The Foreign Service Journal, March 2023

20 MARCH 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL SPEAKING OUT In the Corridors: Where Culture, Reputation, and DEIAMeet BY TANESHA T. D I L LARD Tanesha T. Dillard joined the Foreign Service in 2010. She currently serves in Luanda, where she lives with her daughter. She recently completed the Women’s Leadership Program through Washington University and Brookings Institution and obtained Diversity and Inclusion certification from Cornell University. Dillard is a graduate of Prairie View A&M University. “I f you don’t get along, you don’t belong.” This is how I summarize the message received during the first weeks into my dream job, the U.S. Foreign Service. “Corridor reputation” is an unofficial but espoused value of the State Department’s culture, according to Diplopedia. It is described as a person’s character, quali- ties, and interactions based on informal observations from colleagues not detailed in record. It is highly regarded, and for new hires it becomes a fixture in the lexi- con of State Department lingo. The corridor reputation conversation during orientation was uncomfortable. Despite the notion that you can have a positive corridor reputation, my orienta- tion class was mostly warned of the oppo- site and its impact on one’s career. After the talk, we had a much-needed break that went on longer than the trainers anticipated. One of our trainers, who was the typical successful State Department extrovert, asked me to rally my colleagues back from the break. Being an introvert and already outside my comfort zone, I failed miserably at this task. I saw the trainer’s annoyance with me, as she stepped in to get the job done. I felt the sting of what could become my corridor reputation immediately. I internalized her response and my failure as incompetence that others would see, if not believe. Thereafter, whenever I passed this colleague in the corridors of the State Department, she wouldn’t acknowledge me or seemed annoyed by my presence. At least with her, I felt my corridor reputation was sealed and couldn’t be undone. I passed all the requirements, certifica- tions, tests, interviews, and clearances to be selected for this competitive position. Surely, if I qualified for the Foreign Service, didn’t I deserve to be here? Yet doubt set in as I grappled with corridor reputation and its importance tomy onboarding. Later in my career, I realized that corridor reputa- tion is equally, if not more, about percep- tion than reality. This phenomenon exists in every organization, though its impor- tance in personnel decisions may vary. As informal as it may be, the State Depart- ment has not only named it, but also embraced it. Not surprisingly, the criteria for assessing “corridor reputation” reflect the predominant values of the institution. At State, the corridor reputation cul- ture fails to support a genuinely collabor- ative workforce, and thus burdens mem- bers of minority groups, simply because while diversity is increasingly seen as a value, the importance of inclusion is not yet appreciated. The recent diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives give us a chance to change this for the better. Exclusion and Privilege— Don’t Look Up The State Department has been slow to understand the difference between diver- sity and inclusion. While diversity exists, it cannot thrive due to the lack of inclu- sion. Diversity is recruitment. Diversity is having different people in an organiza- tion. Diversity doesn’t address the need to make changes to support individuals that belong tomarginalized groups. Inclusion is retention and representation in leader- ship. Inclusion is the acceptance of and continued desire to have a diverse commu- nity. And it’s the appreciation of what that diversity brings. It’s an openness to have a culture that reflects a diverse community. Culture is developed through shared experiences and values over time. At State, the experiences of highly educated white men have set the tone and expec- tations of our culture for decades. They, therefore, defined what is acceptable in terms of character, qualities, and interac- tions in assessing one’s corridor reputa- tion. The majority—who may not relate to minority groups based on gender, ethnicity, culture, racial history—set the standard for all, and while diversity is increasingly accepted, inclusion is not yet part of that standard. Marginalized groups at State already experience the feeling of being under a