F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

The Secretary of State is the
president’s principal foreign policy
adviser and is responsible for
the formulation and execution of
foreign policy. But does the
description of duties for the position
also include a requirement
to act as the leader and manager
of the State Department?
Two secretaries in recent decades
definitely thought so. Among other
achievements, George Shultz (1982-
1989) invested much personal effort in
securing funding to build the Foreign
Service Institute’s Arlington Hall campus
and Colin Powell (2001-2005)
devoted considerable time and attention
to securing funding to increase
Foreign Service staffing.
In contrast, others have not been
known for paying attention to management
issues. James Baker (1989-1992)
opened over a dozen new embassies in
the former Soviet Union without seeking
additional staffing from Congress.
Warren Christopher (1993-1997) and
Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) presided
over what is now universally seen as
an ill-advised downsizing of diplomatic
staffing that left a hollowed-out Foreign
Service.
So the question remains: Is it possible
for a Secretary of State to be
deemed successful if he or she focuses
on policy issues while mostly ignoring
the leadership and management of the
platform upon which diplomacy and
John K. Naland is the president of the
American Foreign Service Association.
PRESIDENT’S VIEWS
Work Requirements
BY JOHN K. NALAND
development assistance are
conducted?
Of course, it is only fair to
note that every secretary must
delegate many management
tasks. It is also true that no single
individual has the ability to
compel the White House and
Congress to provide the resources to
meet the needs of diplomacy and development
assistance.
Nonetheless, the position of Secretary
of State is a uniquely powerful one
from which to advocate for the department.
When it comes to duties such as
lobbying for resources and other management
needs, there are some meetings,
phone calls and letters that an
agency head cannot delegate without
significantly weakening their impact.
Thus, a deficit of top-level advocacy can
damage the long-term prospects for
diplomatic engagement.
Diplomacy and development assistance
can suffer if staffing is too small to
accomplish the tasks demanded of it, if
embassies and consulates lack adequate
operating budgets, if Foreign Service
members are unable to obtain needed
training, and if the uniformed military
ends up taking on civilian responsibilities
for which it is ill-suited. They can also
suffer if Foreign Service morale is eroded
by growing financial disincentives and
worsening conditions of service.
Thus, the answer to our question is
clear: No Secretary of State can be
judged to have been successful if he or
she leaves behind a weakened diplomatic
infrastructure as a result of having
dedicated inadequate time and energy
to preserving and strengthening it.
History will inevitably judge the current
and future holders of that position
not only on their foreign policy accomplishments,
but also on their leadership
and management of the State Department.
Therefore, even if administration
is not their favorite activity, Secretaries
of State must make it a daily priority.
Those who do not will be judged negatively
for that failure.
In the past, such judgments have
come, but only in whispered hallway
talk or in scholarly books published long
after the official left office. In the
future, however, those assessments will
come more quickly and be more widely
disseminated. Journalists are growing
more savvy, paying attention not only to
international negotiations but also to
underlying issues, such as budget and
staffing needs. Think-tanks and advocacy
groups are starting to issue more
pointed analyses of the management of
diplomacy and development assistance.
And employees are speaking out more,
as evidenced in AFSA’s continuing surveys
of Foreign Service member views
on key management issues.
So let the word go out that the work
requirements for the Secretary of State
position have been updated. Just as university
presidents are no longer just
scholars, but are also expected to be
managers and fundraisers, Secretaries
of State can no longer just be foreign
policy experts, but must also come prepared
to lead and manage. If they fail to
do so, it will be noted. ■
JULY-AUGUST 2008/FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL 5