USAID is a sh!#show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is her third high-profile position as an appointee. What has she done? Any accomplishments?

She is good at self promotion. When you excel at that you don’t have to get real work done.

[Anonymous]

As others have said it is incredibly dysfunctional and unprofessional. Mention USAID to other agencies (particularly State, DoD, or Treasury) and you get the eye roll. They have zero clue how the interagency process works. Honestly I don’t even think they know what they do (or should do). Their half of the RRB might as well be a black hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, not at all. Power is part of the problem. She is all show, her priority is self promotion. She thinks in TED Talk sound bites and buzzwords. For ex, “Progress, not programs”, nobody knows what that means. She would fit perfectly in Silicon Valley or at McKinsey, anywhere they love buzzwords more than real work.

Yup - she has bugged me since she first came on the scene in '08 as the Obama policy guru and seemed to be completely removed from reality except to promote herself - what has she done as a "doer" other than get herself appointed to plum positions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most of these points are true of any agency. Politicals gonna political. There’s a reason it’s called non-merit hiring.

USAID operates more efficiently than many other agencies. The leadership might be full of hot air, but the core staff are smart and dedicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is her third high-profile position as an appointee. What has she done? Any accomplishments?

She is good at self promotion. When you excel at that you don’t have to get real work done.

Power’s true colors.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/hillary-clintons-a-monster-obama-aide-blurts-out-attack-in-scotsman-interview-2510266

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most of these points are true of any agency. Politicals gonna political. There’s a reason it’s called non-merit hiring.

USAID operates more efficiently than many other agencies. The leadership might be full of hot air, but the core staff are smart and dedicated.

The core staff is dedicated to themselves and survival. USAID has zero idea of what it wants to be.
The best thing for the interagency would be to revoke their semiautonomous status and roll their functions under State’s various bureaus.

[Anonymous]

The core staff are largely talented and dedicated. But the Agency overworks and uses them.

[Anonymous]

"Death spiral" and "caste system" are not terms you generally like to hear about the workplace.

See here:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.devex.com/news/devex-newswire-usaid-s-workplace-woes-and-pitched-battles-104952/amp

[Anonymous]

Maybe not a function of this agency but the sector itself. Are things any better at other organisations working in the development sector like World Bank, Inter American Development Bank, etc? Is development aid even useful in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not a function of this agency but the sector itself. Are things any better at other organisations working in the development sector like World Bank, Inter American Development Bank, etc? Is development aid even useful in the first place?

IFC seems to be rolling along, but it's a very finance and market-oriented organization so there will always be a role. The other multilaterals, particularly the WB and most of the UN organizations, seem to be flailing about. What exactly is the role of an international development organization in a country that is sending spaceships to the moon? - to take India as an example. The world is a very different place then what it was thirty years ago. Private organizations like Gates and others seem to be more effective these days. Agree with another poster that suggested USAID should probably be absorbed by State at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1 I thought I wrote that. Sometimes I still wonder, but I won't wonder anymore.

+2 Exact same here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That this was about Fbi

[Anonymous]

Consider reporting fraud, waste and abuse to the USAID OIG

[Anonymous]

Morale gets worse by the day. And where does this steam of politicals keep coming from?

[Anonymous]

USAID is hands-down the most dysfunctional workplace I have ever worked in.

The current political leadership, up to and especially including the Administrator, has dedicated itself to disempowering and tearing down the career workforce, politicizing the Foreign Service and its promotion process, and making it an even worse place to work. This is perhaps the worst political leadership in the history of the Agency.

See this letter, co-signed by Senators Warren, Sanders, and Markey for a rundown of the many long-standing issues at USAID, which have been made worse by the current leadership:

https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senator_markey_letter_to_usaid_on_workforce_-_090823pdf.pdf