The Foreign Service Journal, March 2006

M A R C H 2 0 0 6 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 need to do wherever possible. If you follow up and follow up, if you give overly-detailed instructions and re- peat points ad nauseum, the message you are sending your staff is that you don’t trust them. Happy-to-Glad Editing A colleague serving at a large Western European post (where they do a lot of reporting!) tells me that the supervisors there do frantic, end-of- the-day editing of perfectly acceptable draft cables. Because the subordi- nate’s word choice or syntax is not quite the way they would have said it, the boss makes the writer change it. Now, if we were talking about sub- stantive changes or corrections of fac- tual errors, that would be one thing. But in most cases, the phrasing does not make a whit of difference to the recipients back in Washington: “The tree has leaves on it” and “There are leaves on the tree” really say the same thing. In addition, a supervisor who is focused on making sure that “his” (or her) voice is present in the cable or memo may miss far more serious flaws. Or consider another example of over-editing: interoffice memos and fax cover sheets. I know one officer who routinely edits requests for something within a consulate before they go out. If you write, “Please send us a copy of the book, Politics in America ,” he’ll change it to, “Please send us one copy of the book, Politics in America ,” wasting his time, his sub- ordinate’s time and paper! Trust Us This attitude manifests itself in other ways, too. One day a colleague delivered mail to her section chief, who expressed surprise that a box he was expecting was not included. She explained that she’d brought the entire pouch shipment for the day and then continued on her way. She happened to walk back in his office a few minutes later and found him on the phone with the mailroom staff demanding “his” box. Here’s another example. A section chief of my acquaintance was asked to chair the embassy award committee. But according to post practice, the ambassador was the only one who could convene the group, and always sat in on meetings. This produced the worst of both worlds: the ambas- sador’s and section chief’s time was wasted, and relations between the two were anything but “professional and pleasant.” And we’ve probably all seen cases where an ambassador gives an instruc- tion to the DCM, then repeats it to the political counselor and on down the line. And is it really a good use of a Senior Foreign Service officer’s time to follow up on a subordinate’s motor pool request? Interactions like these, particularly when they take place in front of non-State employees or local staff, are lethal to morale and the con- cept of a “team.” Of course, there has to be a transi- tion period for new employees to set- tle in, and perhaps that needs to be longer in State Department offices than it would be for other large organ- izations. But by the end of any offi- cer’s first six months, you should either trust him or her to carry out instructions and work without con- stant supervision — or be looking for ways to ease them out of the Service. Fix the Problem I suspect that some of you are shaking your heads and muttering, “But I must follow up; our work is that important and my staff need that much direction.” Sorry, but that means they are not measuring up. So instead of peering over their shoul- ders all day long, you should be taking the time to document poor perfor- mance and look for ways to help them improve it. Yes, this will produce squeals of outrage, and perhaps even a grievance. But we are not here just to have fun; we are here to carry out transformational diplomacy. Plus, keeping poor performers on staff is a disservice to the American people we work for and the thousands of highly motivated, qualified candidates who fail the Foreign Service exam every year not for lack of ability, but for lack of slots to fill. Documenting performance prob- lems and counseling employees be- fore giving them a poor EER is part of every supervisor’s duty to train and prepare the next generation of State Department leaders, especially since doing so improves the chances of an honest evaluation standing up to chal- lenge. If the problem is lack of skills or training, not motivation, then make certain to address that. Let that mid- level officer go for the training they need in management. Have real, honest counseling sessions. In short, if your staff frustrates you, teach them and guide them. Don’t do their job for them. What are some of the rewards of S P E A K I N G O U T u Trust your staff to do their jobs. Expect the best; they might just surprise you.