Working World

Maybe I’m just a dreamer, but I can’t help but think that this is a good thing:

It’s not only that our new president is giving his first televised interview on a network based in Dubai, but also that he’s saying things like this, directly to the Muslim world:

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries … the largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith – and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers – regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.

One of the key goals of the work we do in international education, exchange, and development is building and promoting a sense of respect between the United States and other countries (especially, it goes without saying but often still needs to be said, the Muslim world). Obama understands this and is projecting that respect with an interview like this. The Daily Show understands it too:

Last week I threw up a lengthy post with a number of discussions, chief among them the issue of salaries and professional development in the nonprofit world. Another issue briefly touched on was the oft-heard assertion that nonprofits should be run “more like businesses” in order to improve their performance. Phil Buchanan, writing on the Independent Sector website, argues that trying to run nonprofits more like businesses is the wrong strategy:

These characterizations of the nonprofit sector as ineffectual — and the assertion that the sole path to improving performance lies in ‘business’ thinking — aren’t remotely accurate or helpful.

Buchanan concedes that which is certainly true: nonprofits, as a whole, still do need to strengthen themselves. “There needs to be more focus on the articulation of clear goals, the development and implementation of coherent strategies, and rigorous and relevant performance assessment — all in service of greater positive impact.” But, assuming that “running things like a business” is synonymous with “improved performance and outcomes” is flawed thinking in Buchanan’s mind.

It’s hard to argue with that. Just because businesses are for-profit and typically strive more pointedly towards a bottom line, and thus toward “productivity” and “results” (at least in the traditional capitalist sense of those terms), doesn’t automatically make them paragons of effective management, strategy, organizational acumen, etc. So, if not like businesses, then how should the nonprofit sector be run in order to improve? Instead of trying to adopt business models, Buchanan says, nonprofits would be better off “staking our own claim to a commitment to performance — and to the distinctive role we play in building a better, more just and livable world.”

But what does that really mean, “our own claim to performance?” What is that claim? If not a traditional business model, then what? Determining that the business world and its managerial practices are not applicable to the nonprofit sector (or at least not what the nonprofit world needs to be at the top of its game) is step one. But then articulating what the nonprofit world does need to be at the top of its game seems to be a very important step two.

A deliriously exhausting and exhilarating inauguration weekend has come to a close, and the whole of Washington, DC seems hungover. The Metro was still full this morning of slow-moving inauguration visitors, spinning in circles and trying to figure out how to get out of the city, and bleary local commuters too exhausted (and in most cases, too happy) to make a fuss and admonish them to stand to the right.

Much has been and will be said about President Obama’s inaugural address. A first reaction by many seems to be that it was good, but only good, lacking the power and greatness of, say, the JFK inaugural speech. I think James Fallows is often right on in his analysis of speeches and debates, and agree with him when he says that the speech was the right timbre for this moment and will, like many of Obama’s performances throughout the campaign, be viewed much more positively after a bit of time.

For those of us in the fields of international education, exchange, and development, I think the most important and inspiring section of the President’s speech were the following lines, acknowledging both the importance of our work and the breadth of the task that we still have ahead of us:

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

For the record, I never once did this when abroad. But it’s nice to know I (hopefully) won’t ever have to. Heading into the long inauguration weekend, I know that I (along with a whole lot of other Americans, especially those working in our fields) are grateful to once again be feeling the love.

I went to the Georgetown-Providence basketball game this past Saturday and, at halftime, they decided to do something a little different. Instead of the usual—cheerleaders flouncing to an Akon remix or some kid from the stands awkwardly missing shots in a contest—they showed a video on the Jumbotron of a trip taken by several former Georgetown basketball players to Herceg Novi, Montenegro to conduct a basketball camp for boys and girls between 13 and 16. The trip was led by Sead Dezdarevic, a former Georgetown player originally from Montenegro, and was co-sponsored by the Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Montenegro. A preview of the trip in the Washington Post here and a recap on the Georgetown athletic site here. The purpose of the trip was of course to teach the participants in the camp basketball skills, but certainly extended beyond that. Said a public affairs officer in the Embassy:

Basketball is a passion for most Balkan countries. Bringing basketball players here enables the embassy to be in contact with younger people and people who could, quite frankly, care less about foreign policy. It’s a way where you don’t actually hear a lecture about a culture, you see it in action. It’s a cross-cultural experience.

The video that was shown at the game on Saturday isn’t yet available, but I’ll track it down as soon as it is and post it here.

International exchange programs such as the IVLP, and the dedicated citizen diplomats around the United States who administer them, are indispensable components of U.S. public diplomacy. Indeed, participating in public diplomacy is the responsibility of all Americans, a point I make in my op-ed published in the Christian Science Monitor on January 5.

In the piece, I reflect on, and try to dispel, five myths about American public diplomacy. One of those myths is that “Public diplomacy is the government’s job.” It is certainly the government’s job; but it is not only government’s job. Rather it is every American’s job as well. I use a favorite example to illustrate this point: a film on the life of Elvis Presley showing him in his Army uniform, having just arrived in Germany. In the clip, Elvis says: “What we do here will reflect on America and our way of life.” Elvis wasn’t just the King; he was also a citizen diplomat.

