Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:51:30.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diplomacy for the 70's: An Afterview and Appraisal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

William I. Bacchus
William I. Bacchus*
Affiliation:
Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Numerous attempts have been made since World War II to reform U.S. government structure and procedures for managing foreign affairs, but success has been distinctly limited. In evaluating the procedures, proposals, accomplishments, and failures of the most recent State Department reform program, this review suggests some reasons why rationalization of foreign affairs organization has been so difficult to achieve. Unless fundamental questions of the Department of State's appropriate relationship to the rest of government are confronted directly, it is impossible to deal effectively with internal organization, operations, and staffing. Yet because of a restricted mandate, Diplomacy for the 70's did not address itself to these prior questions. And for a number of reasons, including a misplaced belief in the efficacy of management reforms as contrasted with political initiatives, lack of aggressive senior level support, ineffective followup, and budgetary restrictions, it fared no better than previous reform programs, even taken on its own limited terms. Unless such basic problems are dealt with, future reform attempts are likely to be no more successful.

Type
Book Reviews and Essays
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 736 - 748
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my appreciation to James W. Fesler, Laurin Henry, Frederick C. Mosher, and Frederick D. Elfers, as well as to the anonymous readers solicited by this Review, for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. I would also like to thank those officials of the Department of State who so frankly shared their opinions with me. Except for editorial changes and minor updating, this review was completed prior to my joining the staff of the Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. The opinions reflected herein are entirely my own.

References

1 Macmahon, Arthur W., “The Administration of Foreign Affairs,” American Political Science Review, 45 (09, 1951), 836–866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 838.

3 Among the many individual proposals and analyses, some of the most prominent have been: McCamy, James L., The Administration of American Foreign Affairs (New York: Knopf, 1952)Google Scholar; Macmahon, Arthur W., Administration in Foreign Affairs (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Elder, Robert E., The Policy Machine: The Department of State and American Foreign Policy (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Briggs, Ellis, Farewell to Foggy Bottom (New York: McKay, 1964)Google Scholar; McCamy, James L., The Conduct of the New Diplomacy (New York: Harper and Row, 1964)Google Scholar; Sapin, Burton M., The Making of U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.; The Brookings Institution, 1966)Google Scholar; Simpson, Smith, Anatomy of the State Department (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1967)Google Scholar; Briggs, Ellis, Anatomy of Diplomacy: The Origin and Execution of American Foreign Policy (New York: McKay, 1968)Google Scholar; and Thomson, James C. Jr., “How Could Vietnam Happen? An Autopsy,” Atlantic Monthly, 221 (04, 1968), 47–53 Google Scholar. More recently, see Walker, Lannon, “Our Foreign Affairs Machinery: Time for an Overhaul,” Foreign Affairs, 47 (01, 1969), 309–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Campbell, John Franklin, The Foreign Affairs Fudge Factory (New York: Basic Books, 1971)Google Scholar; and Drestler, I. M., Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972)Google Scholar. See also Acheson, Dean, “The Eclipse of the State Department,” Foreign Affairs, 49 (07, 1971), 593–606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Official and quasi-official studies and proposals have been prepared by:

[a] The Bureau of the Budget at the request of Secretary of State James F. Byrnes. U.S. Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, “The Organization and Administration of the Department of State,” August 15, 1945 (Unpublished memorandum).

[b] A group of Foreign Service Officers within State, headed by Selden Chapin. Two unpublished memoranda were produced: Andrew B. Foster, “Examination of the Proposal to Combine the Foreign Service and the Departmental Service,” Memorandum to Selden Chapin, Office for the Foreign Service, September 14, 1945; and Selden Chapin, “A Plan for a Single Service Under the Secretary of State,” Memorandum to Donald S. Russell, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration, October 31, 1945.

[c] Chapin and his associates on one hand, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the other, leading to the very important Foreign Service Act of 1946. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Reorganization of the Foreign Service (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 07 12, 1946)Google Scholar, and for an excellent case study, Stein, Harold, The Foreign Service Act of 1946 (New York: Committee on Public Administration Cases, 1949)Google Scholar, which is also contained in Public Administration and Policy Development, ed. Stein, Harold (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1952), pp. 661–737 Google Scholar.

[d] Assistant Secretary of State for Administration John E. Peurifoy, who prepared a comprehensive program in 1948. It was transmitted as “Reorganization of the State Department,” Memordandum to Secretary of State George C. Marshall, May 6, 1948. Discussion of this, of the other early postwar proposals and studies, and of some prewar reform programs is contained in U.S. Department of State, Facts and Issues Relating to the Amalgamation of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, A study prepared for the Secretary's Advisory Group on Amalgamation (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, December, 1949)Google Scholar.

[e] The first Hoover Commission, appointed jointly by the Congress and the President. See Foreign Affairs: A Report to the Congress by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1949)Google Scholar, and particularly the Task Force on Foreign Affairs Report, prepared by a working group headed by former Assistant Secretary of State Harvey H. Bundy, which is included as Appendix H. A 1949 reorganization of State placed some of the Hoover Commission recommendations into effect.

