Why good intentions often fail, why silence is misread, and how unacknowledged asymmetry damages institutions


One of the most persistent sources of misunderstanding inside U.S. embassies is not cultural difference, professional competence, or commitment to mission. It is the unequal experience of power between Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) and Locally Employed Staff (LES).

This asymmetry exists regardless of individual goodwill. It is structural. When it is unacknowledged, it distorts communication, suppresses information, and produces outcomes that neither side intends.

This essay explains how power is experienced differently by FSOs and LES, how that difference shapes behavior on both sides, where institutions routinely misinterpret silence or compliance, and what competent supervisors do to prevent harm.

The structural sources of asymmetry

Power differences between FSOs and LES do not stem primarily from personality or culture. They arise from four structural conditions that shape daily risk and decision-making.

1. Time horizon

FSOs rotate. LES do not.

An FSO’s mistakes:

  • may affect one tour,
  • can be contextualized in future assignments,
  • and rarely define an entire career.

An LES’s mistakes:

  • accumulate over decades,
  • are remembered by successive supervisors,
  • and shape reputation long after the original decision-makers depart.

This alone creates asymmetry in risk tolerance.

2. Exit options

FSOs have:

  • bidding cycles,
  • lateral mobility,
  • and geographic flexibility.

LES typically have:

  • limited alternative employers,
  • strong local ties,
  • and legal, social, or familial constraints.

This changes how dissent is weighed.

A suggestion that feels “low risk” to an FSO may feel existential to an LES.

3. Formal protection

FSOs operate within:

  • U.S. civil service protections,
  • internal review mechanisms,
  • and institutional advocacy structures.

LES protections:

  • depend on local labor law,
  • internal grievance mechanisms that may feel opaque,
  • and supervisors who vary widely in experience.

Even when protections exist on paper, perceived accessibility matters more than formal availability.

4. Attribution of intent

When FSOs speak candidly, their comments are often read as:

  • professional judgment,
  • part of normal debate,
  • or “thinking out loud.”

When LES speak candidly, their comments may be read as:

  • insubordination,
  • negativity,
  • or political positioning.

This interpretive gap is rarely acknowledged, but it shapes behavior constantly.

How this asymmetry shows up in daily work

Example 1: “You should speak up more”

An FSO encourages openness in meetings and says:

“If you see something wrong, just say it.”

An LES hears:

“Expose yourself publicly in a room where I will rotate out in a year and you will not.”

When LES remain quiet, FSOs may interpret this as disengagement or lack of initiative. In reality, it is risk calculation.

Example 2: Informal guidance vs formal instruction

An FSO says informally:

“This isn’t cleared yet, but you can probably move ahead.”

The LES must decide:

  • whether this instruction is real,
  • whether it will be defended later,
  • and whether documentation exists.

If something goes wrong, the FSO can plausibly say:

“I didn’t authorize that.”

The LES cannot.

Example 3: Performance feedback asymmetry

An FSO may receive:

  • informal course correction,
  • mentoring conversations,
  • and second chances.

An LES may receive:

  • vague evaluations,
  • limited feedback,
  • and formal action only once problems are severe.

Silence is misinterpreted as acceptance—until it isn’t.

Why silence is a rational response for LES

LES silence is often misread as:

  • lack of ideas,
  • lack of confidence,
  • or lack of engagement.

In reality, silence is often a protective strategy shaped by experience.

LES ask themselves:

  • Will this be documented?
  • Will this be remembered?
  • Will this supervisor still be here next year?
  • Who protects me if this goes wrong?

If the answers are unclear, silence is rational.

How FSOs misinterpret LES behavior

FSOs often experience the institution as:

  • flexible,
  • forgiving,
  • and oriented toward development.

They may therefore misinterpret LES caution as:

  • resistance to change,
  • cultural conservatism,
  • or unwillingness to adapt.

This leads to frustration on both sides.

LES feel unheard. FSOs feel unsupported.

The problem is not intent. It is unacknowledged asymmetry.

Where institutions compound the problem

Institutions often worsen this dynamic by:

  • rotating supervisors without structured handover,
  • failing to protect dissenters explicitly,
  • treating LES institutional memory as optional,
  • and praising openness without backing it procedurally.

Over time, LES learn:

  • what not to say,
  • when not to speak,
  • and which risks are never worth taking.

Institutions lose early warning signals as a result.

What competent FSOs do differently

FSOs who navigate this asymmetry effectively do not rely on goodwill alone. They act deliberately.

1. They acknowledge the asymmetry out loud

They say:

  • “I know my risk is not the same as yours.”
  • “If I ask you to take a risk, I will document it.”

This changes the power dynamic immediately.

2. They create protected channels for dissent

They:

  • invite private input,
  • follow up after meetings,
  • and avoid forcing public disagreement.

They do not confuse visibility with courage.

3. They formalize informal guidance

When giving direction, they:

  • confirm by email,
  • clarify authority,
  • and record decision ownership.

This protects LES without escalating unnecessarily.

4. They intervene early and proportionately

They do not wait for problems to become formal.
They address:

  • misalignment,
  • overload,
  • and confusion early.

This builds trust faster than praise.

What competent LES leaders do

Experienced LES leaders:

  • translate institutional ambiguity for staff,
  • advise FSOs on local risk perception,
  • and surface concerns in ways that protect individuals.

They do not assume FSOs understand the asymmetry intuitively. They explain it.

Why this matters institutionally

Institutions depend on information flow. When those with the longest institutional memory feel unsafe speaking, institutions operate blind.

Most failures blamed on:

  • “poor communication,”
  • “lack of initiative,”
  • or “resistance to change”

are actually failures to recognize power asymmetry.

Bottom line

FSOs and LES operate in the same institution but experience power, risk, and consequence very differently.

Ignoring this difference does not create equality.
It creates silence.

Institutions that want honest information, early warning, and durable decisions must:

  • acknowledge asymmetry,
  • protect those with less power,
  • and stop mistaking quiet for agreement.