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 The first step must be to rationalize the outdated and chaotic structure of administrative functions.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.
2) Replace the Existing Under Secretary for Management with Four new Under Secretaries who Each Oversee Offices and Bureaus Grouped Together by Function
Because the M portfolio is too large and too diverse to be managed as single entity by one person, it should be broken up and reconfigured into more logical sub-elements. The existing Under Secretary for Management title and portfolio would be eliminated and four new Under Secretaries created – leading to a net gain of three Under Secretaries. Each would oversee a portfolio of related functions in which s/he would have expertise. These four Under Secretaries would report to the Deputy Secretary for Management.
Such a management construct would encourage open and candid debate among the various Under Secretaries for finite resources, as each would need to justify his/her programmatic and funding requests to the Deputy Secretary. In addition, separating the current M portfolio into four distinct units would serve as an anti-corruption mechanism by introducing four tracks of accountability. Dividing up areas of management responsibilities would enable a more effective and precise identification of responsibility in the event of irregularities.
3) Move the Consular Affairs Bureau Out of the Management Realm
Both overseas and in Washington, consular work – visa issuance, assistance to American citizens overseas and the processing of immigrants – is a critical component of US foreign and national security policy. However, consular work is not a management function and consequently the Bureau of Consular Affairs has no place in the management world. It should be moved over to the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights – which oversees related issues.
4) Dismantle the Office of Management Strategy and Solutions and Move Its Component Parts Elsewhere
This Office is a grab bag of unrelated functions which should be broken apart and transferred to other Bureaus and offices under the Deputy Secretary for Management.
5) Create a New Office of Policy, Outreach and Oversight Attached to the Deputy Secretary for Management
Create an Office of Policy, Outreach and Oversight that would report directly to the Deputy Secretary for Management. This new office would be responsible for coordination with external entities such as the White House, State’s Office of Inspector General and the GAO. It would advise the Deputy Secretary on cross-cutting issues and policy matters and would track and analyze management best practices. It would serve as a liaison to the press and Congress. Finally, it would include an oversight function staffed by career employees and detailees from the GAO, OPM and elsewhere who would advise the Deputy Secretary on waste, fraud and mismanagement.
6) Create an Under Secretary for Human Capital
This portfolio would include the Global Talent Management (GTM) (formerly Human Resources) Bureau, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the Office of Medical Services and the Foreign Service Institute. All of these offices manage and/or directly affect the agency’s personnel. Creation of this new Under Secretary would allow for better coordination, control and oversight of disparate parts of the bureaucracy that should work together seamlessly.
The Global Talent Management Bureau which oversees both the Foreign and Civil Services – should be more closely aligned with the Office of Civil Rights. State’s EEO track record has been dismal for years and the new Under Secretary should make correcting this a priority.
In addition, both GTM and OCR have for years used the grievance process and other legal actions to punish employees who file complaints. A necessary restructuring of the two offices would move their respective grievance processes, mediation and similar mechanisms to the Office of the Legal Advisor, thereby mitigating the inherent conflicts of interest that arise when GTM or OCR staff are involved in employee dispute resolution.
For years, too much of the training of Foreign Service personnel beyond foreign language courses has been an afterthought. Devoting more attention to this critical function and to State’s Foreign Service Institute would be beneficial.
Of particular value would be cross-training of administrative and policy officers for better coordination of these diverse issues at various levels in the United States and overseas. It should be State Department policy that junior officers in the policy career tracks do a tour in an administrative job. And that junior administrative officers have an assignment to a policy job. This would ensure greater communication and understanding between the functions.
Medical services are closely linked to assignments of Foreign Service personnel. However, there are often disconnects between demands by the Human Resources Bureau and the realities of medical problems faced by some employees and their families. The failure to formulate and implement rational and consistent policies in this area should be addressed by the new Under Secretary.
7) Create an Under Secretary Who Serves as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer
This critical portfolio would include the current Offices of Budget and Planning and Global Financial Services. This highly specialized area involves not only the tracking and disbursing of funds, but extensive contacts with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. As State’s budget and Congressionally mandated tasks continue to grow, and more of these functions are contracted out, the need for an independent fiscal office that imposes rigorous controls becomes increasingly important.
This division must be separated from other functions in the Department -- particularly those that involve purchasing -- to guard against irregularities. Walling off financial matters from other management groupings prevents any one person or group of persons from having simultaneous oversight over the negotiation, implementation and funding of contracts, thereby decreasing the risk of abuse.
8) Create an Under Secretary for Security Affairs
This portfolio would group together Diplomatic Security, Information Resources Management and the Office of Foreign Missions. In the past, the State Department’s security concerns rested largely with threats to personnel and facilities overseas. However, today the globalization of terrorism and the growing ability and desire of enemies of the United States to hack our most secure computers present new and grave dangers.
In the face of these broader challenges it makes sense to group together the safety of personnel, the protection of classified information and the possibility of interference and espionage from foreign diplomatic missions in the United States. The cross-cutting use of security procedures and standards, threat assessments and other intelligence for these functions should bring greater efficiency and effectiveness. This division would be tasked to coordinate its efforts with the intelligence agencies – CIA, NSA, DNI, DHS etc.
9) Create an Under Secretary for Domestic and Overseas Buildings Operations
This division would include the Bureau of Administration as well as Overseas Buildings Operations. One of the key missions of the Bureau of Administration is to provide support and facilities management to the Department of State’s domestic real property. Overseas Buildings Operations is tasked with constructing and providing safe, secure and functional embassies and consulates for interagency personnel assigned to overseas missions. It also plays a large role in renting long-term and short-term housing and buildings for embassy personnel.
Both entities are charged with matters relating to buildings and the State Department’s physical plant. In fact, prior to 2000, the two divisions were co-located; it is therefore appropriate that the same Under Secretary once again have oversight over both.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The Department of State’s organizational structure has not kept pace with a rapidly changing world. Issues, inventions and circumstances in the 21st century – globalization, terrorism, disease, information technology and cyber threats, climate change, energy security and more – require an institution that can respond rapidly to unanticipated challenges through innovative, pragmatic policies.
These new policies must be firmly rooted and integrated in a well-organized and nimble administrative bureaucracy if they are to succeed. Providing the underpinnings for the conduct of an effective 21st century foreign policy can only be achieved with the full-scale reform of the State Department’s management structure. Such reform is imperative – not only to comply with modern organizational practices and controls – but for the success of America’s foreign relations worldwide.