[I tried to find-- or rather had some younger, more Youtube-savvy colleagues try to find-- the clip I reference above, but to no avail. Instead, here is a short clip about Elvis' little known days serving in the Army in Germany:]

I’ve mentioned before my status as a Cincinnati Bengals fan and the stress of rooting for a perennially crappy team. But the Bengals haven’t always been crappy, and remembering the better days dulls the sting of yet another not-so-awesome season (4-11-1: only the Bengals can figure out a way to not lose but not win either). Which was why it was particularly gratifying to get this post from my high school friend Ryan about the “apex of Bengaldom,” the ‘88-89 season, when an amazing team led by quarterback Boomer Esiason and the Ickey Shuffle barely lost the Super Bowl to Montana’s 49ers.

But Ryan pointed in particular to one line in the post that he thought had particular relevance to the Working World blog:

Esiason is now a football pundit with a son mulling the Georgetown University foreign service program.

Ryan’s comment: “even the esiasons are in the foreign service business… it’s all the rage.” Indeed. I encourage Boomer’s son not just to mull, but to go. We need all the talented people we can get involved in international education, exchange, and development- and a few famous football players as spokesmen for the cause wouldn’t hurt either.

Ickey Woods and the Ickey Shuffle, circa 1989

The dean of the New York University Stern School of Business makes the case for international study as “a core component of undergraduate education in the 21st century.” She points out that even as a global world becomes the norm and international experience is increasingly recognized as vital in all professional fields,

the percentage of colleges that require a course with an international or global focus as part of the general education curriculum fell from 41 percent in 2001 to 37 percent in 2006. And 27 percent of the nation’s colleges and universities have no students at all who study abroad. But even among the colleges and universities that do promote “semester abroad” programs, most offer these as add-ons to the required course of study, providing students with only a taste of life in another nation and a small selection of elective courses.

By “taste of life in another nation,” she really means “a chance to drink for five months in another country.” While increasing the number of opportunities for all college students to study abroad is the key imperative, coupled with that must be a drive to increase the effectiveness (i.e., immersion and intensity) of these programs. Certainly study abroad can and should involve pubs; that just shouldn’t be the only thing it involves.

Jerrold Keilson, NCIV board member and VP for business development at the International Youth Foundation, is quoted in this Newsweek article on the impact of American cultural and entertainment exports around the world:

People who watch U.S. television shows, attend Hollywood movies and listen to pop music can’t help but believe that we are a nation in which we have sex with strangers regularly, where we wander the streets well armed and prepared to shoot our neighbors at any provocation, and where the lifestyle to which we aspire is one of rich, cocaine-snorting, decadent sybarites.

Kudos to Jerrold for this money quote. And while author Martha Bayles’ overall point in the article is a good one—that it’d be nice if our cultural and entertainment exports helped the U.S. image abroad rather than hurt it—it seems like she’s missing two key points. The first is in her misuse of Keilson’s quote and the Pew Global Attitudes Survey she cites directly after. While Hollywood movies undoubtedly give some in other countries the impression that Americans are violent, decadent sybarites*, the way to effectively counter that impression is not, as Bayles seems to suggest, to also export plenty of Cole Porter, to make sure foreigners know that us Americans like our violence but we like our Tin Pan Alley too. Rather, what both Jerrold and the Pew study are getting at is that exchange—actually traveling to each other’s countries and seeing what life is really like with our own eyes—is the best antidote to misperceptions brought on by media. That way, even if someone does see The Dark Knight**, he knows from experience that Americans don’t generally wear Kevlar body suits and talk like “the offspring of Clint Eastwood and a grizzly bear.”

The second point Bayles fails to hit on is one that is typically overlooked in most discussions of America’s cultural exports and diplomacy, and in fact in discussions of American exchange programs in general: the question should not be ‘How can we get them to like us?’ but rather ‘How can we come to understand one another?’ Americans worry so much about whether the world likes us, whether our media is creating a bad image for us, that we don’t ever stop to consider that what might really help our image is if we learn a little something about those people we’re so desperately trying to persuade to be our friends. If people in Pakistan, Turkey, France, or Germany no longer like (or never liked in the first place) American pop culture, then the next move is not to determine, ‘Okay, so how can we get them to like it?’ Rather, it’s to engage them in a discussion, in a dialogue (an integral component of which would be coming to know their own pop culture), and maybe ask why they don’t like it. The same goes for exchange programs. I’ve always believed that the point of international exchange programs, especially ones that bring foreigners to the United States to meet Americans and experience life here, is not to ‘get them to like us.’ It’s to give them a true and accurate experience. That way, their opinion of the United States—whether positive or negative—is at least based upon a truthful, personal experience.

