The Foreign Service Journal, May 2010

32 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 1 0 ditional responsibility of Secretaries of State, the “CEO” function, but one often shortchanged or ignored by a preoccupation with the roles of presidential adviser and chief diplo- mat. To cope with this expanded ex- ecutive role, the Secretary would be supported by a principal Deputy Secretary of State (who would re- place the two current deputy secre- tary slots). Both will need a greatly expanded, formalized and ade- quately staffed “Office of the Secretary” to provide over- all policy supervision, oversight and coordination of implementation programs and budgets of the substantive units, and integration with national policy. This formally established office would include, at a minimum: • Policy Planning Staff • Strategic Budget Staff • General Counsel/Legal Adviser • Comptroller and Central Budget Office • Bureau of Intelligence & Research • Central Personnel Department (including profes- sional training and education). Thought might also be given to creating a senior-level advisory board (much like the military Joint Chiefs of Staff), responsible to the Secretary and comprised of the heads of major substantive units or sub-departments. Using Chief-of-Mission Authority The new Department of State, like the existing organ- ization, must somehow square the circle of apparently conflicting substantive perspectives: the geographic bu- reaus represent the fundamental nation-state organiza- tion of the international community, while the functional bureaus embody the global character of many substantive subjects. To manage this matrix, I propose organizing the new department according to the principles already found in embassy country teams: a relatively flat organization composed of substantive bureaucratic units, each re- sponsible for a relevant range of disciplines (e.g., politi- cal, economic, administrative, security, etc.). Central to this approach is adaptation of existing chief-of-mission authority to the proposed responsibili- ties of four levels of officials in the new State; the Sec- retary of State, regional assistant secretaries (functioning as re- gional managers), existing chiefs of mission (ambassadors), and spe- cially designated chiefs of mission for crises and special challenges. The Secretary of State will con- tinue to function as the chief exec- utive officer of the nation’s diplo- matic system. However, as appro- priate, he or she will delegate man- agement responsibility for certain specific issues to a group of re- gional directors and then down to chiefs of mission. A new, expanded role is envisioned for ambassadors assigned overseas, the only officials with standing intera- gency executive authority, based on statute as well as spe- cific presidential designation. They are also generally the most senior officials occupied full-time on the portfolio of problems and programs associated with their country of assignment. However, they are also viewed, and operate, essentially as field managers and operatives. Modern communication technology can diminish, if not eliminate, the organizational and geographic distinc- tions between headquarters and the field. With that in mind, ambassadors serving as chiefs of mission should serve as their own country directors, participating in Washington, D.C., decision-making along the lines that Indian Ambassador Kishan S. Rana sets forth in The 21st- Century Ambassador (Mediterranean Academy of Diplo- matic Studies, 2004). This approach has often been practiced in the past, at least informally, and no doubt is followed by some U.S. ambassadors today. It should be made the standard operational mode of the new Depart- ment of State. In addition to the standing executive structure of re- gional assistant secretaries and country-specific chiefs of mission, the authority to appoint COMs should be ex- tended to include specific appointments in the case of nat- ural disasters, crises or countries where no U.S. mission exists. (This authority currently exists but is not used in such situations.) A formal delegation of authority similar to that COMs already receive should be extended to the relevant re- gional assistant secretaries. Through this central “com- mand” structure, State could integrate policies and resources for embassy country teams to draw on — F O C U S The Department of State was not designed, nor is it equipped, to manage the nation’s increasingly diverse responsibilities in a globalized world.