bout de papier, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1999) — Summer 1999 // Été 1999, pp. 3–5
Just prior to the recent rash of articles on the problems of retaining personnel at DFAIT, I picked up “Shadow of Heaven” the excellent first volume of John English’s biography of “Mike” Pearson. I had set it aside a while back, promising to return, but other projects and more simple fare resulted in procrastination. It was an appropriate moment to start anew, given articles in the Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen about the current “exodus” of Foreign Service officers from the department, as it made for valuable comparisons between life in the Foreign Service, then and now.
The descriptions of travelling the oceans to far off meetings in exotic places or lengthy stays in Geneva to negotiate at the League of Nations, sound very glamourous compared to the whirlwind visits to and from Canada that occur with tedious regularity today. As well, for those in the era of the Skeltons, Willgresses and Pearsons, the prospect of working in the Department of External Affairs was reserved for but a few handpicked staff, who saw the Foreign Service as a vocation, and not a job like any other.
One theme hit very close to home: the description of the life of Maryon Pearson, whom I had known previously only by her reputation as a sometime caustic and perhaps even “undiplomatic” wife. In English’s analysis, it was her role as the “surprised woman behind the successful man” who became Prime Minister, that inspired her abrasiveness. Instead of being a success in her own right, this quite brilliant woman would be remembered only as the wife of the Ambassador, High Commissioner, Undersecretary and later, Minister and Prime Minister:
“Success came for Mike, but the surprise was that the success was so much his and not hers. Her career hopes withered, and her Christian faith waned quickly after marriage — perhaps because of marriage. Her desire for independence, so strongly asserted, remained in the vigour with which she expressed her opinions, which, alas, were not always taken as seriously as she had hoped.”
I can identify with Maryon Pearson, for I, too, am a “trailing spouse”. It is one of life’s ironies that I should end up as the “trailer”. In my early university career, my International Relations professor took me aside and encouraged me to join the Foreign Service, as he and many of his peers had done. I never followed up on that advice and instead, 25 years later, I have ended up as the partner to a career Foreign Service officer. I have always maintained an interest in the Foreign Service, however, and after three years abroad, I have some thoughts on the “state of the spouse”, which has a significant impact on DFAIT as a whole.
First off, the Foreign Service is no longer the priesthood-like “vocation” that it once was, not because its officers are less dedicated, but because circumstances have changed. In a modern world, women have senior posts, men and women have partners with careers in their own right, frequent travel is not as attractive as it once might have been and can be a serious impediment to effective child-rearing on the part of both parents.
Combine that with the problems of obtaining promotions or getting greater responsibility on the job, and it is no wonder that morale is described as “very low” in the press. That adds up to serious difficulty in keeping Foreign Service officers.
Then there is the area of remuneration, which is blamed by the media for most of the problems of retaining staff. This is where I think the journalists get it wrong: throwing money at this problem is not going to make it go away. I have rarely read a serious study or survey that suggests money is the most important aspect of any job. Normally it ranks far behind issues like responsibility, recognition, promotion and family.
In short, if the powers-that-be at DFAIT want to keep current staff and recruit others, there has to be a sea change in attitude as to how other personnel issues are managed. One of those key issues is the way that spouses and families are viewed and how postings are organized.
As a result, fundamental changes are necessary to modernize personnel policy in the Foreign Service as it relates to family. I will list a few changes that could be undertaken very quickly and make a significant change to the lives of the so-called “trailing spouse”.
Currently, spouses to Foreign Service officers are treated much the same way that children once learned to swim: by being thrown into deep water and told to fend for themselves. This is nothing if not a new form of aversion therapy. After several years of this experience, anyone with his or her own career figures out that there are few options: stay at home; struggle to find work — probably not in a chosen field; leave their respective partner or encourage the partner to leave the Foreign Service.
DFAIT and the Foreign Service Community Association has in the past offered some support — in the form of a data base that focuses on employment in Ottawa or at the Missions — mostly as clerical staff. A few years ago I worked as a receptionist for several months to keep busy and make some extra cash, but it was a bit galling to be working the telephone when a minister or a former Parliament Hill colleague walked in and asked me what I was doing there!
So — how to deal with this problem. I have a few modest suggestions: first of all, someone within the post should be tasked with the job of co-ordinating employment opportunities in the community at large. Obviously, that will be a much easier job in Geneva or New York than in Abidjan or Bogotá. But in each of these places the job of finding workplace contacts is made easier by the talents and ability of Canadian spouses; the simple fact that they speak English or French makes them very “marketable” within the business, international or expatriate communities.
Once job opportunities have been identified, the head of post should take it upon himself or herself to support the candidacies of spouses one hundred per cent. This should not be a problem for the head of post: the calibre of people coming in to the service is equaled and sometimes surpassed by the calibre of the spouses.
