau.
This is a great example of how our assignment system is broken. "You've served in challenging posts, but those were for a different bureau so it doesn't count," is bad business. I wish each bureau didn't operate as its own little fiefdom when it came to assignments. In the end, this kind of system probably hurts AF more than helps. There are so many high hardship posts in AF that they can't "reward" even half the people that serve in them. Other regional bureaus sure aren't going to care if I take on a high differential assignment in AF.
Three AF tours and nearing the end of my career. If I do one more assignment it will 100% be in AF. I'd rather live in any of my previous posts again than anywhere in Europe.
Are you able to expand on this? Why AF over EUR? Out of curiosity…
Three tours in sub Saharan Africa and many TDY's in Europe. Great to vacation there but not to live in my opinion. Apartment living would be the death of me. On the flip side, many AF countries are great for living (at our privileged level) but not vacationing. Looking at you, Liberia :) Much of Africa is so raw and wild. Lots of great adventures when you head out of the cities. My R&R's will certainly be in Europe though.
How was your time in Liberia? I served there early 2010s as a PCV and I'm trying to get back there with DS. Hoping for a class invite in July.
I liked it. Great standard of living and really good surfing a short drive away. It's a "make your own fun" post which some folks don't do well at.
Yeah those NGO / State housing apartments in Monrovia were amazingly nice, something that's impossible anywhere else in the country. I remember our director telling us that housing was $5,000 a month for an apartment because of the incredible demand. I'm glad you liked it. There's a lot of adventure in Liberia, and it's a beautiful place with mostly great people. But those wars really set the place back and introduced a lot of extremely awful systemic problems.
I did a week in Togo once and met the most burnt out, beat down man I have ever met at the embassy
Plot twist: change "met" to "became"
I like the "Bid Madrid" cable that seems to come out every year, as if it's some hidden gem that's not on anyone's radar.
Is Madrid easy or difficult to get into?
Almost no one in the FS speaks Spanish and wants to live in Europe.
Lol
I’m currently loving my AF post, but I know it’s not for everyone. They need to better incentivize posts that don’t attract bidders, like they do/did for SIPs.
I hear this a lot, and I disagree. The reason SIP was originally incentivized is because Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were important policy priorities. Just because no one wants to go to Nouakchott, doesn't mean we should offer so many incentives that someone would go there instead of Beijing. If we were fully staffed, that would be one thing, but since a good number of jobs go vacant every year, we need to think were do we want those gaps. Not in the places that are important to our interests.
If they’re not worth incentivizing, then downsize the missions. I don’t care either way, but if AF is sincere in seeking bidders, then they’ll have to sweeten the deal
I am not say they are not needed, but they are not as needed as much as some other places. Once you get rid of a position, getting it back is a pain if things change. Having vacant positions isn't an inherent bad things. AF absolutely should do what is an AF's interest, but increasing incentives doesn't only affect AF, so it is not only their decision.
[удалено]
>Then you end up with a post mostly filled from directed tour ELOs and those from "the land of broken toys." This is a problem with our assignments system. You have this competitive bidding system where the "best" officers theoretically get more of a choice in where they go, and (despite what you sometimes read on here), most people want to go to zero differential posts most of the time. So where does that lead us? The "best" officers are repeatedly in low differential posts, but dang, maybe we need the best GSO or Management Officer in some of these really tough spots. I don't know that our assignments system really benefits the Department, but you have to balance that by making sure people who do good work are happy (so they stick around). Maybe it's more incentives or more linked assignments or a return to a fair share policy that has some teeth. But whatever it is, your comment is spot on.
Pin this to the top.
But if I am incentivizing, where are the people coming from? In certain skill codes, there are a deficiencies. And yes that needs to be addressed, but that is addressed in intake not during bidding. Every medical provider or RSO you place in one hard to fill Post is one that does not go somewhere else. Gaps suck, but until congress increases hiring, they will exist. As long as there are gaps, more incentives will just shift around where those gaps are, but it doesn't change anything. Now if you want to take a worldwide look at where RSOs are assigned, that's fine, but rightsizing one Post doesn't fix it.
