Dan, this is super interesting and makes a ton of sense. As you well know, the Department has always struggled with strategic planning and has never hit on a system that works. When I was a DCM and an Ambassador I tried to take the Mission Program Plan or whatever we were calling it at the time, as seriously as possible. But the best I could ever say about it was that at least we'd gotten everyone together and had spent a couple of days thinking about what we were trying to accomplish, and how best to do that. That said, as you know, it was always disconnected to a greater or lesser extent. A big part of that is Harold Macmillan's "Events, dear boy, events". Or in modern parlance, shit happens. You can plan all you want but (and we make this mistake all too often) you are trying to accomplish things in a sovereign nation that has its own ideas of what to do and how to do them. Also, holding the interagency's feet to the fire on an agreed-to plan is a huge challenge. My own un-scientific analysis was always that somehow we do a pretty good job of setting priorities and marshaling resources and sustaining effort over time, in spite of all the challenges we face in doing so. One of the key skills our best diplomats have is the ability to manage and implement a policy process in spite of the lack of formality built into it. But again, what you lay out is very interesting and worthy of study and may indeed be a better mousetrap.
Thanks for the valuable perspective. The wisdom of folks like you who have participated in these processes for the longest should be integral to any discussion about reform. I've wondered whether we might require SES-level retirees to spend 6 months at FSI before they separate to participate in doctrinal development and review processes to capture their wisdom and experiences. This is the feedback loop stage I talk about so often in my work, but is the biggest missing piece today. I'm curious if you drew any particular lessons or habits about how to maintain strategic focus through turbulence?
Perhaps you're right that the process is "pretty good" and that external events and an unruly interagency process make serious improvements quite difficult. But my instinct is that we need to collectively refuse to accept the status quo as good enough. I suspect that if one tallied the time most diplomats spend during their days -- answering pointless emails, filling out paperwork, advancing policy unrealistic goals, supporting travel in service of non-strategic objectives, etc. -- you'd find a Department that was deeply a-strategic. That was my personal experience, the experience I hear often from mid-level folks, and the perspective I often hear from the White House (D or R) that tends not to rely on the State Department to get anything done. I don't feel like most people in the Department feel like their work is as meaningful and impactful as it should be. That can kill morale (which is already in free fall, predating Trump), undermine State's authority in the interagency process, and erode the quality of our national security.
Dan, I can't disagree with anything you say above. Two points that you raise: 1) Should SES/SFS-level retirees spend 6 months at FSI to participate in doctrinal review, etc? It's a great idea but runs totally counter to State culture. I found that the door absolutely does hit you in the ass as you are hustled out the door. I'm not complaining - I was happy to move on - but every time someone walks out the door we lose 30-35 years of experience that does not get captured in any way. 2) How do we better connect Mission and State/interagency planning processes? Currently there is no connection (at least when I left there wasn't). Maybe, maybe the desk officer observes some of the MPP process. Why not bring the Mission and interagency together somehow? It's easy and routine to do now with technology. Make it a true planning process. Anyway, you are doing valuable work and I hope you're getting some interest in the Department, even though this is the toughest of times to make headway, for obvious reasons.
Dan, this is super interesting and makes a ton of sense. As you well know, the Department has always struggled with strategic planning and has never hit on a system that works. When I was a DCM and an Ambassador I tried to take the Mission Program Plan or whatever we were calling it at the time, as seriously as possible. But the best I could ever say about it was that at least we'd gotten everyone together and had spent a couple of days thinking about what we were trying to accomplish, and how best to do that. That said, as you know, it was always disconnected to a greater or lesser extent. A big part of that is Harold Macmillan's "Events, dear boy, events". Or in modern parlance, shit happens. You can plan all you want but (and we make this mistake all too often) you are trying to accomplish things in a sovereign nation that has its own ideas of what to do and how to do them. Also, holding the interagency's feet to the fire on an agreed-to plan is a huge challenge. My own un-scientific analysis was always that somehow we do a pretty good job of setting priorities and marshaling resources and sustaining effort over time, in spite of all the challenges we face in doing so. One of the key skills our best diplomats have is the ability to manage and implement a policy process in spite of the lack of formality built into it. But again, what you lay out is very interesting and worthy of study and may indeed be a better mousetrap.
Thanks for the valuable perspective. The wisdom of folks like you who have participated in these processes for the longest should be integral to any discussion about reform. I've wondered whether we might require SES-level retirees to spend 6 months at FSI before they separate to participate in doctrinal development and review processes to capture their wisdom and experiences. This is the feedback loop stage I talk about so often in my work, but is the biggest missing piece today. I'm curious if you drew any particular lessons or habits about how to maintain strategic focus through turbulence?
Perhaps you're right that the process is "pretty good" and that external events and an unruly interagency process make serious improvements quite difficult. But my instinct is that we need to collectively refuse to accept the status quo as good enough. I suspect that if one tallied the time most diplomats spend during their days -- answering pointless emails, filling out paperwork, advancing policy unrealistic goals, supporting travel in service of non-strategic objectives, etc. -- you'd find a Department that was deeply a-strategic. That was my personal experience, the experience I hear often from mid-level folks, and the perspective I often hear from the White House (D or R) that tends not to rely on the State Department to get anything done. I don't feel like most people in the Department feel like their work is as meaningful and impactful as it should be. That can kill morale (which is already in free fall, predating Trump), undermine State's authority in the interagency process, and erode the quality of our national security.
Dan, I can't disagree with anything you say above. Two points that you raise: 1) Should SES/SFS-level retirees spend 6 months at FSI to participate in doctrinal review, etc? It's a great idea but runs totally counter to State culture. I found that the door absolutely does hit you in the ass as you are hustled out the door. I'm not complaining - I was happy to move on - but every time someone walks out the door we lose 30-35 years of experience that does not get captured in any way. 2) How do we better connect Mission and State/interagency planning processes? Currently there is no connection (at least when I left there wasn't). Maybe, maybe the desk officer observes some of the MPP process. Why not bring the Mission and interagency together somehow? It's easy and routine to do now with technology. Make it a true planning process. Anyway, you are doing valuable work and I hope you're getting some interest in the Department, even though this is the toughest of times to make headway, for obvious reasons.