[f] The Rowe Committee (The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Personnel), appointed by Secretary of State Acheson and consisting of both “outsiders” and “insiders,” appointed to investigate whether sweeping personnel changes urged by the Hoover Commission were necessary. See An Improved Personnel System for the Conduct of Foreign Affairs, A report to the Secretary of State by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Personnel (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, August, 1950). A directive partially following the Rowe Committee proposals was later issued but had limited impact. See Directive to Improve the Personnel Program of the Department of State and the Unified Foreign Service of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 03, 1951)Google Scholar.

[g] The Brookings Institution, under contract from the Bureau of the Budget. See Brookings Institution, The Administration of Foreign Affairs and Overseas Operations, A Report prepared for the Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1951)Google Scholar. There is no indication this report had much operational impact.

[h] A study group of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. See United States Foreign Policy: Its Organization and Control, Report of a Study Group for the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, William Yandell Elliott, Chairman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952)Google Scholar.

[i] The Wriston Committee (The Public Committee on Personnel), a blue-ribbon group of “outsiders” chaired by Henry M. Wriston, President of Brown University and appointed in March, 1954, by Acting Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith. The report is Toward A Stronger Foreign Service, Report of the Secretary of State's Public Committee on Personnel, Department of State Publication 5458 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 06, 1954)Google Scholar. Substantial action was taken on these recommendations, particularly with respect to integration of Foreign Service Departmental personnel into one system. Those who entered the Foreign Service under this program have been designated "Wristonees" ever since.

[j] A small group of personnel specialists drawn from the foreign affairs agencies under the direction of the President's Advisor on Personnel Management, Philip Young, and headed by Henry DuFlon, Young's deputy. This White House task force report entitled “A Foreign Affairs Personnel System,” of October 28, 1954, was not published and did not receive wide circulation in government. It was apparently bypassed in part by the action already being taken on the Wriston Report, although it was concerned with all civilian personnel overseas, and not just those in State, as was the Wriston Report.

[k] A group from Syracuse University, at the request of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which dealt primarily with overseas operational aspects of foreign affairs. See The Operational Aspects of United States Foreign Policy, Study prepared at the request of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, by the Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 11 11, 1959)Google Scholar.

[i] A second Brookings Institution group, also at the request of the Foreign Relations Committee. See Haviland, H. Field Jr. et al., The Formulation and Administration of United States Foreign Policy, A Report for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1960)Google Scholar.

[m] The “Jackson Subcommittee” named for its Chairman, Senator Henry M. Jackson, and functioning under various names as a Subcommittee of the Senate Government Operations Committee. An exceptional series of hearings, reform proposals, and studies. Their work up to 1961 is collected in U.S. Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery, Committee on Government Operations, Organizing for National Security (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1961), 3 volumesGoogle Scholar; through 1964 in U.S. Senate Subcommittee on National Security Staffing and Operations, Government Operations Committee, Administration of National Security (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1965)Google Scholar; and since that time in a series of hearings and studies, as the Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, on such topics as the applicability of programming in foreign affairs, coordination, and specific details of operating programs. Included in Vol. I (pp. 942-1001) of Organizing for National Security is Nelson Rockefeller's proposal that a central position, “A First Secretary of Government” outside the line of command, be established to bring order to the multitude of programs and agencies. The Subcommittee's staff report, “Basic Issues,” in Administration of National Security, pp. 7-26, is an excellent summary of many of the basic themes and issues which had developed through all the previous studies.

[n] The “Herter Committee” (Committee on Foreign Affairs Personnel), composed of experienced “outsiders,” and established at the request of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with foundation financial support. See Personnel for the New Diplomacy, Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Personnel (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 12, 1962)Google Scholar, and the series of six Foreign Affairs Personnel Studies supplementing the basic report which grew out of the work of the Committee Staff under the direction of Frederick C. Mosher: Arthur G. Jones, The Evolution of Personnel Systems for U.S. Foreign Affairs: A History of Reform Efforts (No. 1); Robert E. Elder, Overseas Representation and Services for Federal Domestic Agencies (No. 2); John E. Harr, The Development of Careers in the Foreign Service (No. 3); John E. Harr, The Anatomy of the Foreign Service-A Statistical Profile (No. 4); Regis Walther, Orientations and Behavior Styles of Foreign Service Officers (No. 5); and Frances Fielder and Godfrey Harris, The Quest for Foreign Affairs Officers—Their Recruitment and Selection (No. 6). All except No. 6, which is available only in multilith, were published by the Carnegie Endowment in 1965. The very comprehensive Herter Committee Report was an important source of later proposals, but relatively little that it recommended actually became effective.

[o] Assistant Secretary, later Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, William J. Crockett, who during his time at State between 1961 and 1967 initiated a whole range of studies and management reforms which remain the subject of continuing contro versy. The best official summary is A Management Program for the Department of State, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 08, 1966)Google Scholar, and a good short commentary on the premises underlying the Crockett programs is Alfred Marrow, J., “Managerial Revolution in the State Department,” Department of State News Letter, No. 68 (12, 1966), 34–37 Google Scholar.

