Fedblog


Laura Rozen, over at Foreign Policy, reports in on the long wait for Paul Farmer, head of the Third World health organization Partners In Health, to be tapped to head the U.S. Agency for International Development. Anyone who has read Tracy Kidder's excellent, highly readable 2003 biography of Farmer, Mountains Beyond Mountains, can see how Farmer might be, um, complicated to vet, since he lives a fairly nomadic existence, has been scathing about U.S. policy towards the third world, etc.

But I think it's interesting to consider for a moment what kind of manager Farmer might be like if he survives a vetting and confirmation process and ends up at USAID. Certainly, he would be like few other government appointees anywhere, ever. First off, there's the work ethic question. Kidder describes Farmer as a guy who sleeps four or five hours a night, can sleep anywhere, and travels hundreds of thousands of miles a year, and skips across continents every month. In other words, he's someone who wouldn't have to ramp up his work ethic to take a government job; he probably could slow down, and might even be forced to, because he'd be required to be in Washington a certain amount of the time simply to administer the agency and attend meetings.

Second, Farmer is THE model of an inspirational leader. He takes an incredibly difficult task--working incredibly long hours, for incredibly poor people, sometimes in incredibly poor working conditions, for not very much money--and manages to make people excited about and devoted to the work. In a way, Farmer might have an easier sell at USAID, where the salaries are probably larger than they are at Partners In Health, and the resources available are larger. But I also think that Farmer would be able to recruit people who are inspired by him to make significant and substantial sacrifices. And I think it would be an interesting test case for that kind of leadership model in a federal agency. Most department and agency heads are rib-rock competent people, but they're not necessarily fire-starters. Kathleen Sebelius seems like a very nice, very smart person, but she isn't necessarily the kind of person who inspires other people to throw over their life plans, question their priorities, and go work in impoverished Peruvian communities to combat highly infectious multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis. Farmer is. Maybe his enthusiasm and the bureaucracy of USAID would clash horribly. Maybe government needs those competent but less firey people who can work the system. But Farmer's presence at USAID could be a useful model to examine to see how far a leader can shake up a bureaucracy, and how far he can inspire people to make things different.

COMMENTS


  • Sounds like a great choice. I applied to be the SES career legal counsel to AID/OIG in 1986 after losing out to a political pick for the General Counsel job in FEMA which was then career reserved, then later non-career reserved. Anyhow Herb Beckington was IG at AID and I believe McPerson was the Adminstrator. In the interview Beckington told me I was the only outsider he had interviewed that knew most of AID money went to DC based contractors who then in turn disributed it to various contractors and NGO's etc in foreign aid recipient countries. After losing out to the insider the following happened. Beckington called me personally to tell me he had made a mistake and hoped I might be interested in another OIG/AID job. I said no thanks and in a way glad to have lost out because probably would have been counting Imelda Marcos' shoes. Anyhow hoping FARMER if confirmed finds out how the AID funds are actually spent on the ground. And by the way the AID/OIG deployed partially overseas and underfunded and understaffed. Hey what's new. My point is the OIG might be very helpful if FARMER tries to make US foreign assistance more effective.

  • Truthfully, although Paul Farmer has accomplished so much, he comes across as a bit crazy in Kidder's book.

    I would not want him to be my manager!

  • I'm very interested in this discussion, and I wonder where this goes next. I think we should value a person with a vision for a better more diplomatic peaceful world. Idealism should be highly valued and is imperative. However, it can't be allowed to completely rule a system. With that said, if the AID system is "mal-aligned" (ie. it is no longer effective in serving its design), then a new jolt of idealism may be just what is needed. Obviously the Obama administration and Clinton are interested in pursuing new ideas, especially if they have the potential to advance peace and "connectivity" in our globalizing world. We should strive for creating more effective nonzero-sum foreign policy, especially on the humanitarian front.

Post a Comment

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

*
*
*
(you may use HTML tags for style)




*

ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


Archives


2011 |  2010 |  2009 |  2008 |  2007 |  2006 |  2005 |  2004