Writing about my job: Civil Servant (UK foreign policy)

Great question- I think this is particularly important because a lot of the value from government jobs comes later in your career, so if you are unsure it is a good fit, you particularly want to be gaining transferrable skills. I haven't worked in other EA career paths, which limits my insight a bit, but here's my best bet:

Yes, I think it has given me a good (not excellent) skillset. 

• Working on policy questions gives good research skills- I've become skilled at digesting complex information from a range of sources, figuring which elements are relevant to the question I'm answering, and condensing them in to a clearly communicated recommendation. Frustratingly though, my work is usually too confidential to showcase this.
• You get good experience of communicating why something matters. There are a million important issues a department deals with- being able to explain to others the importance of your area, and why it should be funded/worked on/discussed in meetings is a useful skill in the civil service and for e.g. spreading EA ideas or attracting fundraising.
• I've practiced a lot of operations skills- setting up meetings or workshops, booking venues, managing competing deadlines and staying organised. I've gained management skills. I've gained recruiting experience (which is a bit civil-service-y but probably fairly transferrable). All these skills would be widely applicable, particularly if working at a non-profit.
• I've been involved for a while in the UK government's forecasting efforts- great for picking up forecasting skills! 

However, you also spend a fair amount of time/energy learning how to work with the system- like how different government departments work together (including international governments), how information is shared in the civil service, how ministers like to have information prepared. I think these skills are less transferrable, so take  up time you could be learning something else. I guess there are parallels here with most careers that aren't directly relevant to other EA career paths. But I'd guess doing research on something non-EA related would be more transferrable to in-depth EA research than policy on something EA related.

I'd be interested if others have thoughts to add- this is a plug for fellow civil servants to chip in!

Thanks for the questions- and sorry for the delay answering. I'll go through 1 and 2 in turn but think 3 is too political for me to answer - sorry!

1)I was instrumental in setting up and playing secretariat to a group of development ministers that convened during the beginning of the covid pandemic. This allowed like-minded ministers to share best practice and coordinate in what was a rapidly changing crisis for many developing countries. Some new principles spun from this group for how to support certain countries and I think it probably made a very slight improvement to how government's development agencies prioritized. The aim was focused on global health and development, but it also demonstrated agility in crisis, and showed UK and Canada's (the co-chairs) ability to convene in these situations. I mainly managed the logistics and advised the policy teams preparing for these meetings - I'd guess my involvement improved the outcomes of the group by a few percent. However, if I hadn't being doing it, someone else would have, probably to a fairly similar standard (though I like to think not quite as well!).

For another example: My colleague set up an annual survey of the FCDO (foreign, commonwealth and development office) to forecast what future years will hold for foreign policy. In 2019, the top answer of what could be an unexpected 'black swan' event in the coming year was a global pandemic. I'm not sure how much impact this had on our policy- probably a little. He was in charge of the survey and it seems very plausible that had he (or possibly one of his colleagues or seniors) not been there to come up with this forecast-y question, it would not have been included. My point being that the counterfactual here, unlike my first example, is most of the impact would not have been there without him.

I'm relatively new/junior in the FCDO ranks - those working higher up would have examples of higher impact. I believe the counterfactual impact increases somewhat exponentially - as you get higher up and more experienced, you're doing things that the civil service wouldn't be able to find others to do.

2) Staff in overseas embassies influence the policy of UK government a lot. The FCDO is ~2/3 overseas, and a typical ratio would be e.g. 1-3 France policy officers based in the UK to 30-50 France policy officers in Paris. If a Minister is making a decision about country X, then the UK ambassador to X will be one of the key advisors- possibly the most influential civil servant in that situation. However, if you standardize for seniority, you usually have more influence on UK government policy when based in London- those 1-3 France policy officers are fairly entry-level positions and will be key to coordinating policy positions on France. Someone equivalent in the embassy will be more focused on communicating UK policy (and, more importantly, influencing French policy). If you're looking at eg great power conflict then you might want to be working in the embassies in US or China, to influence their policy as much as possible, or working on the relevant policy area in the UK base.

Yeah I definitely have colleagues on both ends- some get frustrated when there aren't enough opportunities for spontaneity or risks, others like working in a well-established institution with  set norms. I would add that people are very much encouraged to bring their own style and ideas to work and it's safe to challenge things- but it inevitably is harder to shift culture given the size of the organisation. 

I personally don't mind the peaks and troughs/inconsistency of work- keeps things exciting!

Does that sound consistent to you? I'm conscious terms like hierarchy or openness have different meanings to different people.