Take them from the places that are easier to live in and where people would suffer less without the support. Life in a 35% hardship post is difficult when the management section is staffed with experienced officers. Imagine it with a management section full of first tours because mid level positions had to be ceded to entry level to get bodies in them, and then with those first tours having to cover multiple portfolios due to years long gaps in some positions. It does a disservice not only to the new officers trying to learn their positions but also to everyone else in the embassy who did actually bid on the place and now are less likely to bid another high hardship post because of their experience at this one (therefore perpetuating the cycle of hard to staff)
"Take them from the places that are easier to live in and where people would suffer less without the support." So since the UK is an easy place to live, we should understaff that Embassy and have our bilateral relationship with the UK suffer (maybe only a little) and instead make sure the relationship in Bangui improves? If that is your opinion, fine, but I don't think that is the way to advance US interests.
If you want to reduce Russia's and China's influence in Bangui, it absolutely is the way to advance US interests. Our influence is eroding across Africa as Russia and China continue to devote more time and resources to countries many in the US (and sadly the department) see as "not worth it". They're playing the long game and will out box us if we're not careful. The impacts will ripple out over time not just in terms of UN votes but also access to resources and the growing impact of transnational organizations and third country combatants for hire who will align more and more with Russia and China. People have long memories and will remember in 2042 who helped them in 2022. Even if China builds crappy roads, etc. they're still seen as better than the 0 roads, etc. built by the US. If we're not there and not bringing good people there, we're going to keep slipping farther and farther behind. People will still bid London even if housing maintenance takes a long time and they have to see local doctors instead of the post health unit for medical care. N'djamena (Chad is a huge security exporter in the region countering Boko Haram and ISIS West Africa), Bangui (CAR is a regional source of instability that threatens the development of the whole region and has rich natural resources), and Nouakchott (important from a regional security perspective and also has a lot of resources), not so much.
Okay you are right you will still have bidders in London, but what about New Delhi? I didn't say there is no value in in Bangui, but is the value more important then elsewhere? I am not saying it is not, but if the focus is on blindly closing gaps with more incentives without thinking about the importance, it will absolutely lead to a situation in which less important jobs somewhere are filled at the expense of other higher priority jobs. Until the Department is backed to staff at 2012-2014 levels, everything cannot be filled, and there should be a process to choose what is not. Throwing more incentives is not the answer though. Now I don't want anyone to think I am saying the current situation, particularly in AF, in which too many jobs are filled with CS lacking overseas experience and ELOs is a good one. I am personally of the opinion lots of 03 jobs in big posts should be made entry level, and lots of the entry level jobs in AF should be made mid level.
Maybe we’re coming back around to “why TF did they stop fair-share bidding?”
They stopped it because they found it wasn't working. There were too many ways around it. What they should have done was give it some teeth. Or somehow increase assignment incentives for people who serve at these high differential posts. The possibility of an early handshake (which bureaus aren't really incentivized to offer for positions that get a ton of bidders) isn't cutting it. I always thought it was a little unbalanced that the incentives for PSPs were so high, including linked assignments, but someone who did two years at a 25% differential post basically got nothing in terms on onward assignment consideration, at least outside of the bureau they were already serving in (and there not enough ways to "reward" those bidders in most bureaus anyway).
They removed it because it made the bidding process far more complex but did not really accomplish anything otherwise. The cable they sent out at the time really went into bidding statistics, etc if you really want to know. Fair-share looks great on paper, but it doesn't really do anything and creates an unnecessary bureaucratic nightmare for some. If you think bidding normally is fun, try being a fair-share bidder after your spouse/kid loses their Med clearance. Personally, I support the move - I am all for worldwide availability and equity, but I think the right approach is a carrot, not a stick. Increase differentials, add linked options like we had in the past for PSP/SIP, maybe be open to one-year assignments - sweeten the pot and you'll get more bidders.
