Peter Bergen’s Ultimate AfPak Reading List

USAID Photo

Peter Bergen has put together a guide to the most critical readings on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He writes that this is an amalgamation of syllabi from classes he has taught at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The list includes books and articles that he says he found particularly insightful on the topic from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to al Qaeda's media strategy.

Bergen is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C. where he co-directs the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative; a research fellow at New York University's Center on Law and Security and CNN's national security analyst. He is also the editor of Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel.

Check out his Ultimate AfPak Reading List. The list also is available for download in Word document here. I have appended a second list to the downloadable material -- George Packer's AfPak list that came along with his piece on Richard Holbrooke in the New Yorker.

Download: Ultimate AfPak Reading List (Word docx format).

Insider Quote: Learning a Language - the Best Antidote to That Classic Sin

"Learning a language is a path to the avoidance of the kinds of misunderstandings and miscalculations that give rise to conflict. It is essential to understand how the native speakers of the language think. It is the sine qua non of transnational cooperation and alliance management. It is also the best antidote to the classic sin of analysts and military commanders: the tendency to view one’s partners and competitors as the mirror image of oneself, projecting onto them one’s own values and thought processes rather than understanding their perspectives and proclivities in their own terms, for what they are. In peacetime such false expectations are a source of tension; in wartime they can lead to surprise and defeat."

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.
Honoring Language Learners

At the spring’s graduation ceremonies at West Point to present awards to cadets who had excelled in learning Chinese and Russian

H.R. 2410: Towards a Modern and Expeditionary Foreign Service

TITLE III-- Subtitle A of H.R. 2410 calls for modernizing the Department of State. Section 301 specifically provides for “a more modern and expeditionary Foreign Service." I don’t know why “a more modern” language is used here. One is either modern or not. What does “more modern” actually means, I can’t say but see below. Full text of the bill is here.

SEC. 301. TOWARDS A MORE MODERN AND EXPEDITIONARY FOREIGN SERVICE.

(a) Targeted Expansion of Foreign Service- The Secretary of State shall expand the Foreign Service to--

(1) fill vacancies, particularly those vacancies overseas that are critical to key United States foreign policy and national security interests, and, in particular, to prevent crises before they emerge;

(2) increase the capacity of the Department of State to assign and deploy Foreign Service officers and other personnel to prevent, mitigate, and respond to international crises and instability in foreign countries that threaten key United States foreign policy and national security interests; and

(3) ensure that before being assigned to assignments requiring new or improved skills, members of the Foreign Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents (as such terms are defined in section 103 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3903)), as appropriate, receive language, security, area, and other training that is necessary to successfully execute their responsibilities and to enable such members to obtain advanced and other education that will increase the capacity of the Foreign Service to complete its mission.

(b) Authorized Increases-

(1) AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE- The Secretary of State is authorized to hire an additional 750 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2010 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2009, and an additional 750 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2011 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2010.

(2) AT USAID- The Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development is authorized to hire an additional 350 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2010 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2009, and an additional 350 members of the Foreign Service (above attrition) in fiscal year 2011 over the number of such members employed as of September 30, 2010.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to hire personnel.

(c) Expansion of Functions of the Foreign Service- Section 104 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3904) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:

‘(2) work actively to prevent, mitigate, and respond in a timely manner to international crises and instability in foreign countries that threaten the key United States foreign policy and national security interests;’.

(d) Worldwide Availability- Section 301(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3941(b)) is amended--

(1) by inserting ‘(1)’ before ‘The Secretary’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), at the time of entry into the Service, each member of the Service shall be available to be assigned worldwide.

‘(B) With respect to the medical eligibility of any applicant for appointment as a Foreign Service officer candidate, the Secretary of State shall determine such availability through appropriate medical examinations. If based on such examinations the Secretary determines that such applicant is ineligible to be assigned worldwide, the Secretary may waive the worldwide availability requirement under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that such waiver is required to fulfill a compelling Service need. The Secretary shall establish an internal administrative review process for medical ineligibility determinations.

‘(C) The Secretary may also waive or reduce the worldwide availability requirement under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines, in the Secretary’s discretion, that such waiver or reduction is warranted.’.

(e) Recruiting Candidates Who Have Experience in Unstable Situations- Section 301 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3941), as amended by section 212(c) of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(f) Experience in Unstable Situations- The fact that an applicant for appointment as a Foreign Service officer candidate has the experience of working in situations where public order has been undermined by instability, or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety, may be considered an affirmative factor in making such appointments.’.

(f) Training- Section 708 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4028) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:

‘(c) The Secretary of State shall ensure that members of the Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents, as appropriate, receive training on methods for conflict mitigation and resolution and on the necessary skills to be able to function successfully where public order has been undermined by instability or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety.

‘(d) The Secretary of State shall ensure that members of the Service, other than foreign national employees and consular agents, as appropriate, have opportunities during their careers to obtain advanced education and training in academic and other relevant institutions in the United States and abroad to increase the capacity of the Service to fulfill its mission.’

