A Practical Case for LES-Led, Time-Bound Committees in a PD Section

The reflexive resistance

Mention “committees” in an embassy and you will often hear some version of:

  • “We don’t have time for meetings.”
  • “Committees don’t actually decide anything.”
  • “This will just create more bureaucracy.”
  • “People will use it to avoid real work.”

These objections are not cynical. They are empirical. Most embassy committees do fail.

The mistake is concluding from this that all committees are useless. The real lesson is that committee design matters more than intent.

Second-order committees — especially LES-led ones — can work exceptionally well if they are designed to absorb institutional friction rather than generate it.

What “second-order committee” actually means

A second-order committee is not a governing body.

It does not:

  • set policy,
  • issue directives,
  • or replace leadership.

Instead, it operates one layer below decision-making and one layer above individual frustration.

Its purpose is to:

  • identify recurring problems,
  • research causes and constraints,
  • propose implementable options,
  • and reduce the cognitive and time burden on FSOs and leadership.

Think of it as institutional preprocessing.

Why first-order committees fail

Most embassy committees are first-order committees — and structurally doomed.

They fail because they are:

  1. Permanent (no urgency, no closure)
  2. Vague in mandate (“improve coordination”)
  3. Advisory without consequence
  4. Hierarchical (dominated by rank)
  5. Unrecorded (no institutional memory)

These committees create the appearance of participation without producing usable outputs.

Why PD sections are uniquely suited for second-order committees

Public Diplomacy sections experience:

  • constant ambiguity,
  • high external exposure,
  • and cross-cutting responsibilities (press, programs, exchanges, social media).

They also have:

  • LES with deep institutional knowledge,
  • FSOs with limited time,
  • and recurring friction points that rarely justify full leadership attention.

This makes PD an ideal environment for problem-focused, rotating committees that convert friction into proposals.

What problems these committees actually address

Second-order committees are not created “to be inclusive.”

They exist to handle problems that otherwise:

  • sap morale,
  • waste FSO time,
  • or persist unaddressed.

Examples in a PD section:

  • Training opportunities are uneven and undocumented.
  • Awards nominations are ad hoc and personality-driven.
  • Emergency preparedness exists on paper but not in practice.
  • Evaluation cycles are confusing and anxiety-producing.
  • Administrative processes are opaque and re-learned every year.

None of these require Ambassador-level decisions — but all degrade operations.

Why LES leadership matters here

LES are particularly well-positioned to lead second-order committees because:

  • they are present across rotations,
  • they experience the friction repeatedly,
  • and they often already solve these problems informally.

Formalizing this work:

  • legitimizes problem-solving,
  • captures institutional learning,
  • and distributes responsibility without overburdening FSOs.

Importantly, LES leadership here is not symbolic. It is functional.

How second-order committees actually work (mechanics)

A workable model includes the following design features:

1. Voluntary, rank-ordered participation

  • LES and FSOs rank committee preferences.
  • No one is permanently assigned.
  • Rotation is expected.

This ensures motivation without coercion.

2. FSO as coach, not chair

  • FSOs serve as mentors and constraint-explainers.
  • They do not run meetings.
  • They do not dominate agenda-setting.

This preserves hierarchy where needed while protecting autonomy.

3. LES-only working sessions (by default)

  • LES meet separately to analyze problems.
  • Recommendations are presented upward.

This prevents premature shutdown of ideas and encourages candor.

4. Time-bound composition

  • Committees exist for ~6 months.
  • No indefinite membership.
  • Clear handoff documentation.

Urgency is built into the structure.

5. Self-elected chair

  • Committees choose their own chair.
  • Leadership skill develops organically.
  • Authority is peer-conferred, not imposed.

6. Documented outputs

At rotation, committees produce:

  • work accomplished,
  • work in progress,
  • recommendations,
  • unresolved questions.

These become institutional artifacts, not personal notes.

Why this does not undermine FSOs

A common concern is that LES-led committees dilute FSO authority.

In practice, the opposite occurs.

These committees:

  • surface problems early,
  • pre-analyze constraints,
  • and present options rather than complaints.

FSOs spend less time firefighting and more time deciding.

Authority is preserved because:

  • committees do not decide,
  • leadership still approves,
  • and accountability remains clear.

What committees produce that meetings cannot

Meetings are reactive.
Committees are accumulative.

Committees:

  • track issues over time,
  • connect patterns across cases,
  • and build internal expertise.

They also create:

  • leadership pipelines,
  • shared vocabulary,
  • and cross-unit understanding.

This is not “extra work.”
It is work that otherwise goes undone.

Common failure modes — and how to avoid them

  1. Committees as status signals
    → Avoid by rotating membership and documenting work.
  2. Committees as complaint forums
    → Avoid by requiring proposals, not just problem lists.
  3. Committees captured by hierarchy
    → Avoid by default LES-only sessions and FSO coaching role.
  4. Committees forgotten after rotation
    → Avoid by mandatory handoff memos and PAO/SPES tracking.

The deeper benefit: capability development

Beyond solving immediate problems, second-order committees allow LES to practice:

  • project management,
  • policy research,
  • written recommendations,
  • and cross-functional coordination.

This builds real capacity — not through training slides, but through applied work.

Bottom line

Most embassy committees fail because they are designed for symbolism rather than function.

Second-order, LES-led, time-bound committees succeed because they:

  • absorb institutional friction,
  • protect FSO time,
  • develop staff capability,
  • and create continuity across rotations.

They do not replace leadership.

They make leadership possible.