This second Newsweek article, in some ways, gets at this same point:

If it’s going to thrive in today’s interconnected world, [the United States] needs new habits of cooperation based on a healthy respect for the interests of everyone else. Much of the world remains well disposed to the United States. But America needs to reciprocate this good will by listening carefully to voices from around the globe and trying to work with them.

*Sybarite = “one fond of pleasure and luxury.” I had to look it up.

**And why shouldn’t he? The Dark Knight was a pretty sweet movie.

Last week, Mark blogged about this article from the New York Times.  If you haven’t taken the opportunity to read his post and the related article, I would recommend doing so.  While Working World presents a variety of paths to a rewarding international career, the Foreign Service is still one of the most attractive magnets for young Americans who want to serve their country in a very direct way and who are willing to be sent wherever they are needed most.  Over the years I have been privileged to observe many Foreign Service Officers at work at our Embassies and consulates around the world, as well as here in DC.  Almost always, I came away impressed by their hard work, dedication, and wide array of tasks their daily responsibilities entail.  Those drawn to this career should definitely peruse this article.

A ray of hope for job seekers in the fields of international affairs and interested in the U.S. Foreign Service, courtesy of the New York Times. Despite the economic downturn, the Foreign Service is actually expanding: it asked for funding for 1,500 new jobs for the current fiscal year.  An interesting wrinkle on the heels of the “NGOs v. Foreign Service” discussion from two weeks ago. In that vein, the Times article offers a bit of editorial regarding the fact that, perhaps, the Foreign Service isn’t for everyone:

Not everyone is cut out for Foreign Service work, which can be stressful and highly demanding. About two-thirds of a diplomat’s career is spent overseas; officers usually move every two to four years and can be exposed to dangers like disease and war…

Yet career diplomats like Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan who now heads the American Academy of Diplomacy, called it the best job in the world. “I enjoy what I’m doing now but it’s nothing like working on foreign policy,” he said. “In my 37 years of service I may have gone home tired or frustrated with how a decision came out, but I never went home and asked myself if what I was working on was worthwhile.”

But it seems to be for a lot of people, or so they seem to think: it’s worth noting that this story currently ranks as the most emailed on the NY Times site.  I wonder if this is an indication of the fact that there’s that many people out there who suddenly want to join the Foreign Service, or maybe its more of an indication of where people’s heads are at these days.  That is, things might be redirecting. With the sudden bottoming out of the financial sector, talented people from/headed to that field may be reconsidering their career trajectories, with international affairs as a potentially attractive destination.

Reader Garrett Kuk (who blogs himself on “focused communication”) writes in response to my post on changes in the Foreign Service:

With all of the pre-election parallels drawn between JFK and Obama , it will be interesting to see how/if Obama’s foreign policy harnesses the enthusiastic young demographic. JFK created the Peace Corps during his administration, and the global worldview of Gen Y seems to suggest the right sort of strategic foreign policy will yield tremendous volume of talent and impact. Are we better off encouraging private NGO involvement rather than Foreign Service?

I hope it’s a “how” and not an “if.” Obama undoubtedly has the influence, the hipness, and all the right conditions to call upon an enthusiastic young demographic to “ask not what your country can do for you…”. But unlike in the Kennedy era, when it was the Peace Corps, the Foreign Service, USAID and that was about it, there are infinitely more opportunities out there for meaningful international work, whether it be at NGOs/nonprofits, universities, foundations, consulting firms, etc. The Foreign Service is certainly a place where meaningful international work is done (and it seems like that will be especially true in an Obama administration: they’ve got this weird notion that we should talk to other countries…). I’ve tried to encourage international job seekers not necessarily to lean one way (the government) or the other (the private sector) but rather to expand their notion of international work. No longer is it solely the Foreign Service, the World Bank, and the UN. There is so much more. So as long as you are aware that the Foreign Service is but one choice among many, I suppose it doesn’t much matter where you end up throwing your enthusiasm for international work, as long as you throw.

After the jump, a mini-rant of some other thoughts Garrett’s question provoked.

(more…)

A surprising and not unwelcome announcement just came out of Georgetown’s (my employer, in case you forgot) Office of Communications and is now being picked up by the Washington Post and other news outlets: the university received its largest donation ever, an estate gift of $75 million to support faculty compensation and research, technology, and staffing infrastructure.  No real career connection here, perhaps other than to note that the benefactor, Robert L. McDevitt, graduated from the arts and sciences school here at Georgetown.  I think this serves as another reminder to us liberal arts majors fretting that our course of study will take us nowhere: yes we can.

Some very disturbing news from CNN’s Political Ticker:  Fran Drescher, the actress of “The Nanny” fame, may be seeking Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.  What’s perhaps even more disturbing is that in the article, Drescher is described as a “women’s health advocate and public diplomacy envoy for the U.S. State Department.”  Hold up.  So Fran Drescher is being used to better the image of our country?  Sending out The Kid is one thing, but subjecting on the world someone with an “adenoidal voice that could strip the rust off an engine block” and then hoping that they’ll like us better afterwards seems an ill-informed move indeed.

(Props to Ari Gerstman for the lead on this.)