Posted on May 19, 2016
From Camos to Pinstripes: Making the Transition from the Military to the Foreign Service
10.6K
22
5
11
11
0
Are you about to retire? No doubt you’ve signed up for the retirement seminar at your local base. They do a great job of preparing you for a lot of the things you’ll need to know about being a civilian that you probably haven’t encountered in the years you’ve been in uniform - things like preparing a resume, going to job interviews, and looking for a job. They even offer suggestions on which types of jobs to look for, depending on your MOS and military experience. The one career field you’re not likely to hear mentioned in these programs, and one that is a good fit for most career military people, is the U.S. Foreign Service.
Despite military and Foreign Service personnel working in close quarters throughout times of war, it’s probably safe to say that most military personnel come away from their encounters without a clue about how these people came to their jobs. I know that during my 20 years in the army, I worked closely with the American embassies, primarily in Vietnam and Korea. Yet, it was only during my last tour that I even knew such a thing existed when a civilian librarian at the Presidio of Monterrey pointed me toward the Foreign Service as a post-military career option.
Despite the lack of active recruiting on military bases for the Foreign Service, the number of former military personnel now serving as American diplomats in the Foreign Service is increasing. I believe that it’s due to the increased exposure that GIs have with diplomats in recent wars. It might seem at first glance that the profession of arms has little in common with diplomacy, but upon closer inspection, one finds are many commonalities.
In the first place, the Foreign Service, though a civilian service, is not the same as the Civil Service. Like the military, the Foreign Service was established by legislation (the Foreign Service Act of 1924). Also like the military, Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) have personnel ranks through competitive promotions, whereas Civil Service personnel ranks are attached to the specific job or position, and not to the individual. The Foreign Service rank system, and its up-or-out promotion system, is based on the pre-World War II naval rank and promotion system.
Like military personnel, FSOs go wherever they’re needed. They can be found serving in some of the most unhealthy, dangerous places on earth.
That, I know, is not enough information to convince you that this is a good career field to consider, so let’s look at what Foreign Service Officers, America’s diplomats, actually do.
The job of an American diplomat of the US Foreign Service is to promote peace, support prosperity, protect American citizens, and advance US interests abroad. They work in more than 270 embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions, as well as in staffing positions at the Department of State and other government and private agencies in the United States. They meet with foreign government officials and local populations, observe and report on local, political, and economic events, assist in the negotiation of treaties and agreements, assist Americans in distress, issue visas and passports to foreigners, and a whole host of other activities, often operating under hazardous and strenuous conditions. They are the often overlooked American public servants, invisible to the average American until there’s a tragedy such as the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya that took the life of the American ambassador and three other American officials. During these times of crisis, Americans are aware that thousands of their fellow Americans are at work around the world looking after their interests. Now, after a military career, what could be better than continuing that service in a civilian capacity—and getting to see the world in the process?
When I joined the Foreign Service in 1982, there was no Internet, so I had to get my information on the field from dusty old books in the post library at Monterrey. Nowadays, it’s as easy as going to the State Department website that provides detailed information about career opportunities, application procedures, and even a link to allow you to practice the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT).
There are a few things about the transition to the Foreign Service though that neither the military retirement seminar nor the government website will tell you; things that I learned through experience during my 30 year Foreign Service career.
Professionally, the transition isn’t that difficult. The leadership and management skills you will have picked up during your military career are completely transferable to any other career field, including the diplomatic service. For people who have spent huge percentages of their lives in the military though, there are some personal adjustments that have to be made that are pretty significant.
The most significant adjustment is, despite the fact that the Foreign Service’s rank and promotion system is based on the military’s and it’s a government hierarchy, the discipline that military personnel take for granted often seems absent. Everyone in an embassy or consulate is on a first name basis - with the one exception being the ambassador, who is always referred to as ‘Mister’ or ‘Madam’ Ambassador. For me, having my bosses instruct me to ‘just call me Liz’, or being called by my first name immediately upon introduction by a twenty-something whose peach fuzz still didn’t need a razor was unsettling. Beyond the person at the top of the pyramid, the chain of command in an embassy or consulate is often unclear. Does the chief of the political section outrank the senior consular officer? Maybe on a personal level, but in most embassies, the ambassador will turn to their political chief before the consular officer, regardless of rank.
