Decision Making: Leaving the U.S. Foreign Service Path

Background: ?This summer I participated in a survey of U.S. State Department Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) and why we decided to leave.? While intended to be anonymous, I wanted to share publicly our personal decision-making factors and feedback provided in the process.

The U.S. Foreign Service is a job and a way of life. The decision to subject oneself to the demanding application and interview process is a personal one. Separating from the job and life is not easy and the decision to do so is equally personal. During my tenure as a Foreign Service Officer (FSO), Economic Affairs-coned, I served in the following places and capacities: ?Montreal, Canada as Consular Officer; Kyiv, Ukraine as Economic Affairs and Trade Policy Officer; Montevideo, Uruguay with many hats as Economic Affairs/ESTH (Environment, Science, Technology, and Health) and Commercial Officer; and finally, in Washington, DC as Public Affairs / Policy Officer and oft Acting Spokesperson in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (or OES Bureau).

We based our decision to join the Foreign Service on a sincere interest in public service, a desire to work internationally in foreign affairs, leverage our outside work experiences to benefit U.S. policy priorities where possible, and hone or learn foreign language skills; we both already spoke or had knowledge of Spanish, German, Russian, and French languages.? So, with a sense of adventure and an attitude of “nothing-ventured, nothing-gained,” we took the plunge.?But, like any situation, the views from outside an organization often differ from direct experiences on the inside.?After 11 years in the Foreign Service, below are a few of the decision-making points that led to early retirement in 2022, I've attempted to list them in order of priority or importance.

Please note:?These points are shared in the spirit of “iterative improvement” in which all human organizations must engage. Some of the factors below are not necessarily unique to the U.S. Department of State. This is a perspective from someone with 20 years of professional industry experience prior to joining the Foreign Service.? Some of the points below may be unique to our situation, they are generalizations, and we did indeed experience exceptionally positive circumstances, managers, and leaders during our tenure in the Foreign Service, though insufficient to keep us further engaged.

Key Decision-Making Factors:

1. The ability to retire: We could afford to retire carrying over our full medical coverage for life. All other factors below supported this and were secondary (note: For non-U.S. citizens and/or those not living in the United States, we have no national healthcare system; insurance coverage is extremely expensive, and you are very vulnerable if you are unemployed, retired, or self-employed). Once we realized we could separate from service with our healthcare intact we began to ask ourselves these questions: is this an opportunity to do something different; do we go another round of bids and embassy life; do we want to do another overseas tour; and will the next role be more of the same? The partial prorated retirement annuity after 10 years of service (ref: State retirement benefits) was sufficient to cover the costs of full benefits with a tiny amount left over. Given our personal investments earned prior to the Foreign Service, the healthcare coverage was the key determinant that removed fears, insecurities, and a financial burden when deciding to separate from service. We came to this conclusion after a year-long process of redundant engagements with our financial advisor and State Department retirement benefits specialists and internal retirement planning tool. I will emphasize the "redundant engagement" process for any State Department information to validate and verify since sources can be inconsistent, the process dehumanizing, and you must aggressively pursue discussions with relevant, difficult-to-reach human resources personnel. Because, once you pull the trigger, you get what you get.
2. Stagnant intellectual challenges:?Duties and tasks began to lack challenge or intellectual opportunity. Many duties as an Economic Affairs Officer were templated activities and standard across Embassies worldwide.? Job activities became predictable and routine after one or two tours. Other challenges (see below) became a distraction and serious detractions from the diplomatic policy agenda.
3. Lack of hiring and promotion transparency/integrity:?The hiring, assignment and promotion processes were not transparent or consistent.?For example, positions advertised often did not match what hiring managers said they wanted when interviewed. The process lacked integrity as managers were seeking to make their lives easier, often admittedly, rather than focused on U.S. policy priorities or relevant experience of job candidates. Hiring managers were typically focused on process requirements over functional policy objectives. In terms of promotions, there was (and is) no professional trajectory or formal consideration for mid-level new hires; promotion velocity is uniform for experienced and the inexperienced alike.?The State Department does not formally evaluate or distinguish the contributions of mid-level professionals from those of a recent college graduate, for example, other than via a token award with nominal recompense.
4. Incompetent, untrained, or unseasoned managers: High performing employees were frequently manipulated, abused, and not compensated, unless they complained, but then passive retaliation was a very real risk. However, low performers were tolerated, avoided, passed on, and even recommended for promotion by managers.? Environments were not actively managed and were often subject to “group think.” Organizations were often rife with junior officers and peers with “fair share” and “crabs in a basket” mentalities.? Managers could be hands off in an isolating sink-or-swim culture (ref: other factors below).

Ambient & Ancillary Factors:

• Income disparities, low morale:? I entered into service with a 50 percent cut in pay, more if attempting to calculate overall compensation (benefits, stock options & awards, bonuses); this is an important factor when considering to enter and/or to stay in the Foreign Service, balancing compensation with spousal employment, housing, childcare/education, and the international experiences provided, the good AND the bad. While the Foreign Service attempts to adjust compensation to a point intended to be commensurate with outside experience, it is not competitive.? Peers with no outside experience in the same or similar roles could be compensated at a significantly lower level for the same work requirements and hours.? This creates tensions, obvious disparities, and resultant low morale.
• Challenging environments and work culture:?the often-isolated nature of Embassy life coupled with weak management principles are the root of this factor. Suffice it to say that work environments can take on a "Lord of the Flies" character, or rather, a workplace that can be dysfunctional, toxic, and chaotic, characterized by a lack of leadership, organization, and professionalism; bullying is an unspoken management tenet. Though, not to riddle this too much with literary references, I often termed working at an Embassy as operating in the "Heart of Darkness;" remote or cut off from the United States, it is where one may observe people's resiliency and true characters. Personally, I have swum with many sharks in my previous life in the IT industry and I am adept at managing and neutralizing bullies; however, this effort is exhausting given Embassy conditions and demoralizing considering the foreign policy missions from which it distracts.
• Inadequate and inferior quality of spousal employment:?My spouse achieved a senior level of employment prior to our joining the Foreign Service.? Opportunities for spouses were limited or non-existent.? There was often an expectation that my spouse would work at the embassy for limited compensation, though he chose not to.? We observed other spouses often working under demeaning, even abusive, treatment and circumstances.? The longer we remained in the Foreign Service, the less likely my spouse was to consider U.S. Embassy employment.
• Personal risks and limited social opportunities:? As an LGBTQ couple, our ability to be open in an assignment was directly governed by the security risks and/or threats to LGBTQ people in the host country. Over the years we knew people that were either injured or killed in hate crime incidents. Also, with no children, family-oriented or informal social activities within the U.S. Embassy bubble often "overlooked" us, though we consistently built a group of diverse, supportive local and international friends outside of the bubble.

Other related and supporting items:

• Why Some of America’s Diplomats Want to Quit, George Hovey - https://warontherocks.com/2021/09/why-americas-diplomats-want-to-quit/
• The Leader-Follower Conundrum: Public Trust and U.S. Diplomacy, me - https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/leader-follower-conundrum-public-trust-us-diplomacy-pixa/
• New Endings, New Beginnings, me - https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/new-endings-beginnings-lawrence-larry-pixa/