* * *

First, if this bill passes, I hope this would just be a down payment on that much-talked about Foreign Service bench strength. This authorizes the hiring of an additional 1500 FS employees above attrition for State and 700 new employees above attrition for USAID in the next two fiscal years. A 2007 report from the GAO says that from 2002 through 2004, the DRI (Diplomatic readiness Initiative) enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition to respond to emerging crises and allow staff time for critical job training. However, that increase was absorbed by the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and thus, the desired crises and training reserve was not achieved.

The Embassy of the Future Commission called for more than 1,000 additional diplomats—a 9.3 percent increase; however, the American Academy of Diplomacy documented the need for 2,848 additional State positions for core diplomatic functions and a training complement, as well as for 1,250 additional USAID positions by Fiscal Year 2014.


In a recent congressional hearing, Jack Lew pointed out that in FY 1990, USAID employed nearly 3,500 permanent direct hires administering $5 billion a year in assistance. As of FY 2008, USAID employed about 2,200 permanent direct hires administering $13.2 billion in assistance. Just one graphic example of doing more with less (one jaded employee said that if we continue doing more with less, there’ll come a time when we’ll be able to do everything perfectly with nothing).

Second, this does not talk about “directed assignment” but it talks about filling critical vacancies and increasing “the capacity of the Department of State to assign and deploy Foreign Service officers and other personnel.” It also talks about worldwide availability as in “each member of the Service shall be available to be assigned worldwide.” Makes you wonder why this is in the bill unless this is a soft nudge to use the directed assignment authority. Worldwide availability has been in the books for a long time but – it has been exercised only to a limited degree. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office has recommended that the State Department use this authority: “State has not traditionally assigned its limited number of employees to particular posts based on risk and priorities; rather, it has generally assigned staff to posts for which they have expressed an interest. We recommended that State consider using its authority to direct staff to accept assignments, as necessary, to ensure that critical gaps are filled.”

Third, it talks about Recruiting Candidates Who Have Experience in Unstable Situations saying that “experience of working in situations where public order has been undermined by instability, or where there is no civil authority that can effectively provide public safety, may be considered an affirmative factor in making such appointments.” Right now, veterans are the only group subject to a hiring preference, but only post-FSWE and after the oral exam. According to career.state.gov “Veterans who pass the Oral Assessment and qualify as preference eligibles are entitled to .175 for a 5 point preference or to .35 for a 10 point preference, based on a seven point scale. Specialist candidates, who are assessed on a 100 point scale, and who pass their oral assessment are entitled to an additional 5 to 10 points added to their competitive rating. Candidates must submit form DD-214 to document creditable military service.”


I don’t know what shape this “affirmative factor” would take on eventually. But two large groups of prospective applicants would probably fall under this category of “experience in unstable situations” – military personnel and 3161 employees.

Finally, the last part of this section addresses training in the FS – in one part providing that FS personnel (except FSNs and consular agents) “receive training on methods for conflict mitigation and resolution and on the necessary skills to be able to function successfully where public order has been undermined by instability.” And the second part providing that the SoS, “ensure that members of the Service (except FSNs and consular agents), have opportunities during their careers to obtain advanced education and training in academic and other relevant institutions in the United States and abroad.”

Like I said in my previous post on that new cone – this does not talk about reforming the promotion process in the Foreign Service. And that will have an impact if this bill passes. Employees who feel that their careers may be negatively impacted by taking a year or two out for advanced schooling may think twice about pursuing advanced education and academic training.

It is a different story in the armed services, of course. Have you noticed how many of our military officers retire from the armed services with PhDs? It has been said that almost every officer in the US military gains a graduate degree by the time they reach the rank of O-5, around 15-20 years of service. I don’t know if it is still true, but there was time when you can’t get promoted to a major without a master’s degree. In fact, General David Petraeus did receive his MPA in 1985 the year he made major. Two years later, he received his PhD in international relations from Princeton University and made LTC in 1991. His published works span from 1983-2008.

Military officers can pursue full-time studies toward a master’s or doctorate degree through programs paid for by the military. Many more officers pursue advanced education on their own time. The US Army for instance has the Advanced Degree Program and the Fully Funded Legal Education Program (FLEP) just to name two.

The military also spends a significant amount of time considering not only its future challenges 25-30 years from now, but also the education requirement of its future leaders:

This is the fundamental challenge the U.S. military will confront: providing the education so that future leaders can understand the political, strategic, historical, and cultural framework of a more complex world, as well as having a thorough grounding in the nature of war, past, present, and future. [...] The complexity of the future suggests that the education of senior officers must not remain limited to staff and war colleges, but should extend to the world’s best graduate schools. Professional military education must impart the ability to think critically and creatively in both the conduct of military operations and acquisition and resource allocation. The services should draw from a breadth and depth of education in a range of relevant disciplines to include history, anthropology, economics, geopolitics, cultural studies, the ‘hard’ sciences, law, and strategic communications. Their best officers should attend such programs. Officers cannot master all these disciplines, but they can and must become familiar with their implications. In other words, the educational development of America’s future military leaders must not remain confined to the school house, but must involve self study and intellectual engagement by officers throughout their careers. Read more here.

