Family Affair
One reason the U.S. State Department lingers in perpetual internal crisis is that reformers often focus more on reclaiming policy influence, bureaucratic power, and budget authority than on tackling the human resources issues at the core of the department’s woes. A case in point: "State Department Reform," a report released in February 2001 by a ...
One reason the U.S. State Department lingers in perpetual internal crisis is that reformers often focus more on reclaiming policy influence, bureaucratic power, and budget authority than on tackling the human resources issues at the core of the department's woes. A case in point: "State Department Reform," a report released in February 2001 by a task force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The study wisely highlights "dysfunctional human resource policies" as one of the department's most serious weaknesses, citing a shortfall of nearly 700 Foreign Service officers, the difficulty of recruiting new ones, and a startling increase in resignation rates. However, the task force all but ignores the dirty little secret behind the State Department's failure to attract and retain the best and the brightest. As former Foreign Service officer and congressional staff member Philip Christenson says, "the Foreign Service is a one-career system in a dual-career world." In his written testimony to the House International Relations Committee in March, Christenson laid out the disastrous mismatch between a personnel system originally devised for military officers in the 1940s and the realities of modern life. When both parents work in seven out of ten U.S. families with children, and nine out of ten U.S. couples marry outside their profession, observed Christenson, a system designed for one-career families is untenable. In particular, given the prevailing unwillingness of male spouses to take a series of short-term, often entry-level jobs, such a system sometimes "requires women officers to give up what many would consider typical family life or leave the service."
One reason the U.S. State Department lingers in perpetual internal crisis is that reformers often focus more on reclaiming policy influence, bureaucratic power, and budget authority than on tackling the human resources issues at the core of the department’s woes. A case in point: "State Department Reform," a report released in February 2001 by a task force cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The study wisely highlights "dysfunctional human resource policies" as one of the department’s most serious weaknesses, citing a shortfall of nearly 700 Foreign Service officers, the difficulty of recruiting new ones, and a startling increase in resignation rates. However, the task force all but ignores the dirty little secret behind the State Department’s failure to attract and retain the best and the brightest. As former Foreign Service officer and congressional staff member Philip Christenson says, "the Foreign Service is a one-career system in a dual-career world." In his written testimony to the House International Relations Committee in March, Christenson laid out the disastrous mismatch between a personnel system originally devised for military officers in the 1940s and the realities of modern life. When both parents work in seven out of ten U.S. families with children, and nine out of ten U.S. couples marry outside their profession, observed Christenson, a system designed for one-career families is untenable. In particular, given the prevailing unwillingness of male spouses to take a series of short-term, often entry-level jobs, such a system sometimes "requires women officers to give up what many would consider typical family life or leave the service."
Noting that it can cost up to $2,000 a day to station a U.S. diplomat overseas, Christenson asserted that a more dedicated use of travel and short overseas stints over a longer period of time would help diplomats save money and develop the relationships necessary to do their job. "Ultimately," said Christenson, "the need to reconcile a career in international relations with the needs of the modern dual-career family will force every foreign ministry to change the way business is conducted."
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
