The Foreign Service Journal, March 2007

M A R C H 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 17 S P E A K I N G O U T understood this well. He attended a different church each Sunday, saying that he met all kinds of people he would never have had an opportunity to meet otherwise. Another ambas- sador, a career officer, regularly took as many American staff as he could to participate in on-the-ground humani- tarian projects, such as painting a shel- ter for street children. Many ambas- sadors are superb at reaching out in this people-to-people manner, but others are not. Many have succeeded or failed on the basis of how they inter- acted with — and influenced — their host nations. Running a mission smoothly, argu- ing convincingly on behalf of American interests, and influencing the host society on its own ground are challenges every ambassador faces. The very best can be equally effective on all levels, but that is quite rare. More commonly, successful chiefs of mission excel in one area and work conscientiously to improve in the oth- ers. The danger lies in neglecting the other key components of the job to concentrate on the role that is most congenial. Organizationally, it is hard to believe our diplomatic missions will ultimately be any better than the indi- viduals who lead them. Representing America requires the finest ambas- sadors our nation can produce in order to hone our diplomacy to its most effective. J. Michael Cleverley was a Foreign Service officer from 1976 to 2006. His many overseas postings included tours as DCM in Helsinki (1996-1999) and Athens (2000-2003) and as deputy permanent representative in the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Organizations in Rome (2003-2006). He now consults and teaches contemporary U.S.-Euro- pean relations. In today’s Foreign Service, there may be a tendency for career officers to short-sell the importance of mission management.