USAID is a sh!#show

[Anonymous]

3 re-orgs in 5 years. An order back to the office without actual seats for everyone. Constant elevation and then demotion of new, shiny topics. A cadre of young, insular, self-admiring and inexperienced politicals who are there to claim the mantle of others' ideas and kiss the ring for flashy leaders. A movement away from the core development mission and towards hot policy issues. A leader who is obsessed with herself and a team who promotes her every move (look! soccer with poor brown kids!). Meanwhile, a dysfunctional bureaucracy focused on process, sludge, and insider connections that keeps the Agency understaffed and the humans who work there demoralized and over worked.

[Anonymous]

Yikes!! That used to be my dream job growing up and in college. Career veered in a diff direction so I always wonder what could've been. This makes me glad life took me on a different (more lucrative) path.

You should leave OP! Find something that brings you joy.

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard as much. I’m sorry OP. I worry this is endemic. I mean, nothings as bad as it was a couple of years ago, but I feel like leadership is lacking and agencies are really struggling.

[Anonymous]

It's a makework place for elites to dump their dumb kids for babysitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a makework place for elites to dump their dumb kids for babysitting.

I thought it was the CIA’s little sister

[Anonymous]

It's a shame. There are a lot of very talented and accomplished people that work in international development.

But it's been known for a long time that USAID is a clown show. Every Department gets its political hacks but USAID seems to get the worst. Awful organization. Wouldn't work there, and wouldn't hire anyone that did work there. It's been messed up for years.

[Anonymous]

I love the CIO office!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame. There are a lot of very talented and accomplished people that work in international development.

But it's been known for a long time that USAID is a clown show. Every Department gets its political hacks but USAID seems to get the worst. Awful organization. Wouldn't work there, and wouldn't hire anyone that did work there. It's been messed up for years.

I have a good friend who is fabulous — smart and organized—who does development work through an AID contractor. I also know people who left and went to non-profits that do great work.
I think the whole political appointee thing is f—Ed up. Sometimes it means the government gets talented people from private sector who can bring a fresh set of eyes and different perspective. But more often it’s a vanity project for people who bundled donations or were friends with the right people. Every four years I get upset by it. My spouse turned down a political appointment he was offered because he didn’t feel like he knew enough about the agency’s focus. The person who took it probably knew less than him. Every four years I get irritated as the spoils of war are divided. Trump was worse about giving it to donors who really knew nothing or affirmatively opposed the work of the agency, but both sides are bad.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised OP seems to be complaining about Power — she seems to me actually highly qualified and like a do-er not a talk-er. Really, I think that’s the best political appointment one could hope for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised OP seems to be complaining about Power — she seems to me actually highly qualified and like a do-er not a talk-er. Really, I think that’s the best political appointment one could hope for.

That was my impression, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame. There are a lot of very talented and accomplished people that work in international development.

But it's been known for a long time that USAID is a clown show. Every Department gets its political hacks but USAID seems to get the worst. Awful organization. Wouldn't work there, and wouldn't hire anyone that did work there. It's been messed up for years.

I have a good friend who is fabulous — smart and organized—who does development work through an AID contractor. I also know people who left and went to non-profits that do great work.
I think the whole political appointee thing is f—Ed up. Sometimes it means the government gets talented people from private sector who can bring a fresh set of eyes and different perspective. But more often it’s a vanity project for people who bundled donations or were friends with the right people. Every four years I get upset by it. My spouse turned down a political appointment he was offered because he didn’t feel like he knew enough about the agency’s focus. The person who took it probably knew less than him. Every four years I get irritated as the spoils of war are divided. Trump was worse about giving it to donors who really knew nothing or affirmatively opposed the work of the agency, but both sides are bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a shame. There are a lot of very talented and accomplished people that work in international development.

But it's been known for a long time that USAID is a clown show. Every Department gets its political hacks but USAID seems to get the worst. Awful organization. Wouldn't work there, and wouldn't hire anyone that did work there. It's been messed up for years.

I have a good friend who is fabulous — smart and organized—who does development work through an AID contractor. I also know people who left and went to non-profits that do great work.
I think the whole political appointee thing is f—Ed up. Sometimes it means the government gets talented people from private sector who can bring a fresh set of eyes and different perspective. But more often it’s a vanity project for people who bundled donations or were friends with the right people. Every four years I get upset by it. My spouse turned down a political appointment he was offered because he didn’t feel like he knew enough about the agency’s focus. The person who took it probably knew less than him. Every four years I get irritated as the spoils of war are divided. Trump was worse about giving it to donors who really knew nothing or affirmatively opposed the work of the agency, but both sides are bad.

I was a political appointee in the past and while in my Special Assistant position, I frequently didn't apply for other jobs because I thought I did not have enough experience. Then they would hire some guy from the campaign or a fundraiser who knew even less than I did. Finally I started applying for these jobs. At one interview, someone was scrutinizing my mediocre level of experience for the job qualifications. Finally I was like, "Look, you're right, ideally the person for this job would have more experience in that area. But do you have a better candidate who has that experience? If so, hire that person. But I am seeing politicals getting jobs left and right they aren't ideally qualified for - people who are less qualified than I am - so I figured I may as well start applying as well. I am just as or more qualified than other appointees I see getting there jobs."

This would be a better story if I had gotten the job. I didn't. But indeed they hired a guy from the campaign who knew even less than I did.

They key to being a political, if I was to do it again: Lay low it first and learn. Rely on expertise from careers. Kill the careers with kindness. And if you want to make changes you think will be beneficial, make changes. But don't make changes just to "make your mark" to soothe your own ego.

[Anonymous]

Cmon guys. How are SAIS grads supposed to pay off their students loans from studying and partying in Italy and DC if USAID isn't there for them to get jobs?

[Anonymous]

The political appointees at my agency are annoying boobs. It's pathetic watching them obstruct good projects and partnerships they can't take credit for and then turn around take credit for other people's ideas. They are ass-kissers of the highest order and not respected at my agency.

Incidentally, R appointees are much easier to take as long as they aren't trying to dismantle the agency they're assigned to. They just don't care about the mission so are less involved and screw things up less. The silver lining of an R administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cmon guys. How are SAIS grads supposed to pay off their students loans from studying and partying in Italy and DC if USAID isn't there for them to get jobs?

This sounds great how to sign up