As for State -- I cannot immediately name a single program in the State Department except those advanced degrees pursued by Foreign Service officers in the war colleges and a few degrees on Social Work by employees in the Consular Bureau. Can you? How many diplomats do you know have taken sabbaticals to pursue advanced degrees in various institutions of higher learning after they’ve joined the Service? Ryan Crocker spent a year in Princeton pursuing course work in Near Eastern studies in 1984. But how many officers came in with a B.A and retired with a B.A.? In the military, it's kind of hard to find a single general without an advanced degree under his/her belt (there probably isn’t even one).

If you drill beyond the surface, you may recognize this as true -- whereas the pursuit of advanced education and continuous learning has been woven deeply into the fabric of military culture, the threads are not fully present in the State Department. That’s one change that needs to occur if the State Department expects to provide foreign policy and rigorous intellectual leadership into the next century. And if that happens, I'd be happy to call it "more modern."

Related Item:
GAO-07-1154T: State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps

Related Posts:

• H.R. 2410: Obama Administration Supports Bill But …
• H.R. 2410: A New Multilateral Diplomacy Cone?
• H.R. 2410: Lessons Learned Center, Coming Soon?
• H.R. 2410: Public Diplomacy Takes Center Stage
• H.R. 2410: Little Devils in the Details
• H.R. 2410 Foreign Relations Authorization Act Passes House
• H.R. 2410 Clears HFAC, Sec. 333 Stricken from Bill
• H.R. 2410: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Video of the Week: Leading Organizational Change

From Johns Hopkins Carey Business School

General Cartwright - Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
October 16, 2008
Leading Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges
See Full Video

Hi-Def Smackdown: Foreign Policy Film Festival

from wikimedia commons

Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University who blogs at Foreign Policy started with the question, “If Foreign Policy had a film festival, what movies should we show?”

Excluding pure war movies, spy capers, documentaries, and overt propaganda films, he went on to list his personal top ten list. His list includes Independence Day and Casablanca. Have you seen these movies?

It did not take long for Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University who also blogs at Foreign Policy to come up with his own top list, writing:

“Someone once said that the only proper way to critique a film is by making another film. Following that logic, I think the only way to critique Steve's list is to make my own. Using Steve's criteria, the overlap between our top ten list is pretty small: Dr. Strangelove and Casablanca.”

Then he went on and listed eight other films that “I think are essential watching for international relations junkies.” See his post here.

Last week, Fred Kaplan who writes the "War Stories" column for Slate and reviews films for Home Theater jumped into the fray with his post, Hillary Clinton, Watch These Movies! He writes, “Off the top of my head, here are 25 that neither Walt nor Drezner mention—and that, to my mind, beat all of theirs.” See Kaplan’s list here.

Yesterday, Dan Drezner responded with a post, Fred-o, you broke my heart, asking “what act of hubris could make Kaplan claim that any film on his top-25 list is better than Dr. Strangelove?”

And the foreign policy high-def movie smackdown is off and running! Oh! I love watching a spirited competition!

You think FSI might want to put together a course over in Arlington for new students to view and discuss these films? Maybe? Um, don’t hold your breath.


You might be better off organizing your own foreign policy film festival at post for brain candy and professional development. No offense to consular folks who works really hard, but entry level officers who work the visa line sometimes have second thoughts about their new career when they spend their first 2-4 years doing visa work. Why not have a film festival while you work your way to that front row seat in world affairs? If your boss assumes that a foreign policy film festival is just blundering into statecraft and nothing to do with professional development, you may paraphrase Captain Renault’s quote: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

Professional Development Fellowship Program 2009

Proposals due no later than May 8, 2009

The Department has just announced the availability of the 2009 Professional Development Fellowship Program for Foreign Service Eligible Family Members and Members of Household. Note that this year, unlike the previous years, applications for start-up business costs will not be considered according to the announcement.

The FLO Professional Development Fellowship program is open to spouses and member of household partners of direct hire US Government employees under Chief of Mission Authority. This program is designed to assist those Eligible Family Member (EFM) spouses and member of household (MOH) unmarried partners who are not in a position to pursue their career paths overseas to maintain, enhance, and/or develop their professional skills.


Fellowships of up to $2,000 will be granted on a reimbursable basis for enrichment activities. Selected applicants must fund 25% of the cost of the proposed activities while the Fellowship stipend will cover the additional 75% of the cost up to the $2,000 maximum. Activities can include, but are not limited to, continuing education, distance learning, professional development, participation in professional conferences, and dues for membership in professional organizations.


Family members should note the program changes as outlined in paragraph 2.


PROGRAM CHANGES
Previously this program was made possible through the generosity of the Una Chapman Cox Foundation. Historically, the Foundation funds pilot programs for up to three years, after which time they rely on the success of the program to justify and generate institutional funding. Such is the case with the 2009 fellowships for which FLO has obtained appropriated funds. As a result, in order to comply with federal regulations, reimbursement for start-up business costs will not be considered.


