The Foreign Service Journal, January 2009

20 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9 cal space and other supporting in- frastructure — or even of the pre- cise roles of those whose positions would be moved. GRP decisions were also tied to population num- bers in cities around the world, with the goal of increasing U.S. repre- sentation in urban centers. “The rather unique element of the GRP exercise was that the posi- tion decisions were based on our policy priorities, rather than current workload or resources,” explains John Heffern, who was executive assistant to U/S Burns and co-chair of the GRP Working Group. “The idea was to add positions to posts in countries high on the Secre- tary’s list for transformational diplomacy, where posts could demonstrate that the new positions would be used for new and additional tasks. We did not intend for the new posi- tions to focus on control officer duties or preparation of mandated annual reports.” Blood on the Floor In a climate of no new money, the GRP was the only game in town. The final plan would involve the creation of 285 new jobs, to be assigned in three phases. An equiv- alent set of positions would be eliminated. The new ones were to be primarily political, economic and public diplo- macy slots, with no new positions added on the manage- ment side during the first two phases. Embassies receiving new officers were to support them through existing ad- ministrative resources, including provision of housing and office space. Phase I involved 100 new positions to be staffed in sum- mer 2006. Phase II, for 2007, involved creation of another 100 jobs. Phase III, for 2008, was supposed to include an- other 85 positions, though it has only been partially im- plemented because of budget constraints. When figuring out which positions to create and which to eliminate, the working group could not calculate in terms of one-for-one swaps, because one overseas FSO po- sition costs as much as two to three Washington positions to support. So, in fact, more slots had to be cut to cover the new ones created. These would come from both Civil Service and Foreign Service ranks. Bureaus, working with embassies in their regions, were told to come up with lists of jobs that could be cut, as well as wish lists of jobs that should be created. In Phase I, every bureau that gained positions also had to give up positions. Almost no bu- reau or embassy wants to lose FSOs, especially at a time when de- mands are increasing, staffing is al- ready short and budgets are tight. “There was blood on the floor,” says one knowledgeable official. But the bureaus duly came up with the proposed positions to add and eliminate, and the working group created final lists, which Burns and Fore presented to Sec. Rice for approval. This happened so fast and so late in the assignment cycle that some of the positions to be eliminated in the first round already had officers as- signed to them. As a result, some 29 people were left scrambling for new jobs quite late in the bidding season. The European Bureau took the biggest hit in Phase I, giving up 34 positions in 2006. By the end of Phase II in 2007, EUR had given up 49 positions overseas, while Washington offices lost more than 100. The missions that gained the most positions were China and India. Among the other gaining missions were Brazil, Indonesia, Sudan, South Africa, Kenya, Bolivia and Venezuela. The biggest losers in the repositioning were Germany and Russia. However, because Embassy Moscow had already begun its own “streamlining” initiative before the GRP, it was able to manage the impact well, explains then-DCMDan Rus- sell. One target for Phase II was the elimination of certain functional jobs in the department as well as labor jobs overseas. In the end, labor positions were spared and most bureaus contributed both overseas and domestic slots. For Phase III in 2008, all positions to be eliminated would be domestic. This round was not fully completed because of increasingly serious budget constraints. Positions were eliminated and only a few new GRP jobs were created. Phases I and II were managed by the two under secre- taries and the GRP Working Group, while Human Re- sources was tasked with implementing Phase III. The Pain-Gain Calculus The critical flaw in the GRP exercise was that it was not funded. On the contrary, the worldwide crisis-level staffing and funding shortages continued, and worsened. F O C U S The two under secretaries created a high-level working group of about 10 senior staff who were able to work independently and outside of any one bureau or box.