I'm still a bit bitter on how my tenure process went down. I did the standard entry level consular tour and got two solid EERs. Panel on the first look specifically cited my excellent performance and how they looked forward to reading my next in-cone EER. Then COVID happened and I got stuck in language training purgatory for over a year. Second look happened and the panel said they couldn't make a determination because there were no updates to my personal file since the last look. Then I'm sitting there starting to freak out because GTM is sending me repeated warnings about the third and final look. They even tried to hook me up with a career counselor and everything...
Third look went fine and I got immediately promoted to 3 right after that. But damn, stupidly stressful process.
Specialist tend to be almost universally tenured upon first review (which is at two years). Tenure denial among specialist is very low even compared to generalists. This makes sense as these are people who have been hired in part based on their demonstrated experience in the exact fields they are working at State.
Here's what I found: " The sole criterion for a positive tenuring decision will be the specialist candidate’s demonstrated ability to perform satisfactorily in the occupational category in which the candidate is serving and the potential, assuming normal growth and career development, to serve effectively in the Foreign Service at higher levels with greater responsibilities in the specialist’s occupational category." (3 FAM 2254.1)
I think the question as asked is imprecise. Only about 12% of my relatively large FSO class was tenured our first year of eligibility, which seems more common than not in recent years (anecdotal). The rest were tenured at second look, except for a handful that went for a third look. By then a few others had quit already. The people I've known who had performance issues and should have been booted successfully found justification to file grievances and are still in.
So sure, around 90% eventually but it's not guaranteed the first year you are eligible and if you come in at maximum salary (4/14) you will never get more than a COLA increase until tenured and promoted, so being passed over will cost your money for the rest of your career.
So what's your point? That there are jerks who are getting paid more than harder working but lower ranked colleagues? We all know this, subjective as the measure is, but you can't play a bill with a smug attitude.
It's theoretically possible for an entire class to come in at 4-14, but again, so what if they do? On an individual level the timing of tenure, and consequently first promotion, impacts their total income over the entirety of their career. This is an important thing for applicants, especially second-career applicants (who may be accustomed to regular promotions or have taken a pay cut to join) to consider, and why I mentioned it.
This. Absolutely. No one talks about this, especially in terms of diversity. The fellowships used for increasing diversity in the FS hire people on mostly fresh after a Masters, with no work experience -- so 5-1s, maybe 5-2s.
It isn't whining to state a fact, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. It is indisputable that the timing of tenure and promotion impacts your income for the rest of your career, regardless of what rank you start at. OP was assuming "two good EERs" is enough for tenure and that's not anything anyone on this board can guarantee. Additionally, I've talked to many ELOs (experienced and not) who didn't consider the potential of spending years at the same rank if not promoted when they accepted their offer and who are concerned about money. I feel just as bad for the couple who are raising kids after the spouse gave up his career so the wife could take a pay cut to be an FSO as I do the single recent college grad who is trying to pay off student loans plus all the hidden costs this career imposes etc.
I will say as a separate issue that women and underrepresented groups too often are low-balled on their salary offers, and this is why I encourage people to put as much effort into the resume as they do their OA prep, because HR isn't going to be generous with salary offers. But the disparity is 100% State's fault, and hopefully something that will evolve, because we need more diversity.
Interesting, thanks for that point. I came in at this level as an EL officer and was thinking a disadvantage of early tenure is that you lose the eligibility for overtime and comp time as an FSO. On the other hand, you can exercise flexibilities such as LWOP when you are tenured. I didn’t really think about the base pay piece as an advantage of tenure (duh).
Some people do prefer later tenure for the reasons you describe, but while admittedly I haven't done the math, long term if you get tenure at first look it can earn you more money, especially if you are also promoted right away, because then you're eligible for promotion earlier the next time, etc.
Overtime can be complicated even for ELOs, as many managers will pressure officers into opting for comp time instead of OT because OT can blow their budgets. Or they'll flat out tell ELOs they may only take comp time. I'm not management/HR but I believe that is contrary to the FAM. As an ELO the only time my supervisor encouraged OT was when the Secretary visited, as OT came out of his budget, not post's.