ELIGIBILITY
Applicants must be the spouse or member of household partner of a direct-hire US Government employee who is available for an overseas posting. Overseas this includes EFM spouses and MOH partners of a direct-hire US Government employee or uniformed military service member under Chief of Mission authority. While eligible applicants residing in the US may apply, preference will be given to those eligible applicants currently posted or assigned overseas (see Selection Criteria, paragraph 7). Previous fellowship awardees who meet the eligibility requirements may apply again.


APPLICATION PROCEDURES
Applicants should submit a completed application form, which can be found here (pdf). Applications must contain a one-to-two sentence synopsis followed by a detailed description of the proposed professional development program of activities. The program should be directly related to the applicant’s professional interests and the proposal must explain how the activities will enhance the applicant’s skills or future employment potential. As noted above, proposals may include a wide-range of activities. Proposals should provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses involved and give an indication of how the stipend would be used. Applications should be limited to two (2) pages (see application form).


All applications received will be acknowledged by email within three business days of receipt. Unacknowledged applications will not be considered.


REIMBURSED COSTS
Applicants should be aware that, if selected, the Fellowship will reimburse 75% of the proposed cost up to $2000 and the applicant will be responsible for 25% of the proposed cost. Travel, transportation, lodging costs, per diem are not reimbursable under this program.


SELECTION COMMITTEE
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee chaired by the Family Liaison Office (FLO) and will include representatives from the geographic bureaus.


SELECTION CRITERIA
In selecting grantees, the Selection Committee will consider the following factors:

a. Unavailability of employment options in the applicant's profession at her/his current post of assignment.

b. Correlation between the proposed activity and professional development of the applicant.

c. Where applicable, a connection between the proposed activity and other effort(s) on the part of the applicant to maintain/refresh her/his professional skills (i.e. if the proposal is part of a larger professional development plan).


Proposals from applicants residing at Historically Difficult to Staff (HDS) posts will receive preference as will proposals from posts where no Bilateral Work Agreement or de facto work arrangement is in place.

The link to the bilateral and de facto list follows is below:
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c24338.htm

Here is the list of HDS posts:

HISTORICALLY DIFFICULT TO STAFF (HDS) POSTS

EAP Posts
Bandar Seri Begawan, Dili, Guangzhou, Kolonia, Majuro, Naha, Port Moresby, Seoul, Shenyang

EUR Posts
Banja Luka, Chisinau, Minsk, Podgorica, Pristina, Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg, Yerevan

AF Posts
Abidjan, Abuja, Asmara, Bamako, Bangui, Banjul, Brazzaville, Bujumbura, Conakry, Cotonou, Djibouti City, Douala, Freetown, Khartoum, Kigali, Kinshasa, Lagos, Libreville, Lilongwe, Lome, Luanda, Malabo, Monrovia, Ndjamena, Niamey, Nouakchott, Ouagadougou, Praia, Yaounde

WHA Posts
Cuidad Juarez, Georgetown, Hermosillo, Kingston, Nogales, Paramaribo, Port Au Prince

NEA Posts
Amman, Baghdad, Jeddah, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Sanaa

SCA Posts
Ashgabat, Astana, Dhaka, Dushanbe, Islamabad, Kabul, Kolkata, Lahore,

PROJECT COMPLETION
Successful applicants will be expected to complete their proposed professional development program within 12 months of selection notification. Fellowship recipients will be required to submit a Project Report describing program activities and accomplishments as well as a Financial Report providing a detailed budget of the project. Those selected can submit receipts for qualifying expenses incurred at any time during the activity but not later than thirty days after project completion. Fellowship recipients are required to commence and complete the activity during the Fellowship program year, i.e., August 2009-August 2010. There will be no extensions and no exceptions to this requirement.


APPLICATION DEADLINE
Proposals are due in M/DGHR/FLO no later than May 8, 2009.


Proposals can be submitted as follows:

• faxed to M/DGHR/FLO Attn: FLO Fellowship at (202) 647-1670
• emailed to FLOAskFellowship@state.gov
• mailed or hand carried to M/DGHR/FLO, Department of State, 2201 C ST, NW, Room 1239 HST, Washington, DC 20520

See the whole thing including examples of fellowship awards and travel expenses in the official announcement here. Good luck!!!

Video of the Week: Chris Inglis on Leadership at Network Speed

From Johns Hopkins Carey Business School

Chris Inglis - Deputy Director, NSA
February 19, 2009
Leadership at Network Speed - Agility and Integrity as Cultural Imperatives
Click the links to the videos: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 (Q&A)

Keywords: leadership, collaboration, connecting the dots, stovepiping

Video of the Week: Goleman on Compassion

Daniel Goleman: Why aren’t we all Good Samaritans?

Daniel Goleman brought the notion of "EI" to prominence as an alternative to more traditional measures of IQ with his 1995 mega-best-seller Emotional Intelligence.

Since the publication of that book, conferences and academic institutes have sprung up dedicated to the idea. EI is taught in public schools, and corporate leaders have adopted it as a new way of thinking about success and leadership. EI, and one's "EIQ," can be an explanation of why some "average" people are incredibly successful, while "geniuses" sometimes fail to live up to their promise.

