The Foreign Service Journal, November 2011

16 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 1 restricted to East Coast elites who were “male, pale and Yale.” True, the Foreign Service has made a concerted effort to become more representative than in those long-ago days. Yet class prejudices still linger and the Foreign Service often continues to connote elitism. What individual officers bring in the form of social class, elite education and family connections can still play a big role in placement and career ad- vancement. Despite our best efforts, we are still less representative than the Army. To overcome this historical legacy, the Foreign Service could embrace its own version of esprit de corps that mirrors many of the aspects of how the Army promotes collective pride and de-emphasizes individual ego. The Mission Comes First In the Army, the activities of every unit and every individual are placed within a context. The reason for the activity is explained. Performance is mission-oriented. The goal comes first and units are told to work cohesively to ensure successful completion of the mission. Individuals who showboat and subordinate the mission to their individual ambition do not do well and are singled out for correction. By contrast, the Foreign Service spends little or no time explaining to its members why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, duties are often performed mechanically. The mission becomes subordinate to the procedures. This is a common curse of bureaucratic organizations, and State Department bureaucracy is leg- endary. So much time is spent for- matting and clearing paper that officers lose track of what they are ac- tually doing. There is also a feeling that the in- stitution does not care whether the in- dividual employees comprehend how their jobs fit within the greater whole. Just as takes place in the Army, For- eign Service personnel should be told how their efforts fit into broader U.S. foreign policy and how their hard work and sacrifice benefit the nation. Otherwise, there is often no sense that a mission has been accomplished. Take Care of Your Troops Army officers and non-commis- sioned officers are evaluated on how well they take care of their troops. This not only includes subordinates but their families, as well. Officers and NCOs so egotistical and wrapped up in their own advancement that they do not show concern for the well- being of their subordinates receive poor evaluations and do not progress in their careers. From the outset, Army personnel are taught this essen- tial component of leadership. By contrast, concern for subordi- nates is not part of the State Depart- ment evaluation process. Nor is there much emphasis on families. Instead, officers are taught to look after them- selves and their careers first and fore- most. This can lead, rightly or wrongly, to a perception by subordinates that “successful” Foreign Service officers are those willing to do anything to get ahead, including letting down col- leagues and disappointing subordi- nates. These allegations arise out of the fact that such self-centered behavior is seldom punished in the Foreign Serv- ice. Selfishness and excessive egotism are not viewed as indicators of poor leadership and a lack of esprit de corps, but are often seen as the norm. Transparency In the Army, personnel are told from the outset of their careers what is required for promotion. The quali- ties, the classes, the assignments and the performance indicators are clearly laid out and easy to understand. At the outset, officers are told that only 5 percent of them will become generals. Officers are told to decide early in their career whether they want to compete to become part of that group or whether they would prefer to retire as colonels or lieutenant colo- nels. Those who eschew the general officer track are not stigmatized or treated as second-class citizens, but rather as professionals pursuing their own career goals. By contrast, the Foreign Service does not make it clear how and why its members are promoted. Some offi- cers rise rapidly through the ranks, while others do not, and the process for promoting and assigning employ- ees is far from transparent. Moreover, there is no automatic S P E A K I N G O U T The Foreign Service could embrace its own version of esprit de corps to promote collective pride and de-emphasize individual ego.