Breaking Ranks: Diplomatic Resignations as Warnings of Institutional Decline
Share
Joining the diplomatic corps is more than just securing a job; it’s a commitment to a way of life that demands significant personal and professional investment. The selection process is often lengthy and difficult, admitting only a small percentage of applicants. Those appointed as diplomats launch themselves into the career riding high on the feeling of accomplishment of being selected. They venture into the complicated world of international affairs with a glint in their eye and adventure on their minds.
Fast forward a few years to find seasoned diplomats entrenched in their careers and harboring a complicated a love-hate relationship with the job and their institution; the stress, pressures, and constant uprooting take their toll, yet part of their identity remains intertwined with their job. Despite the chaotic perpetually changing lifestyle, the heavy demands of the job and the strains it places on personal lives, the turnover rates for diplomats around the world are usually quite low.
There are many possible reasons for the persistence of diplomats in their positions, from the efforts they exerted into securing the job in the first place, to the sunk costs of invested time to progress through it, to the security that the career provides, there are numerous factors that account for the persistence of diplomats to stay with the career despite the challenging and often stressful nature of the job. That is a question for another time however. The issue we will cover here is the inverse; what does it mean when diplomats start resigning from their positions in numbers?
Canaries in a Coal Mine
An increase in resignations year over year, without external pull factors to explain it, indicates internal issues driving people away. The pattern could be indicative of an increasingly toxic organizational culture, broad unaddressed resentment and concerns within organizational directions, or disengagement from the organization itself, to name a few.
For ministries of foreign affairs (MFA) that commonly have high retention rates even when there are widespread organizational problems, the impact and significance of such a trend is more alarming. The embedded sense of identity of being a diplomat is a powerful driver to remain with the MFA because, unlike other professions being a diplomat is intrinsically tied to working in the MFA; while an engineer can remain an engineer regardless of the organization they are an engineer for, a diplomat does not have that luxury. The connection of identity to working in their MFA adds a further layer of complexity to the resignation decision.
An effective MFA should not expect to experience a significant number of resignations under normal circumstances. If such a trend emerges, it should take proactive steps to address the causes before its effects spread throughout the organization and affect the greater strategic foreign policy objectives of the government. Like canaries in a coal mine, resigning diplomats are not the source of the problem, but rather alert to its presence, and understanding what drives these departures requires a closer look at the internal dynamics of MFAs.
Impact of Organizational Culture
The first of the two main pillars to examine in the context of resigning diplomats is the organizational culture of the government's foreign policy apparatus. This is commonly spearheaded by the MFA (or equivalent) and supported by relevant agencies (intelligence, technical, military, etc.). Ideally, the engagement within these agencies is a collaborative effort toward enacting the grand strategy of a government’s foreign policy. Through partnership and mutual support, it should be capable of adapting to shifting global dynamics, predicting potential threats, and capitalizing on opportunities.
However, the ideal scenario is seldom reflected on the ground, with rivalries and bickering between agencies often forming a big part of interagency interactions, it rests upon leadership to draw the lines and set up mechanisms of engagement. Therefore, when leadership persistently deprioritizes MFA input on foreign affairs, diplomats as the group spearheading MFA build resentment for being sidelined.
The institutional sidelining of an MFA, however, would not alone account for an increased pattern of resignations but can be an initiating factor. When an MFA is sidelined, it often leads to the internal silencing of dissenting voices, which brings us to the internal front of the MFA itself.
As in any organization, when expertise is devalued, it naturally leads to disengagement and growing resentment among its members, possibly prioritizing compliance over initiative. This shift may signal the beginning of a decline in organizational culture, which, if unchecked, could drive talented individuals away. These issues can be compounded by lack of transparency and career clarity, along with systemic disparities in rewards.
Nevertheless, and because impermanence is a key element of working in diplomacy and international affairs, diplomats will more often than not remain with an organization and weather the storm.
Bearing those factors in mind, it is worth noting that diplomats are resilient and would rather navigate internal uncertainty, disengagement, and declining organizational culture, than resign at the drop of a hat. A trend of resignations would therefore be indicative of an institutionally significant issue.
A trend of this sort can indicate that complications have reached a tipping point that has not only impacted a significant percentage of the members of the organization, but that has also instilled a sense of hopelessness when it comes to possible course corrections. For every member that is able and willing to resign, there are many others who will remain but will (intentionally or unintentionally) disengage from the organization in all but name.