In its wisdom, the department created a position that is supposed to assist families in making the transition in living abroad, but it is not viewed seriously. The Community Co-ordinator is supposed to support families and spouses in becoming comfortable in a new setting. It is not an easy job, and yet the remuneration and recognition for the task is a bad joke. Paid less than the average Ottawa newspaper carrier, the person chosen to undertake the job is very often asked to perform far more than the job description. Whether being a welcome wagon, friendly ear, newspaper editor and intermediary for the mission, the job should pay at least the “in-country” minimum wage, instead of the paltry $4,500 currently offered.
Education is one thing that people can do while abroad. But while the education of children is taken care of, there is no means to support spousal education. The average posting period of four years is just right to obtain a degree. Depending on the location, there is a likelihood of a post secondary institution where one could obtain another degree, learn another language, and develop another career — all things of benefit to the spouse, as well as the couple. The very least DFAIT should do is to offer to match a dollar for a dollar spent on education by a spouse. The most would be to pay the whole bill, just as it does for the children.
In situations involving employee couples where DFAIT has the power to enable both spouses to work while abroad, joint postings should be encouraged when both officers are capable of filling available spots. Are joint postings discouraged? I do not know, but I have heard anecdotal evidence that there are only occasional exceptions. Why? Is there a fear of a spouse having to report to a mate? Perhaps this is a problem. But in most instances couples are at the same level; surely DFAIT can establish a buffer or a creative way of ensuring that the spouse is not reporting directly to his or her mate.
The chance of remaining in a post or a region longer than the assigned four years should be encouraged, as it is useful to the department to have someone who is an experienced hand in place for an extended period; for a family it is especially valuable. The Americans have a trade policy expert in Geneva who has, with two short breaks, been here for 17 years. He is a valued asset for his country, and his wife has a very good career in an international organization. I would not expect Canada to keep people in place that long, but the four-year duration should not be carved in stone.
As for cross postings, the current rule is not terribly cost-effective, even if it does allow the department to “share the wealth” of experience abroad. Moving from Geneva to Brussels or Paris to Oslo is neither expensive nor complicated. Moving from Geneva to Ottawa and then to Paris a few years later is both expensive and disruptive for all involved, especially children who have to change schools — and spouses establishing their own careers. In the past, a “case-by-case” approach was taken; today’s across the board rules could use some flexibility.
I have mentioned that the Foreign Service is no longer a vocation like the priesthood. If that is so, why does it not allow people from other departments or even (gasp!) the private sector, to attempt lateral movements into its ranks? That would be an easy and efficient way of integrating spouses with the necessary competence, but it would also bring in a lot of the much needed “new blood” that is currently “out there” and not coming into the Foreign Service.
These ideas are simple beginnings; I have no doubt that many of my fellow spouses have more. If the department really wants to keep its people, then it should encourage a stronger role for spouses, listen to and then act on the suggestions they have. Since this article was first drafted, the Foreign Service Community Association and the department, notably “Champion” Marc Lortie have been making some headway in pressing the issues I have raised. And while there has been word of progress, we have yet to see anything concrete. Will the hopes of real support for spouses come crashing down in a decision by Finance or a Treasury Board directive? I hate to be cynical, but good policies have been stopped dead in their tracks this way in the past. And if that does happen, the problems of keeping qualified people will, no doubt, continue.
“La Relève” has been an attempt to find the best and the brightest in the government as a whole. It has even opened up opportunities for people in DFAIT to work in other areas. Let it be said that there are obvious problems with the programme’s approach. But at least an effort is being made. The time has come for a similar “relève” in personnel policy, for the department to look itself in the mirror and make serious changes to the way it organizes itself. Otherwise, I believe, it will lose the people it values and it will rarely, if ever, attract the people it seeks.
“Our strength is people” says a well-known advertisement for a steel making firm. The strength of Canada’s reputation abroad is based on the quality of people in its high commissions, and missions everywhere, or so we are told time and again. Then why not recognize that, and adapt personnel policy to the next century rather than keeping to the last. The belief in the “vocation” of DFAIT is still there, but times change: the desire to maintain the same system today as in the 1930s would be ridiculed in any other business or profession. Let DFAIT catch up with the times. In its early days, its work was seen as groundbreaking. By changing its approach now, DFAIT can give real meaning to the work of people like Skelton, Willgress and Pearson, who thought of the Foreign Service as “superior” in many ways to the rest of government. They, more than any, would understand the drive for change to bring the department into a new century.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 16, No. 2 (1999) — Summer 1999 // Été 1999, pp. 3–5. Read the rest of this issue →