From www.ted.com

Video of the Week: What Leads to Success

Richard St. John knew how he had found success -- through his marketing company, the St. John Group, which boasted clients like Nortel and BlackBerry/Research in Motion. But he couldn't get away from the question: Why him? He thinks of himself as an average guy, not talented at school, not terribly handsome or particularly lucky. So he spent more than a decade interviewing 500 people he defines as successful -- from architect Frank Gehry to non-celebrities successful in their own lives.

The resulting book, Spike's Guide to Success: Stupid, Ugly, Unlucky and RICH, has spawned a new avenue of success for St. John as a motivational speaker and talk-show star. His newest book is 8 to Be Great: The 8 Traits that Lead to Great Success.

From www.ted.com

Top Transition Mistake: Assuming “They” Are All Idiots

Early this month, the Council for Excellence in Government, the Senior Executive Association, Harvard Business Publishing and The Washington Post hosted an interactive workshop Accelerating Leadership Transitions at the National Press Club led by Dr. Michael Watkins, author of the international bestsellers, "The First Ninety Days and co-author of "The First 90 Days in Government."

Dr. Watkins started the workshop with the employees’ hopes and fears for the Obama Administration. There were several direct quotes there but one that leaped out the screen/page was this one: “De-politicization of entire organizations. Value employees for their talents and contributions and not for their assumed political affiliation.”


I don’t know if the contributor of that quote came from DOJ, DHS, State or elsewhere.


In any case, the workshop included top ten lists of mistakes that political appointees and civil servants make when dealing with each other during transition:

Top Ten Mistakes of Political Appointees in Dealing With Career Civil Servants:

#10. Assuming government runs like a business.

#9. Poor ethical choices.

#8. Unclear vision/goals/setting priorities.

#7. Not valuing existing processes/procedures.

#6. Only getting input from senior executives.

#5. Change for the sake of change.

#4. Not understanding agency culture and history.

#3. Trying to change too much too fast (a challenge for this new administration)

#2. Not learning the issues/not listening/coming in with preset ideas/rush to judgments.

#1. Ignoring/underestimating/distrusting career people (i.e. assuming they are all idiots).

Advice to Political Appointees in Dealing with Career Civil Servants

“Career staff is in for the long run. You are coming in with great enthusiasm for crafting a new paradigm. So did the last crew! Consult and listen carefully, and you will get valuable advice and learn how to avoid pitfalls. Communicate your frustration, and allow a chance for the interaction to improve before giving up.”

More in the workshop.

Top Ten Mistakes of Career Civil Servants Dealing With Political Appointees:

#10.Not speaking up/pushing back/"yessing" the boss.

#9. Hoarding information/protecting turf/territorialism.

#8. Becoming paralyzed/reactive due to uncertainty about direction.

#7. Clinging too hard to policy positions/focusing on barriers.

#6. Assuming political appointees know less than they do.

#5. Assuming appointees know more than they do.

#4. Hiding issues/not being forthcoming about issues.

#3. Attempting to “manage”/”manipulate”/”sell” political appointees.

#2. “This too shall pass”/”We tried that”/passive resistance/cynicism.

#1. Ignoring/underestimating/distrusting political appointees (i.e. assuming they are all idiots).

Advice to Career Civil Servants in Dealing with Political Appointees:

“Remember that political appointees are there to support the President's agenda. Remember that you are there both to support them and to create and preserve the human infrastructure for this administration and its successors.”

“Serve and advise to the best of your ability at all times. You are not there to be either a road block or a "yes man.” Be patient.”

There is more in the workshop -- so you’ve got to watch it! I think this is a useful session not just for political appointees and senior civil servants but also for Foreign Service officers transitioning into their new jobs every 2-3 years. Dr. Watkins also shared a transition story involving one of the bureaus at State some years ago - includes a used car person and a colored telephone. Heh!

To see the video of the workshop, visit www.visualwebcaster.com/ninetydays. You need to supply your name, title, organization and email address (non-government email is acceptable) in order to view the video. The video runs for 1:29:00 with intros. Dr. Watkins starts at about 9 minutes into the video. A 16-page downloadable handout is also posted with the video.

Dr. Watkins also writes a blog on leadership, The Leading Edge, at the Harvard Business School Publishing. Check it out!

Video of the Week: A Culture of Candor

The book "Transparency" argues that while many organizations give lip service to the idea of transparency, true openness and candor is rare. In this BNet video author James OToole explains what it means to be transparent in the business world, why it's so important, and how organizations can take steps towards it.

For those interested in the book, additional details below from the publisher:

Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Candor
Warren Bennis, Daniel Goleman and James O'Toole

In a time when the reputation of an organization or a leader can be shattered by the click of a mouse, transparency is often a matter of survival in a world of global competition. But as stakeholders in different organizations increasingly clamor for transparency, what are they truly asking for? What is the promise of transparency? What are its very real risks? And why is it essential that leaders understand it? In this book, distinguished authors Warren Bennis, Daniel Goleman, and James O'Toole explore what it means to be a transparent leader, create a transparent organization, and live in an ever more transparent world culture.