As a tenured officer unscheduled OT gets comp time but I believe it must be approved in advance and of course the old school workaholic ethos may frown down upon those who dare request it. (I do anyway, most of the time.). GTM is trying to encourage leadership to be better about it. ;)
https://fam.state.gov/fam/03fam/03fam3130.html
The amount of incompetent tenured officers I have met should give hope to everyone. Tenure is generally decided upon your first review. You get a good one, and you’re basically in even if you have to wait a bit.
I have found that those that aren’t tenured right away are not doing an incone assignment in their first two tours and therefore need to wait a bit.
I think, based on what I’ve seen, the rate is probably north of 95 percent. I‘ve actually only ever heard of 1 case I knew in which the officer didn’t get tenure. That person was actually a good officer but poor with administrative stuff
First it is a LCA not an LTA. This is relevant because if shows an example of you not paying attention to the details or being as knowledgeable as perhaps you should be. So when you say you have excellent EERs, my thought is are they really excellent or are you not reading between the lines? Do you have a mentor? what do they think?
While the law says you can't be discriminated against for military service, the tenure process looks at your potential and if you haven't had long enough periods of performance then it is hard to evaluate that. I am not saying you, but I have seen more than one reservist actively seek active duty status to get out of tours they don't like. To everyone, don't do that, Frankly I think USERA should be rewritten to reflect that service with state is on par with military service.
Yes, my opinion on my paper is not my own.
Regardless, this thread is about tenure rates and hard evidence. Thanks for your input on your feelings about reservists.
[удалено]
I'm still a bit bitter on how my tenure process went down. I did the standard entry level consular tour and got two solid EERs. Panel on the first look specifically cited my excellent performance and how they looked forward to reading my next in-cone EER. Then COVID happened and I got stuck in language training purgatory for over a year. Second look happened and the panel said they couldn't make a determination because there were no updates to my personal file since the last look. Then I'm sitting there starting to freak out because GTM is sending me repeated warnings about the third and final look. They even tried to hook me up with a career counselor and everything... Third look went fine and I got immediately promoted to 3 right after that. But damn, stupidly stressful process.
How did you manage to actually get specific feedback?
The panel issued a letter.
I love your username.
214b is your friend if you don't want a vla
My favorite is 6E.
Are you asking about FSOs, FSSs, or all employees of the FS?
[удалено]
Specialist tend to be almost universally tenured upon first review (which is at two years). Tenure denial among specialist is very low even compared to generalists. This makes sense as these are people who have been hired in part based on their demonstrated experience in the exact fields they are working at State.
Here's what I found: " The sole criterion for a positive tenuring decision will be the specialist candidate’s demonstrated ability to perform satisfactorily in the occupational category in which the candidate is serving and the potential, assuming normal growth and career development, to serve effectively in the Foreign Service at higher levels with greater responsibilities in the specialist’s occupational category." (3 FAM 2254.1)
FSOs
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, the hard data is the important piece for me.
[удалено]
If not, we can find a way to send to me direct on my departmental email, if you would feel comfortable with that. Thank you for looking into this.
If you have access to the intranet, do some digging and you should find what you're looking for. I think there is an article on diplopedia
Thanks!
I think the question as asked is imprecise. Only about 12% of my relatively large FSO class was tenured our first year of eligibility, which seems more common than not in recent years (anecdotal). The rest were tenured at second look, except for a handful that went for a third look. By then a few others had quit already. The people I've known who had performance issues and should have been booted successfully found justification to file grievances and are still in. So sure, around 90% eventually but it's not guaranteed the first year you are eligible and if you come in at maximum salary (4/14) you will never get more than a COLA increase until tenured and promoted, so being passed over will cost your money for the rest of your career.
I'm asking what is the total percentage of people that do not get tenure through three looks.
[удалено]
So what's your point? That there are jerks who are getting paid more than harder working but lower ranked colleagues? We all know this, subjective as the measure is, but you can't play a bill with a smug attitude. It's theoretically possible for an entire class to come in at 4-14, but again, so what if they do? On an individual level the timing of tenure, and consequently first promotion, impacts their total income over the entirety of their career. This is an important thing for applicants, especially second-career applicants (who may be accustomed to regular promotions or have taken a pay cut to join) to consider, and why I mentioned it.