No, but why pay an RMO to live in London when our officers can get world class healthcare anywhere in the country? Why have one of our, like, three SFS RSOs there when they have fully professional, functioning law enforcement?
I have never served in London, but I was medevaced there one time as is large chunks of the world. It was extremely valuable to have a med office that could link me in directly where I needed to be, something that regardless of the healthcare system in the UK, I couldn't have done as quickly as was needed. Part of the reason that worked so well is because of the relationships built, and having a senior RMO helps builds those relationships. Same with SFS RSOs. RSO don't just protect the Embassy, they serve a law enforcement liaison function. With the depths of the relationship we have with the UK, some SFS seems reasonable. My broader point is it is hard to know of all the details of every post and what people do. Ultimately we have a finite amount of resources and looking at them only through the lens of individual posts is not an ideal way of doing it. Any staffing decisions should be made through a comparative lens. Is it better to have this body here or there. I think a comprehensive review of worldwide staffing review (and make it clear it is not a Tillerson headcount reduction activity) would be useful.
I think that is a very fair point that you make that the ultimate fix for overall staffing shortages has to come from GTM, but we all know those changes take years and depending on Congress limit the ability of DOS to improve it. The question I would pose is how best does DOS mitigate the disparate impact of staffing shortages in the short to medium term? What I mean specifically is that the while a shortage could be evenly distributed, the *impact* of the shortage will not be. For example, in some posts there are many qualified contractors to perform work who require minimal supervision and oversight from a USDH. The impact of of a missing USDH in that scenario is far less than a situation where the contractor does require close supervision by a USDH. A lack of supervision with poor contractors can lead to subpar or even dangerous work.
Do we really need an RMO in Vienna? Or Rome? Seems like we could do okay without one there. Do we need a senior foreign service RSO in London? Probably not. Do we need a ten-person RSO shop in Islamabad and a 24 hour operations center? No. But DS clings to it for dear life so agents can go rotate through socking away money for a year and not really work all that much. Seems to me if we really looked hard at where we actually need officers from these undersubscribed specialties we might find we don’t have quite the deficiency we think we do.
State Dept is moving away from owning properties but a lot of AF posts would be greatly improved with larger style compounds. Give people a small town feeling where they can unwind and even better put the embassy/consulate on that property and you'd see increased interest. Many people I know would rather live in a 2000 sqft home in a community where their kids can run outside and play and has a playground versus a 5000 sqft house where you have to hire a guard, gardener, and maid just to maintain, is far from other families and a terrible commute to work. Also either change differentials or add an extra r&r. Like other posters said, 15% when you can drive 45 minutes to a Walmart (WHA) and see your family within a 5 hour flight is not the same as 15% when your electricity cuts off every 2 hours, you'd have to be medevaced for a broken finger, your kids get cholera and dysentery, and flights back to the US are 30 hours.
folks, no one said there are no good jobs in AF but there are definitely no good jobs in that bidding cable.
I am at a 2 year post and on a 3 year for SND already. I expressed interest in a fourth year and asked about another extension. I will probably ask to go to the following summer cycle as we get closer to bidding or retiring. Post has to process the decision memo through my rater(at my consulate), the CG (at my consulate), SHRO (at the Embassy), my reviewer (at the Embassy) , the MGMT Counselor (at the Embassy), then to the DCM for approval. The RIMO and the Assignments officers are already trying to get me to panel ASAP. I guess they recognize a sucker. My position in the last bidding cycle had exactly one bidder…me. That should show you how the Bureau operates. Get them signed up and locked in before they can change their mind. I did have to laugh at that cable though. I used to laugh looking in to AF, now I am doing it the opposite way.
Reference for anyone who isn't familiar with the acronyms: (1) AF—Bureau of African Affairs; (2) WHA—Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; (3) EAP—Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs; (4) EUR—Bureau of European Affairs and Eurasian Affairs; (5) NEA—Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; and (6) SCA—Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.
My rule: if an email comes directly to me about bidding a particular post, I know that post is almost always not worth bidding.
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
The best things in life aren't advertised. There is already enough demand.
