Interviews > Henry Wooster
​
What is something that you think State could learn from our uniformed colleagues, and what has that experience brought to your own career?
State’s professional culture doesn’t discern well between management and leadership, often viewing them as synonymous. On the military side, there was a firm distinction: You lead people, you manage things. The single most consequential thing I took from my own military experience was the emphasis on leadership. Leadership courses at State taught about leadership, not how to lead. In the Army, there was also an emphasis on planning, a skill set we could benefit from in policy formulation and execution. The military provides superb preparation in terms of teaching young people what it means to lead, organize, and be accountable.
What is one thing you wish you had known as a first tour foreign service officer?
I wanted to know early on, even before my first tour and A100: what are the Foreign Service’s expectations of me? What does the success profile of someone here look like? The professional culture communicated certain values, but the expectations still weren’t clear to me. One thing that was inculcated in us—and looking back, I’d still agree with—is “whatever you do, don’t piss anyone off.”
You’ve had to lead people and policy through times of change. What can you share from those experiences?
People look for guidance and clarity from a leader. Especially in transitions, it’s important to remind the people you’re leading of the fixed variables, the anchor points. You must anticipate moments where there are shifts, or where that “lodestar” disappears or may be changing. You must develop that vision using your experience and judgement, and tell people what the “high value items” are in our policy, as well as what are the principles. At the end of the day, the principles of our policies and the basics of our bilateral relationships often remain unchanged. It's an art, not a science.
What is your leadership philosophy? How do you recommend entry and mid-level officers think about their own leadership development?
First, understand that because of what leadership is, you don’t need a title to exercise it. Leadership is a function, you have the capacity to exercise it at all levels.
If you look at the most brilliant work done to advance policy for the United States, seldom was it done by geniuses; rather, it was done by people with professional competency and good (but not perfect) judgement, people with tenacity, and by people who knew their brief. And it was done by teams of people who got those fundamentals right. If you look at World Cup championship teams, they are not all superstars. Occasionally you will have that star player who is extraordinary, but most people aren’t, and you don’t need to be—what you need is a team of good people who are champion collaborators.
One thing I’m evangelical about is trust. You get further, faster with trust; it enables teams to overcome bureaucratic checks and balances that hinder organizational effectiveness. Trust is something you have to build, you can’t just treat it like the old milk campaign and ask: “Got Trust?”
How can we create a more diverse and inclusive workforce at the mission level?
This is something we have been working at for years. The people that work in the Foreign Service are well educated, screened, and they have self-selected towards this path—they are disposed to diversity, and yet the Department has stumbled, and the needle seldom moves. Why?
The best comparison point I have, again, is my military experience. Their approach was blunter than State’s. There is something disarming about 24/7 life in a barracks where there’s little opportunity to camouflage one’s views and background. We talk about the idea of a “safe space” today, but the military was the one time in my life I felt that way; I could say anything to my Army buddies, and they to me—and we did. You could ask questions, even if out of naivety and ignorance. Now, it was not a flawless model, but it set the conditions for honest conversations.
I’d suggest we be more honest in our encounters, be more forthright, and accept some risk. I took pride in the diversity represented in a U.S. military unit, and likewise, in the U.S. Foreign Service—the values we support and what Team USA looks like remain unmatched. It’s a hell of a punch we pack as an American diplomatic corps.
What advice would you offer to aspiring, activist diplomats in the Foreign Service to realize their potential and overcome some of the bureaucratic barriers?
Make the choice of what kind of professional you want to be, what kind of Foreign Service you want to be part of, and then walk your talk. Refuse to accept the red tape. Refuse to accept that things “just are the way they are,” be a leader and insist on a better institution. Unless you’re Secretary of State you’re unlikely to change the Department single-handedly. But your section, team, embassy—that you can change. Do something about a problem within your sphere of influence. We need to build a professional culture that says, “yeah we’re not comfortable with that.” Especially when it comes to our budget and resource allocation, we need to make the case for stronger support.
Everyone welcomes a teammate who delivers. Be charitable and generous, but never hesitate from leading and putting forward smarter ways to do something. Most people will be grateful and learn from it. They want to know: Who’s the right person to do this? Who can perform? Your best colleagues will care little about titles; they will want to know who can get the job done.
What guided your career path in the most challenging areas of foreign policy ? What have you learned?
I always “rode to the sound of the guns.” I wanted to be where the action was. I wanted to be in the event, and if that wasn’t possible, I wanted a chair at the event. I stuck my hand up for the hard assignments and that got me great jobs and terrific experience, and earlier than I might otherwise have.
Be who you are. Don’t try to refashion your DNA. I like rushing towards where the policy action is, but those in non-policy roles are also crucial to diplomacy. Irrespective of one’s policy interests or talents, you can accomplish little without a competent management and organizational team, and we need people passionate about that work, too.
Who was your best boss and why?
I’ve been lucky to have a string of “best bosses.” They inspired me. One common characteristic was they knew the brief better than I did, and at significantly more complex levels, in terms of substance, building coalitions, etc. Their professional expertise wowed me.
Another important characteristic was moral courage, to say what needed to be said when no one really wanted to hear it, and standing up for their people. Imagine risking your career and reputation for someone drawing fire. Are you going to stick your neck out on behalf of them? One of my bosses did. She put it all at risk. That type of courage, when put to the test in the moment, creates loyalty. I am today an Ambassador because of bosses like her.
What would you change about the State Department?
We have a duty to be the Foreign Service we claim we want. We should build it. I would take a wrecking ball to the personnel system, reshape our leadership development, and require training in strategic planning. As diplomats, we have to take on some of the most complex issues, and we seldom do so with adequate professional preparation—mind you, the goal here is improvement, not a claim that the right training formula would provide an antidote to all diplomatic challenges.
We have also downplayed to the American public much of what we do, as if it were not worthy. One result of this posture is reflected in the resources allocated to us. State remains excluded from the national security budget. Imagine better resourced U.S. diplomacy.
We get an extraordinary pool of raw talent yet we don’t optimize that talent, stretching and growing it.
​
​