Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

64. Report Prepared in the Office of Management¹

Washington, March 6, 1963.

ORGANIZING FOR ACTION IN THE REGIONAL BUREAUS²

Successive attempts to meet complex country problems with complex organizational answers have relegated the country desk officer to a role bearing remote resemblance to his traditional purpose. What he does today-with a few notable exceptions-is serve as a contact point for overseas posts, prepare first drafts and initial recommendations, store information, and try to keep abreast of the activities of colleagues at his own level in other agencies. What he does not do is provide leadership in policy-formulation, coordination or decision-making.

Nor has the diminution of the country desk officer’s role produced compensating improvements in the policy-making and action capacity of the regional bureaus. At the top the bureau structure is complicated and confusing; at the bottom it is rigid and wasteful of manpower resources. In between, a series of layers compound reviews. Responsibility for action—to be taken or consciously postponed—is so widely shared below the Assistant Secretary that accountability is uncertain.

The basic premise of the country officer has not become invalid by reason of being ignored. There is greater need than ever for expert, knowledgeable officers to be held responsible and accountable for achieving a unified approach to United States relations with other countries; to give clear foreign policy direction to other departments and agencies; to act promptly on matters which have not been reserved for decision at higher levels. What has changed is the nature of demands for country leadership, the level of ability country officers must bring to their tasks and the depth of support they must be given.

This report recommends measures to make possible a return to the original country officer concept—but in an environment which responds to today’s needs. It proposes fundamental changes in existing bureau structure, and a new title for the country officer so that there may be no mistake as to the role he should play.

The country officer, if these recommendations are endorsed, will become a Principal Policy Officer³ whose value is acknowledged as comparable to that of a chief of mission. He will report directly to the Assistant Secretary and be authorized to act for the Assistant Secretary on matters concerning his assigned country or countries. His staff support will be organized to meet his needs rather than any predetermined pattern.

Above the Principal Policy Officer the action capacity of the regional bureau will be strengthened by providing the Assistant Secretary with an alter ego deputy and by confining all other officers to true staff roles.

These proposals are no more ambitious than the urgency of the problem warrants. Despite recognition of the Department’s perennial shortage of senior officers combining substantive and executive skills, it is recommended that these proposals be fully implemented within a period of one year.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Concentrate the leadership and action responsibilities of the desk officer in a new position of Principal Policy Officer.

2. Locate the Principal Policy Officer immediately under the Assistant Secretary.

3. Assign to the Principal Policy Officer responsibility for one country or a group of countries depending on the nature and complexity of country problems.

4. Give to each Principal Policy Officer the freedom to organize and use staff to meet his needs as he sees them.

5. Initiate a one-year program for phasing into the Principal Policy Officer concept as rapidly as officers with demonstrated executive and leadership ability are available for such assignments.

6. Designate in each bureau one alter ego Deputy Assistant Secretary.

7. Restrict functional advisers, and all other officers outside the direct chain of command, to advisory and liaison roles and reduce the number of those at the bureau level as the Principal Policy Officer concept is phased into the bureau organizations.

[Here follows the remainder of the report.]

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Management Staff Files: Lot 69 D 434, Miscellaneous Subject Files, 1960–1967, Interagency Administrative Matters. No classification marking.
2. A subtitle on the title page of the report reads: “A Study of the Country Desk Officer.”
3. Other titles considered included Principal Officer, Policy Director, Policy Coordinator, Deputy for (name of country, or countries), and Foreign Affairs Executive. [Footnote in the source text.]