Interviews > Sandy Vershbow
​
Who were your most influential mentors and what did they teach you?
Many of my most influential mentors were those managers and colleagues I worked with on my first tours in the department—first in the Pol-Mil (PM) bureau and then on the Soviet desk, and during my first tour overseas in Moscow. In PM, DAS David Gompert Leon Fuerth and many other colleagues taught me how government and policy-making works and how to navigate the interagency process. Tom Simons, who led the Soviet desk in the early 1980s and was later DAS, along with Mark Palmer, taught me not only how to develop creative solutions to tough problems, but also how to sell the ideas so as to bring people along and put policy concepts into practice.
From all of my early mentors, who were very collegial, I learned how to manage and lead in a way that encourages even the most junior officer to offer advice and ideas and that is not too hierarchical.
In Seoul, I was mentored by a team of real experts within the Embassy—Joe Yun, Mark Minton, Bill Stanton, Drew Quinn—who reminded me that you are never too old or know too much to learn from your team.
What prompted you to develop your writing do’s and don'ts guide?
I have always believed that diplomatic results only come from good ideas presented clearly. In my writing and editing, I have always emphasized the importance of avoiding anything that could detract from a presentation or from a good idea. Therefore, JoAnne Wagner, who worked at USNATO as XO when I was Ambassador, and I worked to compile a set of principles and lessons learned and distill them into a paper that would help drafters write more clearly. At NATO, in addition to reporting cables, the team writes a lot of policy papers and memos that help drive interagency policy discussions back home so we thought it especially crucial to share best practices on how to write clearly.
In Russia, what did you have to do differently than when you were Ambassador in Seoul or NATO? What were some of the things you did that were successful in all three postings and that you might consider your signature leadership/management tenets?
At NATO, there is less emphasis on traditional outreach and public diplomacy than at bilateral embassies, so the main audiences I engaged with were experts and policy makers at conferences. In Russia and South Korea, on the other hand, outreach to the public and mass media was an indispensable complement to the work I did to advance U.S. policy with the host government. In Russia between 2001 and 2005, our relationship became more and more overshadowed by Putin’s re-centralization of power and his turn toward authoritarianism, so that shaped my work. In South Korea, I had to adjust and learn to be less blunt in calling out North Korean criminal activity in a society still hopeful about North-South reconciliation. Despite the differences, I took similar approaches to leading the missions and engaging on policy issues, with a firm focus on reliance on the country team representatives to play an active and visible role in carrying out our mission. I sought in all three cases to meet regularly with different groups of experts from within the country team to solicit ideas and keep people involved in policy formulation. Only by getting the whole team on board did I feel we could tackle the broad objectives we set out such as signing an FTA with South Korea or fighting DVD piracy or HIV-AIDS in Russia.
What did you find most surprising working at OSD? What from the DOD policy making culture should/could State do well to adopt?
At OSD, there was a much more narrow policy focus on “hard” security, and we worked more closely with the military commanders and the joint chiefs, but overall, it was not all that different from working at State. One difference, however, that I found at OSD and at the NSC was that intelligence and policy work are more closely fused as policy-makers rely more on intel to inform decision-making and less on diplomatic reporting.
On the personnel side at OSD, there are fewer permanent civil service employees and most civilian staff stay for less time than at State. Sometimes, this leads to gaps in expertise, but on the up side, also to more fresh ideas and rejuvenation. At State, we could encourage more turnover and professional creativity by offering and encouraging more out-of-State opportunities for civil and foreign service officers to work at DOD, CIA, or the NSC.
How did you find working at NATO in the Dep SecGen position as compared to as Ambassador? What is the best thing about NATO you found from the two tours?
As Dep SecGen, I focused much more on building consensus and less on offering policy solutions as I had to be more neutral; it was very different from the leadership role played by the US Ambassador. Of course, I still relied on my connections at USNATO and in Washington to offer ideas, but was more circumspect as to when and how I would do so. Traveling as Dep SecGen with members of NATO’s international staff—whether from Bulgaria, Poland or Italy—made me proud of NATO as a true alliance of democracies in which every country contributes to the Alliance and has a voice in how NATO works.
The high point (or low point) as Dep SecGen came after 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine and I worked to galvanize a forceful NATO response. Whether as Ambassador, political officer, military officer, or Dep SecGen, NATO is an excellent place to learn and make history as it still functions effectively as a force multiplier, diplomatically and militarily. Plus, Brussels is a great place to live and you work with the best diplomatic and military colleagues from the member countries and its even broader network of partners who all work together to find solutions and contribute to NATO’s success.
You were a long-time Russia expert—study, desk, NSC, multiple tours, etc. How did it compare to work as ambassador where you were intimately familiar with the culture/language/history and your posting in Seoul where you did not have such a deep connection?
Even when I went to Russia as Ambassador, I had to work to learn about what had happened in the 1990s in Russia during the years when I had been working on other issues and the country was trying to escape its Soviet legacy and deal with privatization, freedom of media and the growth of civil society. So before my move from USNATO to Moscow, I read a lot, met with Russian experts inside and out of government, and tried to become familiar with how the country had evolved. When I went to Seoul, it was entirely new to me so, once again, I talked with a lot of experts and read books on the North Korean nuclear program and also sought to understand the people of Korea through reading books like Michael Breen’s The Koreans. (I also developed an early appreciation of kimchi.) On arrival, I depended much more heavily on the support of the country team in Seoul to understand the politics and the culture and to learn how to be most effective, as well as to recognize and learn from my mistakes.
In both Russia and South Korea, I felt it was important to take a hard line sometimes and speak out to dispel disinformation related to Korean views on U.S. beef or to call out Russia when they manipulated elections or shut down our democracy programs and expelled the Peace Corps. My job was to be an exponent of U.S. values so that meant sometimes what I said was disagreeable to the host government.
Would you recommend someone thinking of joining to join? If so, what would you recommend they seek to develop or experience before joining?
I tell anyone thinking of joining that the Foreign Service is the most fascinating way to directly be involved with and influence world events. If you want to change the world, live and learn in various countries, the career is unsurpassed. Before entering the service, I encourage you to read the many great books by leaders like Bill Burns who wrote about how they shaped and made policy.
How about advice for mid-level officers?
For those officers already in, it is important to be less risk averse, more creative, and to continue to present clear policy ideas, while upholding the Service’s tradition of non-partisanship. At the same time, it is critical to be effective and able to implement ideas. Mid-career training, either at FSI, one of the War Colleges, or a university, should be encouraged if not mandatory. Keep reading and seek out opportunities to work at DOD, the NSC or elsewhere. And don’t forget to have fun: perhaps my most unforgettable moments in Moscow and Seoul were playing the drums in clubs with local jazz or blues bands!
​
​