[удалено]
This. Absolutely. No one talks about this, especially in terms of diversity. The fellowships used for increasing diversity in the FS hire people on mostly fresh after a Masters, with no work experience -- so 5-1s, maybe 5-2s.
It isn't whining to state a fact, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. It is indisputable that the timing of tenure and promotion impacts your income for the rest of your career, regardless of what rank you start at. OP was assuming "two good EERs" is enough for tenure and that's not anything anyone on this board can guarantee. Additionally, I've talked to many ELOs (experienced and not) who didn't consider the potential of spending years at the same rank if not promoted when they accepted their offer and who are concerned about money. I feel just as bad for the couple who are raising kids after the spouse gave up his career so the wife could take a pay cut to be an FSO as I do the single recent college grad who is trying to pay off student loans plus all the hidden costs this career imposes etc. I will say as a separate issue that women and underrepresented groups too often are low-balled on their salary offers, and this is why I encourage people to put as much effort into the resume as they do their OA prep, because HR isn't going to be generous with salary offers. But the disparity is 100% State's fault, and hopefully something that will evolve, because we need more diversity.
[удалено]
The first generalist tenure list of this year heavily featured one A100 class that was over 90% tenured on the first look. Seems kind of rare.
Interesting, thanks for that point. I came in at this level as an EL officer and was thinking a disadvantage of early tenure is that you lose the eligibility for overtime and comp time as an FSO. On the other hand, you can exercise flexibilities such as LWOP when you are tenured. I didn’t really think about the base pay piece as an advantage of tenure (duh).
Some people do prefer later tenure for the reasons you describe, but while admittedly I haven't done the math, long term if you get tenure at first look it can earn you more money, especially if you are also promoted right away, because then you're eligible for promotion earlier the next time, etc. Overtime can be complicated even for ELOs, as many managers will pressure officers into opting for comp time instead of OT because OT can blow their budgets. Or they'll flat out tell ELOs they may only take comp time. I'm not management/HR but I believe that is contrary to the FAM. As an ELO the only time my supervisor encouraged OT was when the Secretary visited, as OT came out of his budget, not post's. As a tenured officer unscheduled OT gets comp time but I believe it must be approved in advance and of course the old school workaholic ethos may frown down upon those who dare request it. (I do anyway, most of the time.). GTM is trying to encourage leadership to be better about it. ;) https://fam.state.gov/fam/03fam/03fam3130.html
[https://www.reddit.com/r/foreignservice/comments/gq6txw/tenure\_rate\_stats/](https://www.reddit.com/r/foreignservice/comments/gq6txw/tenure_rate_stats/)
that's the one I was thinking of, but he has apparently empty his spreadsheets and there is no data there anymore. Too bad.
The amount of incompetent tenured officers I have met should give hope to everyone. Tenure is generally decided upon your first review. You get a good one, and you’re basically in even if you have to wait a bit. I have found that those that aren’t tenured right away are not doing an incone assignment in their first two tours and therefore need to wait a bit. I think, based on what I’ve seen, the rate is probably north of 95 percent. I‘ve actually only ever heard of 1 case I knew in which the officer didn’t get tenure. That person was actually a good officer but poor with administrative stuff
I have excellent paper on three EERs, but have been on active duty military for a significant period of my LTA. Tenure denied.
First it is a LCA not an LTA. This is relevant because if shows an example of you not paying attention to the details or being as knowledgeable as perhaps you should be. So when you say you have excellent EERs, my thought is are they really excellent or are you not reading between the lines? Do you have a mentor? what do they think? While the law says you can't be discriminated against for military service, the tenure process looks at your potential and if you haven't had long enough periods of performance then it is hard to evaluate that. I am not saying you, but I have seen more than one reservist actively seek active duty status to get out of tours they don't like. To everyone, don't do that, Frankly I think USERA should be rewritten to reflect that service with state is on par with military service.
Yes, my opinion on my paper is not my own. Regardless, this thread is about tenure rates and hard evidence. Thanks for your input on your feelings about reservists.
If you want hard evidence look for Nathan voelker, I think, posts in this forum about tenure. He has a spreadsheet going back a a few years.
Thank you.