The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2014

32 JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2014 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL and those already well along in the selection and hiring process. Through social media, the DIRs (who number less than 20) have been able to expand their reach significantly. The State Department can be found on nearly everymajor social media platform. But for now, the Bureau of Human Resources relies solely on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn for recruitment purposes. The outreach is targeted and done on aminimal budget ($3,000 for Fiscal Year 2013). Friedland tells the Journal that the office’s goal is to ensure that all those who recruit are fully engaged on these sites beforemoving on to other platforms. She adds, “We haven’t reached that goal, yet, but aremaking great progress.” Buying “Likes” Overall, the State Department has been a leader among federal agencies in use of social media. But aMay 2013 report fromState’s Office of the Inspector General brought some unwelcome publicit y and criticismof the Bureau of International Information Programs. IIP is one of three bureaus reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, along with the Bureau of Public Affairs and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. IIP is responsible for operating the “infrastructure for the State Department’s 450 embassy and consulate websites that attract more than 340,000 visitors each day in 59 languages,” according to the State Department website. IIP is the department’s “foreign- facing public diplomacy communications bureau. It provides and supports the places, content and infrastructure needed for sustained conversations with foreign audiences to build America’s reputation abroad.” The OIG report strongly criticized IIP for excessive spending on social media, a lack of strategic priorities and poor management. According to the report, which caused a stir in the press last sum- mer, IIP spent approximately $630,000 on advertising to harvest Facebook “likes” between 2011 and 2013. Although the IIP Facebook campaign “succeeded” (the audi- ences of two of its Facebook pages increased from100,000 to two million during that time), the spending raised questions about the broader aimof online public diplomacy. Do “likes” translate into true “engagement,” and what kind of engagement is actually useful? Domore “likes” pay off in terms of influence on public opinion, or do they represent the ability to succeed in amore shallow online popularity contest? Does State wish to draw attention from the primarily youth audience of social media, or should it instead be investing inmediums that reach a smaller number of older, more influential individuals? These questions are relevant not only for IIP, but for all the Foreign Service offices and agencies establishing public identities online.They also cohere with the OIG’s first recommendation— to develop a comprehensive public diplomacy strategy linking resources to priorities. Quoting the report: “The absence of a departmentwide public diplomacy strategy tying resources to priorities directly affects IIP’s work. Fundamental questions remain unresolved. What is the proper balance between engaging young people andmarginalized groups versus elites and opinion leaders? Which programs and deliverymechanisms work best with which audiences? What proportion of PD resources should support policy goals, and what proportion should go to providing the context of American society and values? “Howmuch should PD products be tailored for regions and individual countries, and howmuch should they be directed to a global audience? What kinds of materials should IIP translate and into which languages? Absent a departmentwide strategy, IIP decisions and priorities can be ad hoc, arbitrary and lack a frame of reference to evaluate the bureau’s effectiveness.” While not all public diplomacy projects are oriented around the use of social media, the OIG report claims that these online projects contributed to inefficiencies in other areas.The OIG suggests that once State addresses the questions raised in its report, it will move one step closer to defining themission of its digital diplomacy cam- paigns and thereby assisting IIP (and other) employees in develop- ing concrete tasks andmeaningful benchmarks of success. Who’s in Charge Here? The staff of IIPmust balance traditional forms of public diplo- macy with constantly developing and shifting digital trends, the OIG found. At the same time, they suffer from “reorganization fatigue” and what some have described as a toxic atmosphere, with aman- agement that is often unprofessional and intolerant of dissenting opinion, according to the report. IIP is sometimes viewed as the “redheaded stepchild of public diplomacy,” according to a source quoted by JohnHudson in The Cable (foreignpolicy.com) on July 21.The bureau is overseen by th e Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, a position that has been vacant 30 percent of the time since 1999 and has never been filled by a career diplomat. State publicly places a great deal of importance on its public out- reach programs, including steadfastly defending IIP’s social media projects following the release of the OIG report. Somany wonder why the bureau has had only sporadic leadership, with the bureau coordinator often left without direction. Jurisdictional issues also plague the bureau because its mandate has been so poorly defined. It faces competition in the field of pub- Continued from page 29