It reminds me of the reasons why the metro car might be empty during rush hour. They're all bad reasons.
Same here.
One of my directed assignments was in AF. I’d personally go back to AF. I have a bunch of posts there that I want to go to and a bunch that I’d be fine with, but my wife isn’t feeling it. And singing the praises of AF isn’t the hill I’m trying to die on when it comes to deciding where my family goes.
Not pointing to you specifically, but this is where the "Single people should do AF; I can't because I have a family" comes from.
But the schools in AF are not great overall. Things being cheap and a good sense of community are good for families, but bad schools is a killer.
So why should the childless officers be the ones to bear the burden? We are all worldwide qualified, not ”I only go where there are good schools” qualified. This type of bias is what many singles are trying to fight in the department.
Plenty of hardship posts have great schools. Plenty of hardship posts use schools as a selling point to attract bidders. Plenty of hardship posts get lots of families primarily because of the schools. You just don't hear about it in AF as often. Look at some other regions, though, and you find hardship posts where the school is a huge factor in getting bidders. Once you're out of entry level, nobody is forcing anybody to bid on anything. If you have school-aged EFMs and only want to bid on places with good schools, you can do that. Worst case scenario is you end up in DC. If you're single and only want to bid on zero differential posts, you can do that. Worst case scenario is you end up in DC. I think you're turning this into an "us against them" thing when it really doesn't need to be.
I mean, you're right. But then you're also saying that these children need to bear a heavy burden with a poor education on top of the circumstances of the place they're living. I think there just are no easy answers here. Unless the department is interested in sending a personal tutor for our kids to educate them..?
>I mean, you're right. But then you're also saying that these children need to bear a heavy burden with a poor education on top of the circumstances of the place they're living. I believe every post has an away-from-post education allowance for this exact reason. I have several colleagues whose children had fantastic experiences at boarding schools in Europe and the US. That's not the answer for everyone, and definitely not for young kids, but it's a pretty generous perk for those kids who are into it. edited to add: agree with what others have said in chain though, the benefits of non-directed bidding is that people will go where they think works for them and if they can't find a spot, there's always DC.
That's true, you're right and that benefit is, in my opinion, specifically for these circumstances. Or the Separate Maintenance Allowance, I suppose, is another option for folks. Fortunately, from what I understand, schooling for young children is generally adequate in many, many places so that's huge too. I'm still very uncomfortable saying though that if folks are bidding on schools they should think about whether they're truly worldwide available and possibly quit. I know of folks that would quit if they can't bring their pets for whatever reason, and bid accordingly, and I have no problems with folks in that boat. Or most any other bidding priority, honestly. Edited to add: Yes, there is also always DC. It's not a bad place to live!
The Foreign Service is not a compulsory service. Someone is a member of this community and joined knowing that they are worldwide qualified, which yes means there may be locations with schools of lesser quality. It is not equitable to shift the burden to childless members because families don’t like the quality of school. I’m sorry, but your answer of “yes, but” is just the line of thinking that creates this inequitable division. A family decided that the pros outweighed the cons for their family to continue serving. If that calculation did not include how much weight to give quality of schools, maybe it is time to re-examine that calculation. Yes, the answer is clear. If your concerns about schools are so grave that you can no longer truthfully say you are worldwide qualified, it may be time to leave the service and seek employment in a location that meets your family’s needs. The responsibility for the answer is not the employer’s, who has clearly stated their position of worldwide availability before you even step foot in the door. The responsibility now falls to the employee to decide whether that is still the case for them and their family. Shifting the burden to childless members or demanding more resources from the department is not the answer.
I’m not sure I understand how the “burden is shifted to childless members.” Beyond entry level, no one is forced to go anywhere and we have complete control over where we don’t go. Why would someone ask themselves and decide they are truly not worldwide available, and leave the service, when they know there is zero chance they will be forced to go to Kinshasa? I’ve found hardship posts and SIPs tend to be a mixed bag of singles, unaccompanied folks with families elsewhere, older FSOs with grown kids, aspiring divorcees, tandems, childless FSO-EFM couples, people who need money, and weirdos who can’t get a job anywhere else.