In three interconnected essays, they examine transparency from three different vantage points—within and between organizations, in terms of personal responsibility, and finally, in the context of the new digital reality—all with an emphasis on how these relate to leaders and leadership. The first essay explores an urgent dilemma for every contemporary leader: how to create a culture of candor. The second essay—with the provocative title "Speaking Truth to Power"—discusses a prerequisite for transparency and a responsibility we too often fail to fulfill. The final essay explores how digital technology is making the entire world more transparent.

Combining theory and experience, this book offers both a long view of transparency and a wealth of practical advice. The ideas in each chapter will make anyone both a better follower and a better leader.

In Transparency, the authors–a powerhouse trio in the field of leadership–look at what conspires against "a culture of candor" in organizations to create disastrous results, and suggest ways that leaders can achieve healthy and honest openness. They explore the lightning-rod concept of "transparency" – which has fast become the buzzword not only in business and corporate settings but in government and the social sector as well. Together Bennis, Goleman, and O'Toole explore why the containment of truth is the dearest held value of far too many organizations and suggest practical ways that organizations, their leaders, their members, and their boards can achieve openness. After years of dedicating themselves to research and theory, at first separately, and now jointly, these three leadership giants reveal the multifaceted importance of candor and show what promotes transparency and what hinders it. They describe how leaders often stymie the flow of information and the structural impediments that keep information from getting where it needs to go. This vital resource is written for any organization–business, government, and nonprofit–that must achieve a culture of candor, truth, and transparency.

About the Authors

Warren Bennis is Distinguished Professor of Business Administration and founding chairman of The Leadership Institute at the University of Southern California. He also serves as chairman of the Advisory Board of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, including Judgment and On Becoming a Leader.

Daniel Goleman authored the best-selling books Emotional Intelligence and Primal Leadership. He is codirector of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, based at Rutgers University.

James O'Toole is the Daniels Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business. He is the author of seventeen books, including The Executive's Compass, Creating the Good Life, and Leading Change.

Video of the Week: The Interpersonal Factor in Successful Leadership

Daniel Goleman is an internationally known psychologist who lectures frequently to professional groups, business audiences, and on college campuses. Working as a science journalist, Goleman reported on the brain and behavioral sciences for The New York Times for many years. His 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books) was on The New York Times bestseller list for a year-and-a-half; with more than 5,000,000 copies in print worldwide in 30 languages, and has been a best seller in many countries.

His latest book, Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships, was published in September 2006. Social intelligence, the interpersonal part of emotional intelligence, can now be understood in terms of recent findings from neuroscience. Goleman’s book describes the many implications of this new science, including for altruism, parenting, love, health, learning and leadership.

Goleman was a co-founder of the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning at the Yale University Child Studies Center (now at the University of Illinois at Chicago), with a mission to help schools introduce emotional literacy courses. One mark of the Collaborative—and book’s—impact is that thousands of schools around the world have begun to implement such programs.

Goleman’s 1998 book, Working With Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books), argues that workplace competencies based on emotional intelligence play a great role in star performance, and that both individuals and companies will benefit from cultivating these capabilities. Goleman’s book, Primal Leadership – Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence (co-authored with Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee), explores the crucial role of emotional intelligence in leadership.

Goleman is co-chair of the The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, based in the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers University, which recommend bests practices for developing emotional intelligence abilities, and to promote rigorous research on the contribution of emotional intelligence to workplace effectiveness. The consortium is a great resource for reading up on EQ including why it’s lonely at the top.

Read more at Daniel Goleman's website.

Video of the Week: Change and Fear

May 2, 2007 presentation by Carly Fiorina for the Stanford Technology Ventures Program Educators Corner in the School of Engineering at Stanford University.

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP (1999-2005) talks about the dynamics of change and fear in this lecture to Stanford University students offered in May, 2007. She notes that entrepreneurship is about risk-taking, and this is always associated with tackling innovation. Fiorina concludes that asserting change involves gathering enough energy and force to overcome the power of the status quo.


For more videos of this talk, visit E-Corner Stanford.

Video of the Week: Marshall Goldsmith's Feed Forward

Here is Marshall Goldsmith at Leading@Google. I have read his books but have never seen him gave a talk before. I enjoyed watching this video. This is a bit long (approximately 65 minutes), but if you are interested in leadership and management, as well as coaching and personal development, this is an excellent material to watch and share. Among his nuggets of wisdom:

Successful people are delusional! Heh! Teaching leaders when to stop! Yup!

Adding too much value! Particularly relevant to bosses who feel the need to add something to the ideas proposed by subordinate officers - when you add something to the idea, the quality of the idea may now go up 5%, but the commitment to the execution may now go down 50%.

Four words to be a better coach! Help more, judge less - easier said than done, especially in highly competitive organizations.

Stubborn and opinionated people! What are the odds that they are also excessively open minded? Uhm, zero...

Lots of laugh and not boring (although you also get to watch the Googlers do stuff).

Marshall Goldsmith is the author of the book, What Got You Here Won't Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful, a New York Times best-seller ranked as America's #1 best-selling business book in The Wall Street Journal. Dr. Goldsmith identifies 20 bad habits, mostly behavioral problems, that hinder high achievers from reaching future goals and suggests methods for promoting behavior change.