Substantive Objections
The second pillar is the substantive one. While experienced diplomats understand that policy positions are not permanent, and can adapt and change as circumstances do, they also know when policy becomes entrenched and immutable.
Therefore, a pattern of resignations following a period of dissent within an MFA, may point to the notion that the diplomats within the organization not only do not agree with the policy, not only do not agree with the direction, but also see little hope of correction. The sense of futility of effort is what erodes the will to engage and remain.
In addition to the broad disagreement that this pattern could be indicative of, it also shows that the channels for dissent are limited or nonexistent. An MFA that has no channels for dissenting opinions, becomes in effect an echo chamber reflecting back to leadership only what it wants to hear.
When compliance precedes initiative, and when an MFA becomes an echo chamber whose main job becomes ‘selling’ predetermined policy directions, it severely reduces the operational efficacy of the MFA and its diplomats. An MFA with reduced role and function is not just less effective—it’s a liability.
With disengaged diplomats seeking a way out, self-preservation, and with broad dissatisfaction within the ranks, the direction of foreign policy will veer away from strategic objectives at an increasing rate if these issues are allowed to fester. To prevent a potential collapse of diplomatic efficacy, it is imperative to take action to address these systemic issues if they arise.
As disengaged diplomats withdraw from meaningful contributions, the MFA becomes a passive entity, incapable of shaping or responding to international developments. This progressively weakens the country's ability to project influence abroad and leaves it vulnerable to strategic missteps that could harm national security and economic interests.
Building upon the discussion on organizational culture, it is important to bear in mind that significant increases in resignations are rarely due to a single cause. Rather, such a pattern would be symptomatic of an accumulation of factors. At the stage when this pattern is visibly impacting the organization, it indicates that the underlying causes have incubated for a significant period of time in the organization.
Common Missteps in Addressing Resignations
At their core, MFAs are hierarchical, bureaucratic entities that can regress into defensiveness when faced with a similar challenge. In embodying organizational (or bureaucratic) inertia organizations attempt to retain control by enforcing existing management policies and directions in a stricter fashion, even if they have become ineffective.
Furthermore, a recurring theme within government bureaucracies is the avoidance of blame, and by extension accountability, for failures. Since a trend of departing diplomats could be categorized as a management failure, leadership will attempt to shift the blame to outside factors or lay the blame on those who are resigning, labeling them as inefficient, undedicated, unprofessional or that they simply could not make it in the fierce field of diplomacy and international affairs.
Another mistake is downplaying the significance and impact of the problem on the organization, preventing meaningful intervention. Whether as a result of cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult for leadership to accept that their policies led to the situation, or a conscious decision to protect their own positions, senior management may opt for diverting focus away from the problem instead of addressing it.
Causes for Concern
While we divided the causes under two separate categories for clarity, in reality the causes and triggers of a pattern are more likely to include elements from both categories occurring in parallel.
A pattern of this nature should raise alarm bells within any government. It could expect lower quality recommendations, reduced initiative on the part of diplomats, and a withdrawal and disengagement of their diplomats that are supposedly representing its interests around the world. The erosion of effectiveness is not just a theoretical risk; it's an imminent threat with consequences. If these systemic issues are allowed to fester, diplomats may fail to adequately represent national interests, cumulatively diminishing regional or even global influence and leading to potential strategic missteps.
In turn, as the momentum of this phenomenon grows, the attractiveness of the organization will dwindle, and the calibers replacing departing ones will not be at the same level. The qualifications of the people seeking admission to the ranks will be lower, and the selection process will focus on aligning potential candidates with the priorities of compliance, fueling the cycle of declining performance of the MFA.
In the potential worst-case scenario, an MFA would be all but eviscerated of its distinguishing qualities over time, ending up an ineffective bureaucratic organization populated by compliant officers whose main priority is gaining the approval of their superior officers. An organization in this state could cause regression of international status, lose out on opportunities on the global arena, and be less capable of adapting to new situations.
This decline for any MFA is not just about losing a few diplomats - they are just the canaries in the coal mine warning of a looming problem; it is about losing the ability to craft and implement effective foreign policy, ultimately jeopardizing a nation's global influence and strategic goals.
Read next
When Business Meets Governance: A Risky Convergence
Choose Your Destiny: Bilateral vs Multilateral Diplomacy
