An Ambassador’s Reflections on Communication
Interview with former Philippine Ambassador Frank Cimafranca exploring the leadership behind his former diplomatic work: how to build trust within his teams, and how to handle difficult situations. What can students preparing for public service learn from his experience?
An ambassador’s work is often associated with negotiations and public appearances. What does the less visible work of leading an embassy involve?
Well, as an ambassador, of course, you lead a team, what we call the embassy team. And normally you have a number two. It’s usually the consul general and then another person who is in charge of either political or economic matters. During my time, my consul general was also the one who is in charge of political reporting, as we call it, And that includes public relations. So when I go out to represent the Philippines here in Hungary, whether I visit a university or I go to the Foreign Ministry, for instance, I always have my team with me, either the political officer or the economic officer, depending on what would be the topic of discussion during the meeting. So that’s how more or less we work.
What did leading people teach you about communication that diplomatic training alone could not?
Well, communication is definitely part and parcel of our work as diplomats, because it’s impossible for you to be a diplomat if you’re not a good communicator. I’m basically a listener. I’m a better listener than a talker. So first, before I even speak, I listen. And I don’t necessarily speak when I don’t need to do so. In many cases, I remain quiet and listen. But there are certain issues that are being discussed which involve my country’s interest. In such cases I cannot help it, I have to intervene. Otherwise, I’ll just listen. Listening is very important in communication, because if you don’t listen but you just press your own views, then you will not be appreciated. For me, listening is more important than speaking.
How, if at all, did your experience in Hungary change the way you communicate with colleagues and partners?
Most Europeans, not only Hungarians are more straightforward when they speak. Always to the point. Unlike us Asians, including Filipinos, we sometimes don’t say things directly. We may use metaphors. Because in our culture we don’t want to hurt the emotions of the other person. For example, when I know that the other person is not getting my point or they are just simply disregarding my point, no matter how much I try to explain it in a very nice way, then I will shift my approach and say something more direct. A very good example was when I was explaining to your former foreign minister our system of doing things in the Philippines because the Hungarian side was insisting that we use the usual practice that they do here in Hungary. Then I told them that, no, that’s not how we do it in the Philippines. I told him about our negotiations with the French. The French understood the way we do things, and they were able to adjust and adapt to us. Minister Szijjártó was telling me that it’s an OECD thing, a standard of OECD. So when he said that, then I told him that we already have this with the French and if the French can do it, how come you can’t? Even my own minister was surprised that I was so direct. That’s basically how I shifted the communication and adjusted to put across the message more clearly and frankly, the European way, because sometimes we are too polite.
In a hierarchical organisation, people may hesitate to challenge their leader. How did you encourage colleagues to disagree with you or bring you unwelcome news?
I’m very liberal. I never tried to restrict even my subordinates from speaking their views. And, well, in my case, when I speak to superiors, of course, you have to give them what you call due deference. But when I need to disagree, I will disagree. I won’t hesitate to express my views on major issues that I disagree on. Even as an ambassador, I don’t mind. In fact, I even don’t mind them disagreeing with me. And if they’re able to prove their point, then I’m willing to consider. I will need to consider and even abandon my own position and adapt another person’s position.
Diplomacy requires tact, but leading a team also requires clear feedback. How did you make sure that being diplomatic did not make your feedback too vague?
When I am convinced that, for instance, he is right or his views are much better than mine, then I simply recognize it. I give him due recognition for that. Well, meanwhile I correct the mistakes immediately. I won’t hesitate, correcting even reprimanding them. But I’m not very harsh when making reprimands, I do it in a nice way, but I make it clear that if you’re mistaken or you’re wrong, then I’m very direct. I express it very directly.
Could you walk me through a specific occasion when you had to communicate a difficult or unpopular decision to your team?
Well, definitely not here in Hungary. I never had that. When I led what we call the consular department, which is the biggest office in our ministry, supervising 40 offices all over the country and even my own office in Manila, I had more than 400 people in one building. We were in charge of issuing passports. And there was a case of passport fraud. Of which only one person within my office was involved. He was colluding with fixers from outside. Philippine passports were issued to Indonesians. And of course, in the investigation, all the staff in that office, or most of the staff in that office were charged. They were charged in court for passport fraud. And then, of course, my staff were there telling me that it’s not fair that we would be included in the charge when we were not involved. I had to tell them that it was normal because you are in one office and there’s an investigation. So it’s just a question of you trying to explain and prove that you were not really involved in the whole process. The investigation was done by another department. The prosecutor’s office. I told them that ‘It’s the prosecutors job to investigate, so you just have to cooperate. I’m sorry that you’re involved here, but I’m convinced that you’re not guilty of anything.’ So, they were able to prove that they were not involved. So everything went well, but it was really difficult for me.
Could you describe a different occasion when a disagreement within your team required your intervention?
Well, whenever there’s a disagreement, you will have to find out what the issue is all about. And for me, it’s better to have an open conversation, an open dialogue. So that’s how I resolve disagreements, I have an open dialogue. During the dialogue, it’s easy for me to determine who is right or wrong. And right then and there, I will resolve the issue, especially if the decision is in your hands. But if the decision is not within your hands, but you have to elevate it to higher authorities, then that is another matter. Then I will have to make a decision, lay down the position of the office, and then communicate it to higher authorities.
How did you handle situations where instructions from headquarters did not fully reflect the conditions your team was facing locally?
I experienced at the start of the war in Ukraine, where we were tasked to evacuate Filipinos from Ukraine. Many of them were seafarers who were trapped in ships inside the ports in southern Ukraine. So we had disagreement with headquarters on how to deal with the situation, because they were insisting on certain things that before I act or before we do something, it has to be first cleared with the headquarters in Manila. I told them that time is of the essence here. If we keep working this way, then we will lose a lot of time. And before we can make any decision, then the lives of our people there will already be in danger. So I told headquarters, if you insist doing it your way, then do it. You can come here and take my place. I’m supposed to be your man on the ground, so you have to trust me to do it my way. Why are you giving me all these instructions, restrictions on how to do it? Either you trust me, or if you don’t trust me, then you do it yourself. They remained quiet and allowed me to do it. But I also knew the risk because if I failed, then my job was on the line. I had to take that risk.
Which communication habit should students preparing for public service start practising before they ever hold a leadership position?
As I’ve said, as well as in my own personal experience, you must first listen. You must be a good listener to be able to communicate properly and effectively. For example I was working in the United Nations in Geneva, during negotiations, I spoke rarely. I would rather just listen. But when I spoke, the people in the room would know that it’s something very important and very serious, because they know me that I’m not a talker. Especially when you are a decision maker, then you must listen, because how can you make a good decision, a proper decision if you do not listen? If you don’t listen, then you’re ignorant of the issues in the first place. Sometimes we think that communication is more about speaking, but actually, the essence of communication is both listening and speaking. So you listen first, then speak. In the Bible, James in his epistle said: ‘Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slower to anger.’