To someone accustomed to clear rank and precedence, this can be unsettling. In my own career, for instance, when I was appointed consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, I was an FS-01, which is equivalent to an army colonel. As the principal officer of the consulate general, I answered to the ambassador through the deputy chief of mission (DCM). When the embassy section chiefs, all of whom personally outranked me, came to visit, they had to get my permission and at social functions, they ranked behind me. The only parallel I can think of in the military is the fact that certain officers, chaplains for instance, can’t command combat units, and would have to follow the orders of a junior combat arms officer if they found themselves in that situation. In the military, though, this is rare. In the Foreign Service, it’s a common occurrence, and it takes some getting used to.
Another thing that took a lot of getting used to was the diplomatic service’s hierarchy, a very different hierarchy than the military. In the military, ranks are fixed and well understood; a colonel outranks a major, etc. In an embassy, the only clear “alpha dog” in the pack is the ambassador. The relative power positions of others shifts depending upon the mood and whims of the ambassador, or what the bureaucracy in Washington is interested in at the time. A lot of noise is made about teamwork, and inability to get along with others can harm your diplomatic career, but the performance rating system, with its emphasis on individual achievement, sometimes seems to contradict the call for teamwork. During my time in the Foreign Service, I had the opportunity to work with civilians in several other government agencies (including the Department of Defense), in academia, and in the private sector. I found this idea of individual promotion but constant teamwork to be the case throughout the civilian world. In the military, you learn to support your buddy and to expect support in return. In most civilian jobs (with the exception of occupations like policemen, firefighters, etc.), the performance evaluation systems haven’t evolved to the point of effectively capturing teamwork skills. In many ways your military background gives you an advantage in this regard. You can learn to do the things you need to do to succeed, while at the same time modelling team building. It’s what I did for 30 years, and it resulted in organizations and offices under my leadership consistently outperforming others.
My only regret is that I was unable to get the Foreign Service to institutionalize this approach - not that I was completely unsuccessful in that regard. When I retired in 2012, I was asked by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the professional association for the entire Foreign Service, to chair a committee on developing and promoting professionalism and ethics in the service. That committee, under new leadership, continues to push for the type of training and orientation that emphasizes the virtues of teamwork, dedication, and selflessness that are the hallmarks of military professionals.
There you have it. If you’re about to hang up the uniform, but you still want to serve, the Foreign Service offers a unique opportunity: meaningful service, adventure, and an opportunity to travel awaits you.
Despite military and Foreign Service personnel working in close quarters throughout times of war, it’s probably safe to say that most military personnel come away from their encounters without a clue about how these people came to their jobs. I know that during my 20 years in the army, I worked closely with the American embassies, primarily in Vietnam and Korea. Yet, it was only during my last tour that I even knew such a thing existed when a civilian librarian at the Presidio of Monterrey pointed me toward the Foreign Service as a post-military career option.
Despite the lack of active recruiting on military bases for the Foreign Service, the number of former military personnel now serving as American diplomats in the Foreign Service is increasing. I believe that it’s due to the increased exposure that GIs have with diplomats in recent wars. It might seem at first glance that the profession of arms has little in common with diplomacy, but upon closer inspection, one finds are many commonalities.
In the first place, the Foreign Service, though a civilian service, is not the same as the Civil Service. Like the military, the Foreign Service was established by legislation (the Foreign Service Act of 1924). Also like the military, Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) have personnel ranks through competitive promotions, whereas Civil Service personnel ranks are attached to the specific job or position, and not to the individual. The Foreign Service rank system, and its up-or-out promotion system, is based on the pre-World War II naval rank and promotion system.
