The Foreign Service Journal, March 2023

40 MARCH 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL neither the organization nor their fellow officers are looking out for them, that they got where they are because of looking out for number one. In an organization in which one can become a deputy chief of mission or ambassador after only three weeks of mandatory lead- ership training in a career, how could we possibly develop, unless by accident, into effective leaders? When we don’t give hiring managers the time and resources to really look into who will be selected, when we allow high-ranking leaders to deliver favors in the way of plum jobs to staffers, we again encourage this damag- ing culture that dominates our ranks. Schake says we should be more like the military, which is also an organization that is (usually) led by politically appointed civil- ians. However, military servicemembers, from the top general to an entry-level enlistee, understand, usually embrace, and hone their commitment to the culture of leadership. Consider the con- trast: Foreign Service officers are commissioned after a few weeks of orientation, whereas military officers go through rigorous train- ing that continues their entire careers. In the military, where the average person spends close to a third of their career in training, you are taught that you are always in a position of leadership, at any level, because you can lead by example. You can lead your peers, and you can demonstrate to the communities surrounding your installation that you are a leader. What is second nature in soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, is an afterthought for most diplomats. How Do We Change It? Don’t Start at the Top Good organizations focus on professional development. State does not focus on professional development. Finish the syllogism. These are not new observations. Similarly, the excuses for our professional failings are trite and worn out: no time for a training float? Of course, there’s no time when you focus on policy over professional development.That’s why our current senior leadership cannot be expected to enact meaningful change in this regard. Those who have risen the ranks in a faulty systemmay be reluctant to say there was anything wrong with it. I’m not saying that those at the top are bad leaders; however, because they rose through a system that did not didactically test their leadership abilities, their current suc- cess could disincentivize them to point out flaws and make improvements. In April 2021, I and 49 other Foreign Service and Civil Service officers graduated from the inaugural cohort of the Secretary’s Leadership Seminar. We presented our capstone projects to a group of senior ambassadors, one of whom remarked that it was amazing that FS-2s and GS-14s were thinking so actively and creatively about how to change the department for the better. Many of us laughed about it later, saying, “This is an average Tuesday” in the mid-level of the State Department; we are always thinking about things like these. State’s lack of leadership culture blunts our abilities and blights our better impulses. This is not the fault of the current or past leaders, but they cannot be counted on to be the ones to change it. We have to be humble enough to empower mid-level officers and LE staff, and they should be given the time and top cover to do it. I close with one recommendation: Empower a corps of mid-level Civil Service and Foreign Service officers and LE staff, selected by their peers (this core group can add others at various ranks if they desire), with the mandate and authority to improve our culture of leadership in the department by chewing on prob- lems most of us agree on, such as: • How can we institute a career-long focus on training and development while also accomplishing State’s vital missions? • How can we better value (and utilize) the backbone (70 per- cent) of State’s workforce, LE staff? • How should we assess and promote those who show good leadership skills instead of good staffer skills? • How can we use “manage up” to bring out the best in every- one in the organization? The State Department has no shortage of working groups, which produce a surplus of takeaways, do-outs, and deliverables. (I’m sure there are currently three such groups working on every problem I identify in this article.) What we are lacking is the will to change for the better and a tipping-point-style action to put changes into effect. This new group needs S-level top cover to be able to recommend sweeping changes that the Secretary can approve and fast track. By empowering a group of leadership change agents, State’s current political leadership could leave a legacy just as significant as the good policies they are pursuing; they could be the architects of a new culture of leadership, making State a better and more effective place to work. n The first step is to understand the prevailing ethos in our culture, “managing up,” and then to discourage its most toxic mutations.