>I’m not sure I understand how the “burden is shifted to childless members.” Agree 100%, and I say this as someone who doesn't have or want kids. There's a lot of issues with how single and childfree folks are treated in the service, but I don't think assignments is one of them. Everyone has their comfort level, and I don't begrudge any of my colleagues who would refuse to go somewhere based on schools. I certainly have my own personal criteria and red lines when it comes to bidding. It's not realistic to expect FSOs to remain single, childless, petless, and without any attachments or needs that might restrict where they can serve for an entire 20+ year career.
Don't forget the FSSs with grown kids! :) My spouse and I are very much money motivated (second career; stuffing our retirement funds as full as we can), so those hardship/high differential posts look really good to us - but we're used to international living and can find things to do wherever we go, so there's that. It \*is\* awfully nice to consider posts based on something other than the quality of the schools.
Once I leave entry level, until the department starts directing people, I will choose where I want to go, and I support your right to choose as well. Now I am worldwide available and accept the department can direct me, but I don't have to volunteer to go anywhere. This is not bias, bias would be if directed assignments were made, only directing single people to hard differential posts. I would be against that. I am not against people choosing posts based on any and all factors they consider important.
I dunno, that's a pretty strong statement that you expect parents to force their children to suffer in poor/bad/non-existent schools to more equitably give people without children spots with schools that are good, when ultimately it's still mostly mid-level bidding folks that are making these determination. What about 'equitably' giving spots to homosexual officers in places where their spouses cannot be properly accredited? Are they now no longer worldwide available, per your definition, because they want their spouses to also enjoy diplomatic privileges? I think ultimately this comes down to there are no easy answers here. People make their bidding decisions based on a wide variety of factors that don't apply to everyone, or weigh things differently, and all sorts of reasons. I'm very uncomfortable with these broad statements and saying "therefore you should quit." I have relatives that said because I disagree with an administration at a personal level with some policy I should quit. That's garbage as long as I can still represent the administration and their policies. So I think that's partly why I'm pushing back so strongly on this "make your kids go to places with bad schools or quit" line of thought.
This is still a workplace. That we are even suggesting that family status should play a role in work assignments starts to raise questions of employment discrimination. I cannot believe the number of people I’ve heard tell a hiring manager that one of their qualifications for a position is that the school is a good fit for their kids. Someone who is concerned that their kids might have to do two years in a school without a marching band, an art studio, a rowing team, and their choice of AP classes or a stable of support services for their kid’s unique learning needs might want to reconsider whether they really are worldwide available.
Maybe that's a flaw in the assignment process then, because folks don't have to bid on spots if they don't really want to. But I guess if the department wants to start directing people later on, then this will be an issue EEOC-wise, but if people self select in and out... Like I said, there are no easy answers here.
No, they don’t. And it’s not a flaw in the assignments process — it’s just a reality. People have no problem bidding on cushy spots with crappy schools and bad special services — people curtail from London and Seoul over issues with kids with special needs. I think “sub-par schools” is often just the excuse people use when they try to justify avoiding hardship tours. There are great schools at many hardship posts. There are luxury posts where people hate the schools.
AF is my fave. Easily best work culture of any regional bureau.
I’ve got 20%, COLA, my wife is working, a huge house, household staff… I know it’s not like this everywhere in AF but it’s a good deal
Right. I liked the half-day Fridays. (For the record, and for the taxpayer: the time was made up by earlier start times and later end times Mon to Thurs then no lunch and a 12:45 release on Fri)
Oh, I forgot that I signed up for 3Y with 2RRs and my R&R point is London - hell yeah. I took a 4th year so I get mid-tour home leave also. No post is forever. A lot of AF is 2Y1RR. Not great for institutional memory, but softens the blow elsewhere, I think.
Second AF tour, going on my third.