Marshall Goldsmith received his Ph.D. from UCLA. He teaches executive education at Dartmouth's Tuck School and frequently speaks at leading business schools. Dr. Goldsmith is co-founder of Marshall Goldsmith Partners, a network of top-level executive coaches.

Check out additional materials from the Marshall Goldsmith Library where you can read, listen to, watch, download, copy and share articles, interviews, podcasts and more for free.

Suited for the New Diplomacy - A New Career Plan?

James P. DeHart, a career U.S. Foreign Service officer, and a fellow at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy has a piece in WaPo (Sunday, June 15, 2008; B02) entitled Suited for the New Diplomacy? Mr. DeHart who will also begin an assignment with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan next year writes:

"Today, we're seeing not only transformational diplomacy but also the transformation of diplomacy. Foreign Service officers emerging from war zones are in many cases being promoted ahead of their peers. This is understandable, but as they rise up the chain and gain a bigger say in future personnel decisions, the practitioners of more "traditional" diplomacy may find themselves relegated to an even slower track.

In recent years, the number of Foreign Service assignments categorized as "unaccompanied" -- that is, too dangerous for families -- has surged from 200 to 900. If the trend continues, new recruits may no longer view the Foreign Service as a career but as something to do for a few years before settling down to real life -- a bit like the Peace Corps, minus the peace. In a recent survey by the American Foreign Service Association, 44 percent of active Foreign Service officers said that "developments in the last few years" have made it less likely that they will remain in the Foreign Service for a full career.

Oh well. Maybe the State Department leadership will conclude that a new kind of diplomat is needed anyway, that a liberal arts degree isn't the best preparation for someone who has to learn to live with mortar fire. If so, will the diplomat of the future be just a little less cerebral and a little more likely to salute than to offer constructive dissent?"

His piece actually made me think of what a career plan might look like for the next crop of FS officers who may have no intention of having a full career in the FS. I imagine that it might look more or less like this:

Career Plan of a Would-be FSO (2011-2021)

2011: Complete Grad School

Take the FS Exam while diploma is still hot!

2012 : Work in a temporary job, maybe contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan

Best to be busy while background security investigation is conducted.

2013: Start A100

Absorb Area Studies

2013: Go to first posting (2 years, directed assignment)

(Preferably in the visa mill posts - Manila, Seoul, Mexico City, Lagos)

Rationale: learn to manage multi-culture employees; the largest consular posts have more local employees and more opportunities to have hands-ons management experience even as a junior officer. Skill me up would be my personal motto.

2015: Request Language Training - aim for at least 4/4 level

(Preferably in global languages such as Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, etc; one shot at this, care is needed in selecting language of choice that fits into overall career plan)

I know, a DC tour is hard on a 35K pay grade but I'd take 365 days of pasta and spaghetti nights in exchange for all training available (IT, soft skills, management, etc.) at FSI and elsewhere that they're willing to send me. Skill me up would continue to be my personal motto.

2016: Go to second posting (2 years)

(Preferably one of the Chinese or Indian posts, Dubai, Dublin, Bogota where language skills and/or networking would be useful; practice language skills at every opportunity to reach the 5/5 level). Skill me up would continue to be my personal motto.

A consular tour would afford the most managerial experience when in comes to cross-culture employees, in addition to program and portfolio management, customer service and other client-oriented skills. If talented as talking head, public diplomacy cone would be best; multinationals could not easily ignore somebody who has language skills and media savvy. If more of an analytical mind, might try the econ or pol cone as prelude to a career in an NGO or think tank. Have not decided what I am. Note to self: choose wisely.

2018: Go to third posting (3 years, if tenured)

(Preferably a multifunction job; this would indicate flexibility and multi-functional skills. But need to bulk up expertise in one or two areas that are transferable to private or NGO sector. Note to self: hard-language training may not be authorized until after tenure, although it can certainly be requested. If language training does not occur after the first assignment, need to request it asap after tenure is granted). Job employability is key, not job security.

2021: Goodbye Foreign Service


Let me put myself in the shoes of a candidate who joins the Service at 25 after Grad School. With three overseas assignment and possibly one hard language training, I could be out of the Service after 10 years with marketable skills. At 35, I could start a second career, get married and start a family. And I won't grow thin hair agonizing over tenure, promotion or directed assignments.

I bet this would also solve the problem of Foreign Service spouse employment! Either I don't get married until I am out of the Service or I get married during one of my tours. But either way, ten years would not totally jeopardize the career prospects and retirement security of my trailing spouse or partner.

I wonder if the State Department leadership has a table top exercise for this scenario.

Professional Fellowships for FS Spouses and Partners

Check out the 2009 fellowship:
Professional Development Fellowship Program 2009

I was not sure this was going to happen this year due to budget cuts but I am very pleased to see that this program has survived the money crunch. I have no doubt that this has not been an easy fight. Many thanks to the Family Liaison Office (FLO) and M for ensuring that this program continues to provide help and support to our Foreign Service spouses and members of household partners. I have cut and pasted the following mostly from the state.gov website. You can see the original posting here. Please pass on to FS members with EFMs and MOHs. Deadline no later than June 6, 2008.