Like military personnel, FSOs go wherever they’re needed. They can be found serving in some of the most unhealthy, dangerous places on earth.
That, I know, is not enough information to convince you that this is a good career field to consider, so let’s look at what Foreign Service Officers, America’s diplomats, actually do.
The job of an American diplomat of the US Foreign Service is to promote peace, support prosperity, protect American citizens, and advance US interests abroad. They work in more than 270 embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions, as well as in staffing positions at the Department of State and other government and private agencies in the United States. They meet with foreign government officials and local populations, observe and report on local, political, and economic events, assist in the negotiation of treaties and agreements, assist Americans in distress, issue visas and passports to foreigners, and a whole host of other activities, often operating under hazardous and strenuous conditions. They are the often overlooked American public servants, invisible to the average American until there’s a tragedy such as the September 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya that took the life of the American ambassador and three other American officials. During these times of crisis, Americans are aware that thousands of their fellow Americans are at work around the world looking after their interests. Now, after a military career, what could be better than continuing that service in a civilian capacity—and getting to see the world in the process?
When I joined the Foreign Service in 1982, there was no Internet, so I had to get my information on the field from dusty old books in the post library at Monterrey. Nowadays, it’s as easy as going to the State Department website that provides detailed information about career opportunities, application procedures, and even a link to allow you to practice the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT).
There are a few things about the transition to the Foreign Service though that neither the military retirement seminar nor the government website will tell you; things that I learned through experience during my 30 year Foreign Service career.
Professionally, the transition isn’t that difficult. The leadership and management skills you will have picked up during your military career are completely transferable to any other career field, including the diplomatic service. For people who have spent huge percentages of their lives in the military though, there are some personal adjustments that have to be made that are pretty significant.
The most significant adjustment is, despite the fact that the Foreign Service’s rank and promotion system is based on the military’s and it’s a government hierarchy, the discipline that military personnel take for granted often seems absent. Everyone in an embassy or consulate is on a first name basis - with the one exception being the ambassador, who is always referred to as ‘Mister’ or ‘Madam’ Ambassador. For me, having my bosses instruct me to ‘just call me Liz’, or being called by my first name immediately upon introduction by a twenty-something whose peach fuzz still didn’t need a razor was unsettling. Beyond the person at the top of the pyramid, the chain of command in an embassy or consulate is often unclear. Does the chief of the political section outrank the senior consular officer? Maybe on a personal level, but in most embassies, the ambassador will turn to their political chief before the consular officer, regardless of rank.
To someone accustomed to clear rank and precedence, this can be unsettling. In my own career, for instance, when I was appointed consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, I was an FS-01, which is equivalent to an army colonel. As the principal officer of the consulate general, I answered to the ambassador through the deputy chief of mission (DCM). When the embassy section chiefs, all of whom personally outranked me, came to visit, they had to get my permission and at social functions, they ranked behind me. The only parallel I can think of in the military is the fact that certain officers, chaplains for instance, can’t command combat units, and would have to follow the orders of a junior combat arms officer if they found themselves in that situation. In the military, though, this is rare. In the Foreign Service, it’s a common occurrence, and it takes some getting used to.
Another thing that took a lot of getting used to was the diplomatic service’s hierarchy, a very different hierarchy than the military. In the military, ranks are fixed and well understood; a colonel outranks a major, etc. In an embassy, the only clear “alpha dog” in the pack is the ambassador. The relative power positions of others shifts depending upon the mood and whims of the ambassador, or what the bureaucracy in Washington is interested in at the time. A lot of noise is made about teamwork, and inability to get along with others can harm your diplomatic career, but the performance rating system, with its emphasis on individual achievement, sometimes seems to contradict the call for teamwork. During my time in the Foreign Service, I had the opportunity to work with civilians in several other government agencies (including the Department of Defense), in academia, and in the private sector. I found this idea of individual promotion but constant teamwork to be the case throughout the civilian world. In the military, you learn to support your buddy and to expect support in return. In most civilian jobs (with the exception of occupations like policemen, firefighters, etc.), the performance evaluation systems haven’t evolved to the point of effectively capturing teamwork skills. In many ways your military background gives you an advantage in this regard. You can learn to do the things you need to do to succeed, while at the same time modelling team building. It’s what I did for 30 years, and it resulted in organizations and offices under my leadership consistently outperforming others.