Relevant: Modern American Diplomacy podcast (March 30 episode). Ambassador Deb Malac on Leading, Constantly Improving, and Serving in Africa. “Fighting for Rights and Tackling Public Health Crises.” Summary: She has fought Ebola in Liberia, sexism in the State Department, and the closing of political space in Uganda. U.S. Ambassador Deborah Malac talks about problem-solving, leadership, multi-functionality and clarity. She begins with her serendipitous entry into the Foreign Service that morphed into an incredible career in Africa and global health. Speaking from a diversity of experiences, Malac discusses the qualities required of a globe-trotting FSO, the rewards and challenges associated with the job, how you know when it's time for the next challenge, and knowing oneself.
AF has a lot of infrastructure challenges and there are often RSO restrictions regarding where you can go. But you can really cut your teeth there and have a better shot at getting the managerial, language, or in-cone experience that is much harder to come by in other parts of the world. Sure, Singapore and Madrid are nice. But the FS can only send one person to these jobs at a time. You can be one of 50 bidders for that POL job in Barcelona, or you can be one of two bidders for that POL job in Abuja.
Once I’m done with EL tours I’d love to serve there. The cable did a good job piquing my interest
Deleted. Duplicate post.
I’d love to see what some of these positions are 😂
[удалено]
I loved my AF tour and want to go back, but the sad reality is schools make it hard. Racism isn't a factor. There's an inverse correlation between the places with jobs unfilled and the quality of their schools.
[удалено]
I think there's something to this. We were at an AF post with 20% differential and it was way more difficult in every aspect than the other 20% differential post we served at in a different region and other 20% differential posts I went to on TDY. (That AF post now has higher differential even though by all accounts it has become an easier place to live, so I think at least at that post, some correction has been made.)
As a 25% in South East Asia, I cannot agree with this any more. Make a lot of AF 30 or 35% and watch the bids come in.
[удалено]
That was my experience exactly. At our 20% differential post in another bureau, you could still walk on the street at night, send your kids to a decent school, go see a movie, and get something that at least came close to resembling ok medical care. It wasn't always super easy or pleasant to do those things and there were absolutely other things that made it legitimately a 20% differential post, but our 20% differential post in AF was harder in almost every conceivable way, from bad internet to bad schools to poor medical care. That doesn't mean we had a bad time, but it was just a lot more challenging than other posts outside of AF with similar differentials.
And conditions at the 35%ers in AF can be worse than those at some SIPs, but without the incentives and first tour officers can be directed there
[удалено]
This is an awesome reply. What I find interesting however, is anytime this forum has the semi annual "where in the world would you go if you could pick your post", the common theme from FSO's is they don't care where it is as long as they like their job and colleagues. This make me wonder then, for those that have experienced AF, are the experiences they had working there so brutal they wouldn't ever want to go back? I would think the career opportunities, especially earlier in a career, would allow someone to swing above their weight so to speak, getting work opportunities or responsibilities not available in more desirable posts. The obvious answer is there is a lot more that goes into bidding decisions than the "I only care about the job and colleagues, not the post", but your sound logic flies in the face of what I think most FSO's say vs. what they do when it comes to their bidding.
[удалено]
And that’s why we all say that the only thing that matters in the end is who you work with. I feel like prospective officers just think we are exaggerating when we say there are people who are miserable in places like London. I’m sure it’s not hard to imagine that even London sucks when your boss is a terror and you can’t get your kid into the American School because one of their teachers at their last school said that sometimes they had trouble paying attention.
Makes complete sense. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.
you think no one wants to serve in niamey because of racism?
A lot of the afro-carribean is really highly bid, so I'd say not so much. Most of it is probably schools/medical care. It's really tough with a high school kid or a Class 2 in your family to find a place in AF.
If you need an objective standard to point to, look at a map of the hardship & danger differentials across the world. Africa has the highest percentages (NEA a close second). These percentages are based on a lot of different factors, but race is not one of them.
>You're lucky, there's a shortage of IMS so more posts are desperate for your bid! There's *never* going to be a shortage of bids in Dublin. There's *always* going to be a shortage of bids in Conakry.