The Foreign Service Journal, April 2021

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | APRIL 2021 15 Policy Planning (S/P) draft substantive front-channel responses to all Dissent Channel cables received. The most effec- tive dissent cables spark interagency reflection at the highest levels and, in some instances, lead to a shift in policy. Much like the Dissent Channel for policy, the spirit and objective of a Dis- sent Channel for administrative issues would ultimately be about strengthening our institution. Such a channel would empower our personnel to address otherwise bureaucratic dead ends and, in the process, increase department accountability, transparency and visibil- ity vis-à-vis a wide range of administra- tive challenges and concerns facing our people. It would also be good for State Department morale and retention, spark innovation, and help identify opportuni- ties for cost-savings and more efficient provision and delivery of services. An “Administrative Dissent Chan- nel” would have the most impact if overseen by the deputy secretary of State for management and resources (D-MR) who, in consultation with the Offices of the Secretary and Under Secretary for Management, would also be responsible for drafting substantive replies to all administrative dissent cables received. What Could We Expect? What could we expect to happen if the department implemented this proposal? A generation of case studies on organiza- tional effectiveness from business and public policy schools have taught us that some of the best ideas for improving administrative and management policies and practices come from entry- and midlevel professionals on the ground who are directly affected by those policies. They also teach us that the most effective organizational leaders seek to hear from the rank and file about what is working and not working within their organizations—and, importantly, what ideas their subordinates have for improving conditions and operations. An Administrative Dissent Channel promises to do all those things by giving our personnel a mechanism to share constructive criticisms and propose pos- sible solutions and innovations. It would also hold the State Depart- ment accountable for responding to and addressing those concerns and propos- als—something neither the now-defunct Sounding Board nor the Director Gen- eral’s Innovation Portal is required to do. The DG Direct Channel, meanwhile, is more geared toward personnel concerns (often individual) as opposed to depart- mentwide administrative policies. Even if the department’s response to most Administrative Dissent Channel cables and proposed solutions is “Sorry, no change in policy, and here is why…,” it would go a long way toward increasing transparency into administrative deci- sions and allowing those of us in the rank and file to feel engaged in the process. Such a structure would encourage our people to speak up thoughtfully and creatively (individually and collectively) about how to improve administrative policies that may be missing the mark or leaving people behind. It would also convey that as an institution, we strive to constantly improve. Announcing the