My only regret is that I was unable to get the Foreign Service to institutionalize this approach - not that I was completely unsuccessful in that regard. When I retired in 2012, I was asked by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the professional association for the entire Foreign Service, to chair a committee on developing and promoting professionalism and ethics in the service. That committee, under new leadership, continues to push for the type of training and orientation that emphasizes the virtues of teamwork, dedication, and selflessness that are the hallmarks of military professionals.
There you have it. If you’re about to hang up the uniform, but you still want to serve, the Foreign Service offers a unique opportunity: meaningful service, adventure, and an opportunity to travel awaits you.
Foreign Affairs
Jobs
Command Post
Civil Affairs
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Ambassador: Great post! The transition from uniformed military to FSO seems like a natural transition for a military officer following retirement, although the cultural differences between the two institutions present difficult challenges. Could you comment on best practices for adjusting to State culture for those active duty military members assigned to Embassies/Consulates overseas or to DoS in DC? I'm on my third overseas post at an Embassy/Consulate, and working within the State bureaucratic culture still is baffling at times, mostly I think based on the apparently unclear "chain of command" (with the exception of the Ambassador), the apparent lack of hierarchy between State FSOs, and the relationships between the various departments and agencies at post. It still baffles me when I hear an ambassador direct someone to do something and the directed individual does not feel compelled to follow that directive!
Also, on the points you made about professionalization of State FSOs, could you comment on FSO retention? Do you believe there is a "brain drain" at State, where the best officers leave early, as is often discussed regarding the military?
Also, on the points you made about professionalization of State FSOs, could you comment on FSO retention? Do you believe there is a "brain drain" at State, where the best officers leave early, as is often discussed regarding the military?
(4)
(0)
MAJ Charles Ray
I think the most important think to adjust to is the slight flexibility in the 'chain of command.' In the civilian world, there is no UCMJ compelling obedience to the orders of a superior, and the rating system holds the individual accountable for his or her actions, which makes it imperative that orders be assessed for legitimacy even more than in uniform. There is also the fact that even in an embassy, people answer to the ambassador, but also to their parent agencies, so when an ambassador directs someone to do something, even if it's a legitimate directive, it has to be weighed against the ethically sound course of action. This 'right vs. right' conundrum is faced by military people too, but not as often, I think as it is by diplomats. I'll give you an example. Once, when I was ambassador, a local official in the country where I was assigned made threatening noises against NGOs. At the time, our policy was to react to this immediately and forcefully. It just so happened, though, that an American had been arrested in this official's area of control, and I wanted to get him released. One office in Washington wanted me to issue a statement condemning the official, which would have been the 'right' thing to do, but I also knew that doing so would complicate getting the American released. In the end, my decision was to ignore the Washington office. I was in the military for 20 years, and faced a lot of tough decisions, but few were quite like this one, if you see my point. In the military it's more often not, wrong, or at least dicey, versus right and sane. In the civilian world, it's almost always shades of gray all around. Learning to operate effectively in such uncertainty is something you have to develop.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No one made this transition from uniform to pinstripes better than Ambassador Charles Ray and because of his military experience and his life experience, Ambassador Ray always sought out the tough jobs in what most would consider undesirable locations knowing those were the places he could make the most difference and he did. He opened consulates in Shenyang China and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and finished his career as Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He is a great American.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The unit insignia in the background is the 4th Cav. My dad is an alumnus of that unit.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google