The Foreign Service Journal, September 2018

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2018 45 regrettably). These women assume they will have a seat at the table and at least an equal voice in the deliberations. Our millennial recruits came of age in the era of the entre- preneur, of the small team or the extraordinary individual who makes big changes, who disrupts the conventional. They value impact over money. Perhaps the most important common thread, the one that weaves the rest into a tapestry of service and ties them to previ- ous generations, is that they have an abiding passion to make a difference. They understand the cost of maintaining our security, our economy and our values; they understand that a domestic and global environment marked by disruption and discontinui- ties results in violence and human hardship. They are comfortable working and living in a diverse world; they are charged by belief in the entrepreneurial spirit that an individual can make a profound difference; and they have the passion to try to be that person. Their commitment to serve their country is without question. The words of our oath of office—our sworn duty to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”—inspire pride and humility. What Are Their Questions and Concerns? But they have questions that reflect this same impulse to serve and to make a difference. Some are valid and should be part of recruitment and retention reform proposals; some are based on misperceptions that can be ameliorated through more effective outreach efforts; and some reflect issues and concerns that extend beyond the purview of State but are nonetheless valid for discussion. The cynicism about established institutions extends to the State Department. “Cog-in-a-wheel” is not a status to which they aspire. They are eager to learn; they seek mentors and guid- ance; and they look for role models. Many first learned about the department and the Foreign Service from a former practitioner. They understand this is a profession one learns through appren- ticeship. What is not clear to them is when and how does one move from entry-level to policy influencer. Must they wait 20 or 30 years to become an ambassador? (Answer: No, senior-level positions recognize but do not create the policy influencer.) At one A-100 swearing-in a few years back, a senior officer reminded the newly-minted officers that they had been selected through a process designed to identify intelligence, knowledge and character, and that they were charged with bringing those same qualities to work every day. It was a reassurance of non- cog’ism. Still, it is in our own best interest to be candid about the realities of working within a bureaucracy: there are rules, processes, policies and procedures, most, some, of which exist for a reason. Operating outside of these processes (freelancing) is not an option. It can be dangerous. But it is also in our interest to actively encourage and support initiative and policy entrepreneurship at all levels, even the most junior. State “grows its own.” We bring people in at the bottom and hope to end with seasoned, experienced officers and policy leaders. One cannot go from cog to policymaker in one promo- tion. That transition evolves over time with guidance, experience and leadership. We ourselves ought to more clearly understand what that process looks like and convey to our new Foreign Ser- vice members what they can expect, what the opportunities and encouragement for growth are. Those who seek to join the Foreign Service choose it because of the “foreign” nature of the work. They want to serve, work and live abroad. They recognize we live in a sometimes dangerous world, and that diplomacy is a high-stakes, high-risk profes- sion. They also understand that effective diplomacy is based on effective relationships. They may not fully appreciate the unique security challenges of diplomacy or the unique profile of an American diplomat abroad—as distinct from a student abroad, an NGO worker or a tourist—until they start their FS career, but within those realities they want to get out there and do their job. Like many seasoned FSOs, they will chafe at the trade-offs in the balance of security and diplomacy abroad. What is not new is the question of balance between profes- sional obligations and personal integrity, between unquestioned loyalty to national interests—remember our oath to uphold the Constitution—and specific policies or actions that violate that trust. There is a line beyond which even a soldier may disobey an order. That is no less true for Foreign Service members. Where that line is, and what action, up to and including resignation, is the right action, is deeply personal; but everyone at State must understand that the line is there and must be respected. What Are Our Obligations? The flip side of this question is what value our leadership places on people who “speak truth to power” through coun- tervailing data, inconvenient but well-grounded analysis, and alternative policy recommendations. No one expects every policy recommendation to be approved. You will not win every policy debate, and perhaps in some cases shouldn’t. You are not always right. But are competing analyses and approaches given a fair and reasonable hearing? Is the process open, transparent and accountable? Again, are creativity, initiative, risk-taking and intellectual entrepreneurship seen as institu-