The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2004

discussions among the Seminar mem- bers. The professional relationships developed among Seminar members from various organizational cultures lead to greater understanding of insti- tutional differences and serve to devel- op an interagency network of con- tacts.” Leadership Training Hundreds of U.S. ambassadors, generals, admirals, and top-ranking officials of agencies involved in foreign affairs are among the alumni of the Senior Seminar. Alumni cite several major benefits that they derived from participation and which enabled them to make substantial contributions to the management of foreign affairs issues. Many note the opportunity to reflect on issues and concerns without the constant press of dealing with immediate problems. Others under- score the development of enduring ties among high officials from various for- eign affairs agencies and departments, noting that through such connections they have been able to resolve intera- gency problems, either by involving colleagues from the Seminar or by drawing on the knowledge of other government departments that they attained in the course. The Senior Seminar has regularly included women, officers of the uni- formed services and representatives of civilian agencies with foreign affairs interests. While State is the most heav- ily represented agency, participants have come from every branch of the military, as well as USIA, USAID, DOD, CIA, NSA, FBI, EPA, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, and Labor. Former Secretary of State George Shultz spoke at several graduation cer- emonies for Seminar classes. He con- sistently described the course as an adult experiential educational experi- ence, not as “training.” I believe what he was getting at was that the Seminar’s aim was to expand its partic- ipants’ horizons, and develop their latent abilities, not just teach them spe- cific skills by demonstration, practice or rote. But as valuable as the Seminar experience has been to its participants, the Foreign Service arguably benefited as much as they did. Consider the public diplomacy component of the course. It has long been the goal of the Department of State to strengthen understanding of issues in the foreign relations of the U.S. and to relate poli- cies to domestic concerns and inter- ests. However, most public diplomacy efforts have focused on the first of those objectives. Only the Senior Seminar has, from its inception, con- centrated on the second aspect, via its program of monthly domestic travel throughout the U.S. Local communi- ties around the country have been delighted that a group of Washington- based foreign affairs specialists visited them each year to exchange views about issues and problems in our inter- national affairs and their impact on life in the U.S. There never has been a comparable program in the U.S. gov- ernment. A Senior Seminar SOS Graduates of the Senior Seminar formed an Alumni Association in 1984, and for 20 years this organization pro- vided strong support for the Seminar. As soon as they learned of the decision to disband the course, the association board met with the leadership of FSI. They underscored the tremendous professional value of the Seminar and cited examples of how the course had enabled them to do their jobs more effectively after graduation. The FSI officials did not dispute the value of the Senior Seminar, but assert- ed an overriding need to provide lead- ership training to a much larger num- ber of senior officials of the depart- ment than the Seminar can accommo- date. They attributed that shift in pri- orities to Secretary Powell, who has frequently stressed the importance of training in general, and instruction in leadership and management in partic- ular. Yet it still seems very strange that he would order the termination of a successful program. Our interlocutors also expressed disappointment that many graduates of the Seminar retired soon after they participated in it. They also alleged that agencies sometimes used the Seminar as a place to “park” officers who were difficult to assign. I recog- nize that these assertions may have some validity. However, so far as I know there has been no systematic evaluation to substantiate either charge. Furthermore, such situations reflect failures within the assignment process, not problems with the Senior Seminar itself. Unsatisfied, the Senior Seminar Alumni Association wrote to Secretary of State Powell on Jan. 15, 2004, requesting reconsideration of the deci- sion to terminate the course. That let- ter noted: “The Senior Seminar was con- ceived as a program for senior State Department officers and from the out- set included senior representatives from the military and the other foreign affairs agencies. Participants were selected for their potential to continue to advance in the Service, and most had spent the majority of their working years mainly overseas. Because these officers had not lived in America in decades, the Senior Seminar was a valuable mechanism that reacquainted them with their own country — warts and all. At base the Senior Seminar has been an American studies course, designed to enable Foreign Service and other agency leaders to represent their nation at the highest levels based on personal knowledge. …” A reply rejecting the request came from the director of the Foreign 18 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 4 S P E A K I N G O U T