How Observing Friction and Acting on It Is the Real Work of Improving Offices

In many institutions, the word project has been hollowed out. It is used to describe:

  • formally assigned initiatives,
  • donor-funded programs,
  • task forces with unclear endpoints,
  • or extra work layered onto already full jobs.

This obscures a more important and more humane understanding of projects:
a project is what happens when someone notices friction, takes it seriously, and acts to make the institution work better.

At its core, a project is not a grant or a deliverable. It is an act of care for the system.

I. The Four-Step Project Pattern (and Why It Matters)

The pattern you outline—

  1. Observe a problem or friction
  2. Research possible reasons
  3. Determine solutions
  4. Recommend and guide action, taking ownership

—is not managerial jargon. It is a cognitive discipline. It appears across traditions because it mirrors how humans actually learn and improve systems.

  • In lectio divina:
    • Lectio: noticing what is there
    • Meditatio: reflecting on meaning
    • Oratio: discerning response
    • Contemplatio: living the change
  • In ACP:
    • Observe
    • Diagnose
    • Design
    • Intervene

What matters is not the framework, but the posture:
the belief that friction is information, not failure.

II. Why Institutions Undervalue This Kind of Project

Most institutions implicitly discourage this pattern, especially when it emerges from LES or non-supervisory staff.

Common signals include:

  • “That’s above your pay grade.”
  • “Just follow the process.”
  • “We’ve always done it this way.”
  • “That’s not your lane.”

These responses teach people to:

  • stop noticing,
  • stop asking why,
  • stop proposing fixes,
  • and stop caring beyond compliance.

The result is an office that survives but does not improve.

III. Projects as Ownership Without Authority

One of the most important features of this project model is that it does not require formal authority. It requires:

  • attention,
  • curiosity,
  • and a willingness to take responsibility for improvement.

This is especially important for LES, who often:

  • see problems first,
  • understand context deeply,
  • and bear the consequences of dysfunction,
    but lack positional power to mandate change.

The four-step project pattern allows LES to exercise leadership without pretending to outrank anyone.

IV. PD-Specific Projects: Concrete Examples

Below are realistic public diplomacy examples, written deliberately at the scale LES can actually influence.

Example 1: Repeated Confusion About Embassy Statements on Social Media

1. Observation (Friction)
LES notices that Facebook posts are repeatedly misinterpreted by local media as official policy statements, even when language is standard.

2. Research (Why This Happens)

  • Review past posts cited in press
  • Note which phrases trigger pickup
  • Compare timing with political events
  • Informally ask PAO what gets flagged most

3. Determining Solutions
LES identifies:

  • specific phrases that create attribution risk,
  • post types most likely to be quoted,
  • lack of internal guidance on “policy-sounding language.”

4. Recommendation & Ownership
LES proposes:

  • a short internal “red-flag language” list,
  • a quick pre-post check for high-risk topics,
  • optional consultation with PAO/SPES.

They volunteer to:

  • draft the list,
  • update it quarterly,
  • and socialize it with new staff.

Outcome:
No confrontation. No accusation.
Just a small system improvement that reduces risk.

Example 2: American Spaces Events Misunderstood as Political Endorsement

1. Observation
LES notices that photos from American Spaces events are increasingly used online to imply U.S. political backing of specific groups.

2. Research

  • Review event captions and imagery
  • Note which types of attendees create misinterpretation
  • Track how posts are shared externally

3. Determining Solutions
LES realizes:

  • captions emphasize “leadership” and “change” without context,
  • no guidance exists on image composition or framing.

4. Recommendation & Ownership
LES proposes:

  • caption templates that emphasize skills, not politics,
  • a basic photo-framing checklist,
  • a shared folder of “safe” imagery examples.

They offer to:

  • pilot the guidance with one Space,
  • adjust based on feedback,
  • brief others informally.

Example 3: Exchange Alumni Feel Invisible After Programs End

1. Observation
LES hears repeatedly that Fulbright/IVLP alumni feel disconnected after returning, despite being highlighted in speeches.

2. Research

  • Informal conversations with alumni
  • Review how alumni are mentioned publicly
  • Compare with actual follow-up engagement

3. Determining Solutions
LES identifies a gap between:

  • symbolic recognition,
  • and actual inclusion in embassy activities.

4. Recommendation & Ownership
LES suggests:

  • a quarterly alumni roundtable (informal),
  • targeted invitations based on expertise,
  • a simple alumni skills directory.

They volunteer to:

  • coordinate the first session,
  • document lessons learned,
  • and hand off a template.

Example 4: LES Knowledge Lost During Officer Rotations

1. Observation
Each rotation causes delays, repeated mistakes, and frustration.

2. Research

  • Identify which issues recur
  • Note what new officers ask repeatedly
  • Review existing handover materials

3. Determining Solutions
LES sees that:

  • handovers are task-based, not context-based,
  • institutional memory is oral and fragile.

4. Recommendation & Ownership
LES proposes:

  • a short “things you won’t find in the cable” brief,
  • updated annually,
  • written from an LES perspective.

They take ownership of:

  • drafting the first version,
  • inviting edits,
  • and maintaining it.

V. Why This Matters for Empowerment, Morale, and DEIA

This project model:

  • empowers without requiring permission,
  • improves morale by restoring meaning,
  • advances DEIA by valuing lived experience and local knowledge.

It also aligns perfectly with a service leadership ethos:
leaders serve by making room for this work, not by controlling it.

VI. What Makes This Work Sustainable

For this approach to survive, institutions must:

  • legitimize observation as valuable work,
  • reward thoughtful diagnosis,
  • protect people who propose changes,
  • and resist the urge to formalize everything into bureaucracy.

Not every project needs approval.
Not every improvement needs a committee.

Most improvements begin with someone noticing something is off—and caring enough to do something about it.

VII. Reframing Projects

The most useful project question is not:

“What initiative should we launch?”

It is:

“What friction do we live with that we shouldn’t?”

When institutions treat that question seriously, projects emerge organically—and offices get better not through grand plans, but through steady, humane attention.

That is the quiet work that keeps institutions alive.