The Foreign Service Journal, November 2013

46 NOVEMBER 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL One might think that in a logical world, the narrative would help to put the numbers in context, or explain why, despite a certain set of digits, a counterintuitive course of action was suggested. Nope. If the figures in the plan didn’t support it, forget that new program. Plain, unvarnished English wasn’t enough to justify it. As someone who held management and leadership posi- tions for more than 50 years before my retirement from the Foreign Service in September 2012, I know how important it is to be able to gauge the progress of task completion through effective measurement of the variables that go into that task. I also accept the need to provide some objective justification for the expenditure of resources. Or to put it another way: Performance metrics are an excel- lent management control tool. But to say that only things that lend themselves to portrayal in graphs or columns of numbers are important, or can be effectively managed, is naïve at best, and downright dangerous at worst. The danger I see in State’s almost obsessive reliance on metrics in evaluating proposals from the field is the fact that bureaucrats, like water, tend to take the path of least resistance and rely solely on the numbers. This, in my view, completely ignores the often-amorphous nature of the tasks assigned to the department and its employees, as well as the inherent difficulty of depending solely on a quantitative approach to assess relationships, whether between people, organizations or nations. One should also bear in mind that we in the Foreign Service work mainly in foreign countries. The different cultural prac- tices and legal systems within which we have to function often have an unpredictable impact, and require modification of management techniques that would be perfectly appropriate in Washington. Don’t Forget the Intangibles If I learned one thing during two decades in the Army, it was this: To be successful, an organization must get the num- bers right. There are, however, a whole host of other factors that defy measurement, but can also ensure failure if they are ignored. Morale and dedication to the institution’s objectives, for instance, are crucial. But I would defy any manager or leader to tell me how many units of morale make the difference between success and failure. How much dedication and com- mitment on the part of the members of a unit are essential to push that unit over the top? Sometimes these critical components of effective perfor- mance (or more accurately, their absence) can be intuited from other measurements. Excessive absenteeism, on-the-job accidents, labor-management disputes and employee com- plaints, for example, can all be measured. But those measure- ments don’t always indicate what we think they do. Absenteeism, for instance, may indicate low morale, but doesn’t always lead to mission failure. For that matter, it may not signal low morale. Look at employee attendance around the time of the Super Bowl if you don’t believe me. Nor is low attendance necessarily an omen of poor perfor- mance. If those not reporting for work regularly are your poor- est performers, there’s a good chance that output will actually grow. Going Walkabout During my career in government, I have on more than one occasion been put in charge of an organization that was in trouble. In all cases, the numbers were discouraging; absen- teeism was high, retention was low and performance was substandard. But in each case, I found that the solution to the organization’s problems was not in the numbers, but in the intangibles that affect performance. Things like low morale, lack of trust and employee burnout were at the root of the problems, and fixing these problems required something other than focusing on metrics. Implementing an open-door policy that was real, not just lip service, helped to rebuild trust. Management by walking around improved communications within the organizations and helped achieve employee buy-in to the mission. Putting emphasis on the content of work, rather than the number of hours devoted to tasks, worked wonders in one organization I led. When people realized that I was more con- cerned with a properly completed job than how many hours they spent at their desks, the quality and quantity of output improved dramatically. Foreign Service managers often become fixated onmetrics, using them to justify budget andmanpower requests.