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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?