The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2017

46 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2017 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL USAID parlance). They present problems that do not fit neatly within any sector. Instead, they require the ability to work across sectoral and agency boundaries in novel and creative ways. Above all, they require courage: not only bravery in the face of real physi- cal risks, but the willingness to send bad news up the chain of com- mand and to constructively dissent when necessary. Since fragile states abound with policy and program failures and contradictions, they generate plenty of bad news to report. For all these reasons, Foreign Service work in these states requires a certain kind of professional: one who is able and willing to work independently, deeply commit to a mission, continuously build new competencies (especially by engaging with different professionals or by developing new cultural and linguistic skills), go where the action is, speak truth to power and be credible to all parties. The Ideal Follower That person is the exemplary follower. Such individuals and their teams needmore freedomof action, not less. But the natural reflex of bureaucracy is to go in the opposite direction. What tends to happen, especially in the CPCs, is that the U.S. politi- cal leadership sends more leaders andmore money—but then requires those employees andmanagers to spendmost of their time accounting for, well, their time. This was particularly true of Afghanistan during my tour from 2008 to 2009 there as head of the Democracy and Governance Office. The organizational chart became an inverted pyramid as multiple ambassadors and coor- dinators, along with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and a constant train of congressional delegations, all watched over project managers who had little mobility or authority. A particularly unfortunate side effect of heavy oversight is that mere “staff” are discouraged from revealing policies that are not working or counterparts who are abusive and corrupt. I can attest frommy work in Latin America that reporting human rights abuses by security forces is often not welcome. Under these circum- stances, the exemplary follower may be unfairly viewed as “not a teamplayer,” when this kind of employee is the one who can actu- ally build U.S. credibility. The Foreign Service’s traditional methods of selecting, devel- oping, promoting and rewarding staff are designed for relatively stable contexts. One gradually assumes greater responsibilities and becomes a leader, or at least moves toward that goal. But complex, unpredictable environments, such as fragile states, challenge traditional management paradigms. These environments require quick, creative responses and the sorting out of competing objec- tives. They demand a higher level of independence, the ability to collaborate and creativity. Loyalty to the mission becomes more important thanmere compliance with procedures and directives. In some cases, as occurred with provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan, an employee is attached to a special unit away from the capital andmust work independently of the “mother ship.” Even in the embassy or USAIDmission, employees have to negotiate their way through a tangled web of interagency, multisectoral andmulti-institutional interests without the benefit of a proven textbook. A good example of this is rehabilitation of youth soldiers and gang members, where interventions are legal, social, psychological and economic. Trial, error, rapid learning and retrial slowly show the way forward, and competing priorities (e.g., supporting a new government vs. protecting human rights) need to be sorted out in practice. A professional who simply manages up or follows direction will not provide the type of energy or creativity to such a complex task. Restoring the Balance The Foreign Service already has many exemplary followers, but they do not receive the same encouragement and opportunities to excel in that role as leaders receive in theirs. So how should USAID and other foreign affairs agencies go about restoring balance between these two sides of the same coin? Down the road, we should consider establishing a School of Followership Studies at the Foreign Service Institute, which already has a very active School of Leadership andManagement. Even Foreign Service employees who are wholly committed to becoming organizational leaders could benefit from a few courses on followership. But that will obviously take significant time and resources. In the meantime, here are a few suggestions to nurture the next generation of exemplary followers. One approach could be for USAID to create self-managed teams in the field, charged with proposing and implementing new solutions to a thorny development problem, such as insecurity or natural disasters.These teams would have the freedom to experi- ment, make programadjustments and carry out frequent, informal evaluations. Exemplary followers, and their teams, need more freedom of action, not less.