The Department just announced the availability of the Professional Development fellowship program for Foreign Service Eligible Family Members and Members of Household. Funded in part by the Una Chapman Cox Foundation, this program is designed to assist Foreign Service Eligible Family Members and Members of Household who are not in a position to pursue their career paths overseas to maintain, enhance, and/or develop their professional skills.

Fellowships of up to $2,000 will be granted on a reimbursable basis for enrichment activities. Selected applicants must fund 25% of the cost of the proposed activities while the Fellowship stipend will cover the additional 75% of the costs. Activities can include, but are not limited to, continuing education, distance learning, professional development, participation in professional conferences, dues for membership in professional organizations, and small business start-up costs.

Eligibility
Applicants must be either an adult Eligible Family Member (EFM) or a Member of Household (MOH) of a Foreign Service direct-hire employee who is available for an overseas posting. While family members in the US are eligible, preference will be given to those currently posted or assigned overseas (see Selection Criteria listed below). Applicants should submit a completed application form. Applications must contain a one-to-two sentence synopsis followed by a detailed description of the proposed professional development program of activities. The program should be directly related to the EFM/MOH's professional interests and the proposal must explain how the activities will enhance the EFM/MOH's skills. As noted above, proposals may include a wide-range of activities. Proposals should provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses involved andgive an indication of how the stipend would be used. Applications should be limited to two (2) pages (see application form).

All applications received will be acknowledged by email within two business days of receipt. Unacknowledged applications will not be considered.

Reimbursed Costs
Applicants should be aware that, if selected, the Fellowship will reimburse 75% of the proposed cost and the applicant will be responsible for 25% of the proposed cost. Travel, transportation, lodging costs, and per diem are not reimbursable under this program.

Selection Committee
Proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee chaired by the Family Liaison Office (FLO) and including representatives from the geographic bureaus.

Selection Criteria
In selecting grantees, the Selection Committee will consider the following factors

a. Unavailability of employment options in the candidate's profession at her/his current post of assignment.
b. Correlation between the proposed activity and professional development of the candidate.
c. Where applicable, a connection between the proposed activity and other effort(s) on the part of the candidate to maintain/refresh her/his professional skills (i.e. if the proposal is part of a larger professional development plan).

Proposals from Foreign Service EFMs and MOHs residing at Historically Difficult to Staff (HDS) posts will receive preference as will proposals from posts where no Bilateral Work Agreement or de facto work arrangement is in place.

Project Completion
Successful applicants will be expected to complete their proposed professional development program within 12 months of selection notification. If the proposal is for an activity in a later timeframe, the reasons should be explained. Fellowship recipients will be required to submit a Project Report describing program activities and accomplishments as well as a Financial Report providing a detailed budget of the project. Those selected can submit receipts for qualifying expenses incurred at any time during the activity but not later than thirty days after project completion.

Application Deadline
Proposals are due in M/DGHR/FLO no later than June 6, 2008. Proposals can be submitted as follows:

- Faxed to M/DGHR/FLO Attn: FLO Fellowships at (202) 647-1670
- Emailed to FLOPDFellowships [at] state[dot]gov
- Mailed or hand carried to M/DGHR/FLO, Department of State, 2201 C ST,
NW, Room 1239 HST, Washington, DC 20520

Notification: Selectees will be notified on or about June 30, 2008 . The program will run for one year starting from the approximate signing date of the fellowship grant agreement.

Point of Contact
For additional information, contact FLOAskEmployment[at]state[dot]gov

Historically Difficult to Staff Posts:

EAP Posts; Bandar Seri Begawan , Dili, Guangzhou, Ho Chi Minh City, Kolonia, Majuro, Naha, Port Moresby, Seoul, Shenyang,Ulaanbaatar

EUR Posts: Baku , Banja Luka , Chisinau, Minsk, Podgorica, Pristina, Tbilisi, Tirana, Vladivostok , Yekaterinburg, Yerevan

AF Posts: Abidjan Monrovia , Ndjamena , Niamey, Nouakchott, Ouagadougou, Praia, Yaounde , Abuja, Asmara, Bamako, Bangui, Banjul, Brazzaville, Bujumbura, Conakry, Cotonou, Djibouti, Freetown, Khartoum, Kigali, Kinshasa, Lagos, Libreville, Lilongwe, Lome, Luanda,

WHA Posts: Cuidad Juarez, Georgetown, Nogales, Paramaribo, Port Au Prince

NEA Posts: Amman , Baghdad, Jeddah, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Sanaa

SCA Posts; Almaty, Astana, Ashgabat, Bishkek, Calcutta, Dhaka, Dushanbe, Islamabad, Kabul, Karachi, Lahore, Tashkent

Applicants must be either an adult Eligible Family Member (EFM) or a Member of Household (MOH) of a Foreign Service direct-hire employee who is available for an overseas posting. While family members in the US are eligible, preference will be given to those currently posted or assigned overseas (see Selection Criteria above).