By Pete Lyon
Note: Pete Lyon is a former U.S. Foreign Service officer. Subsequently, he has worked in policy in DoD and CISA tech environments.
At first glance, the skills that diplomats leverage and the nuts and bolts of technology innovation environments may seem puzzling. The oldest examples of diplomacy are more than six millennia old, as evidenced in ancient Sumerian treaties. Modern electronic computers have existed since about 1945. One field focuses on dealing with foreign interlocutors at all levels, from ordinary citizens to heads of state, to accomplish U.S. objectives, while the other focuses on issues such as cybersecurity, “big data,” and AI.
Notwithstanding, over the course of my career in both the foreign service and tech entities with the DoD and CISA, I’ve found that a closer look reveals parallels between these fields in terms of common management techniques such as building relationships, managing up and sideways, and pinpointing and applying policy baselines. This blog post illuminates these similarities spanning the diplomatic and technological realms.
Building cross-cultural relationships to yield results
The brunt of U.S. diplomats’ work focuses on advancing national interests at different locations overseas, within varying cultural ambits. At times, they are similar to those of the USA, such as Australia. In other places, for example, such as in East Asia, other factors predominate. Plus, multilateral and international organizations in which the U.S. is involved, such as NATO, the UN, and the EU, in turn spur their own distinct patterns of interaction. The field of technological growth and innovation, likewise, fosters its own cultural dynamics such as a heavy focus on engineering, developing software, or identifying cyber threats. At times, I’ve even sensed that these specialists have crafted their own internal languages and codes, wrapped in a blanket of acronyms.
Key to success in both fields is finding commonalities to facilitate the often-trickier business of policymaking and implementation. For example, diplomats receive training in the languages, cultures, and history of countries where they serve to make them more effective. This familiarization can translate into knowledge of when and why castles were built, familiarity with the tier relegation/promotion of national soccer teams, and incisive use of jargon in a local language. While trivial to some, these tidbits help build solid interpersonal relationships with international counterparts — which in turn facilitate policymaking goals.
Of course, you don’t need a diplomatic passport to interact with a brilliant “techie” team. Yet the same ingredients and curiosity diplomats use to build rapport with foreign interlocutors can help transcend organizational cultural barriers with technological specialists. This can come in numerous forms of Americana, from asking an engineer about a family photo on a desk to inquiring to a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel Military Assistant what the various ribbons and medals on a uniform signify. Friendly banter with a software developer about last weekend’s NFL slate can lead to productive discussions when one needs to know what that confounding acronym means, who does what on the organizational chart, or get clarity on how Widget A differs from Widget B.
Managing up and sideways
Another area where diplomacy and technological environments intersect is the ability to “manage up.” Nearly universally in policy, someone will be above you, such as an ambassador, undersecretary, general, or even elected official. In diplomacy, a major part of the job of a political officer at an embassy is to report on developments on the ground and filter them up to leadership, both in embassies and consulates, and back to Washington. In many cases, this work involves prepping leadership for meetings with host government officials and public events with background papers, talking points, etc.
Likewise, effective technology policy relies on such skills. It’s often crucial to be able to learn the policy landscape surrounding a particular technological issue and relate it to leadership. Often, this communication takes on similar forms as it would in diplomatic environments: crafting similar background papers, talking points, etc.
Undergirding these interactions, understanding of one’s strengths is vital in both diplomatic and tech settings when liaising with colleagues at higher and parallel levels. Throughout their careers, diplomats receive tests to identify their personalities and leadership styles. For example, I’ve been characterized as a Myers-Briggs Personality Test Introspective Sensory Thinking Judging personality, whereas my CliftonStrengths (formerly, StrengthsFinder) leadership style is primarily learner/context/input and, secondarily, communications/harmony.
Based on this awareness, I’ve shaped my working style with interlocutors in both diplomacy and tech policy. As much as I’ve wanted to tackle complex policy issues from the starter’s gun, I’ve found it’s more productive over the medium term to slow down, take a breath, and strive to understand my team and the environment first — then suggest goals, timeframes, etc.
Identifying and applying baselines
Another commonality that diplomacy and technological environments share is identifying the policy drivers. While diplomacy is naturally outwardly focused on external action, ultimately, some sort of policies, such as legislation, regulations, and executive orders drive it. Diplomats apply such guidelines in actions such as determining eligibility for visas, developing memoranda of understanding, and enacting security assistance programs with partner countries.
This factor also holds true in technological innovation. I’ve found that constructing interagency partnerships, building relationships between the public and private sectors to report cyber intrusions, and technology transfer issues to allied countries are similarly governed by such regulations. The skill of identifying such guidelines — sometimes pulling a needle from a haystack — is vital in both fields.
