It is the 21st Century; Organize State Department Administrative Functions to Reflect That

by Joan Wadelton, Guest Contributor

INTRODUCTION

The State Department has been poorly managed for decades.  Scandals, failures and irregularities across the spectrum of administrative functions (that is, the operational side of the agency – security, personnel, procurement, embassy construction, technology etc.) have harmed US foreign policy in multiple ways.  These shortcomings undermine the implementation of US foreign policy and waste the American taxpayer’s money.  Significant reforms, Congressional oversight and time will be needed to correct this.  The first step must be to rationalize the outdated and chaotic structure of administrative functions.

Today’s Structure:  An Overly Large and Incoherent Grouping of Functions Under One Under Secretary for Management

The State Department’s administrative responsibilities are neither structured to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, nor to promote fiscal responsibility.  The current organizational chart groups the institution’s numerous and diverse administrative functions into a single bureaucratic unit (“the M family”), under a sole senior official (the Under Secretary for Management). 

 

The make-up of the M family neither reflects the creation of new Bureaus in State in recent years, nor the increasing importance of security and information technology.  Functions of a more recent vintage – such as information technology – are located organizationally with longstanding and unrelated offices such as medical services.  Quite inappropriately, Consular Affairs – a non-management Bureau and once an independent entity – is included in the M family.

Grouping together such a broad collection of unrelated, high-budget and critical functions ensures that no single person in the role of Under Secretary for Management will have the expertise or time to administer everything competently.  Moreover, placement of decision-making in the hands of a single individual prevents healthy competition for resources among senior management staff, who should be obliged to defend their requests for funding and programs against the requests of other Bureaus and offices.

Most seriously, the grouping of so many functions under one decision-maker leaves the door open to cronyism and corruption; closing off competing voices can discourage legitimate dissent. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE MODERNIZATION OF STATE’S MANAGEMENT PORTFOLIO

 

1)  The First Step Must Be to Reinstate the Position of Deputy Secretary for Management

The State Department exists to formulate and implement the foreign policy of the United States; management has always been an afterthought.  But foreign policy cannot be implemented without a firm grounding in a healthy, smoothly running and efficient administrative support structure.

There must be a connection between the administrative and policy sides -- they must be fully integrated and administrative functions must be treated as critically important.  A Deputy Secretary for Management would ensure that this happens.