[p] General Maxwell Taylor and four interagency task forces, who on assignment from President Johnson, developed a State Department-centered government-wide coordination system, commonly identified as the NSAM 341 system, after the National Security Action Memorandum which established it on March 4, 1966. The texts of the task force reports have not been published, but the essential text of NSAM 341, which is classified, can be found in Jackson Subcommittee (Subcommittee on National Security and Operations), The Secretary of State and the Problem of Coordination: New Duties and Procedures of March 4, 1966 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1966)Google Scholar. Taylor, however, explained some of the thinking behind the new arrangements in a speech to the American Foreign Service Association on March 31, 1966, later reprinted as “New System for Coping With Our Overseas Problems,” Foreign Service Journal, 43 (05, 1966), 34–36 Google Scholar. Cf. my “Obstacles to Reform in Foreign Affairs: The Case of NSAM 341,” Orbis, 18 (Spring, 1947)Google Scholar.

[q] The Heineman Task Force (President's Task Force on Government Organization), which advocated a strong role for the Secretary of State, in an unpublished report submitted on October 1, 1967.

[r] A Committee of the American Foreign Service Association chaired by Ambassador Graham Martin. This detailed study apparently had some limited influence on the developments discussed in this review. The report is published as Toward A Modern Diplomacy, A Report to the American Foreign Service Association by its Committee on Career Principles (Washington: AFSA, 1968), and also appears in Foreign Service Journal, 45 (11, 1968, Part IIGoogle Scholar).

[s] A working group of the Institute for Defense Analysis, which in 1968 prepared a report with foundation financing for the use of the next president. It was later published as The President and the Management of National Security, ed. Clark, Keith C. and Legere, Laurence J. (New York: Praeger, 1969)Google Scholar.

In developing this listing, Arthur G. Jones, The Evolution of Personnel Systems, I. M. Destler, Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy, and Ball, Harris H. Jr., “An Examination of the Major Efforts for Organizational Effectiveness in the Department of State from 1924 to 1971” (M.A. Thesis, School of Government and Business Administration, George Washington University, September, 1971)Google Scholar, have been particularly helpful.

5 U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy for the 70's: A Program of Management Reform for the Department of State, Department of State Publication 8593, Department and Foreign Service Series, 1430 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1970)Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as D 70.

6 The phrase in quotations is Stewart Alsop's, used as a chapter title in his The Center: People and Power in Political Washington (New York: Harper and Row, 1968)Google Scholar.

7 William B. Macomber, Address, Washington, D.C., January 14, 1970. Reprinted in D 70, pp. 587-605. Quoted passage from p. 589.

8 The Kennedy Administration initially attempted to break down this policy-operations dichotomy and to restore coordinating authority to State, but the effort can hardly be termed successful. See on this point the letter from McGeorge Bundy to Senator Henry M. Jackson, September 4, 1961, in Administration of National Security (See item m, note 4) and in The National Security Council, ed. Jackson, Henry M. (New York: Praeger, 1965), p. 278 Google Scholar.

9 For a typical discussion of State's “informal culture,” see Scott, Andrew M., “The Department of State: Formal Organization and Informal Culture,” International Studies Quarterly, 13 (03, 1969), 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The organizational ineffectiveness theme is presented most cogently in Argyris, Chris, Some Causes of Organizational Ineffectiveness Within the Department of State, Center for International Systems Research, Department of State, Occasional Paper No. 2 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1967)Google Scholar. Both themes are also treated in Rothstein, Robert L., Planning Prediction, and Policymaking in Foreign Affairs (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972), chap. 2Google Scholar. See also Warwick, Donald P., “Bureaucratization in the Government Agency: The Case of the U.S. State Department,” Sociological Inquiry, 44 (Spring, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The task forces and their assignments were: I—Career Management and Assignment Policies Under Functional Specialization; II—Performance Appraisal and Promotion Policies; III—Personnel Requirements and Resources; IV—Personnel Training for the Department of State; V—Personnel Perquisites: Non-salary Compensations and Allowances; VI—Recruitment and Employment; VII—Stimulation of Creativity; VIII—Role of the Country Director; IX—Openness in the Foreign Affairs Community; X—Reorganization of the Foreign Service Institute; XI—Roles and Functions of Diplomatic Missions; XII—Management Evaluation System; XIII—Management Tools. The task force reports are reprinted in Democracy for the 70's.

11 Announced in “A Schedule for Implementing the Recommendations of the Department of State Task Forces on Management Reform,” Department of State News Letter, No. 117 (01, 1971), 20–43 Google Scholar.

12 William B. Macomber, Address, Washington, D.C., January 26, 1972. Reprinted in Department of State Press Release No. 22 of 1972.

13 Macomber, Address, January 14, 1970. Quoted passage from D 70, p. 588.

14 See Mosher, Frederick C., Government Reorganizations: Cases and Commentary, ed. Mosher, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967)Google Scholar, introduction p. xvii, for discussion of this hypothesis.

15 Ibid., part II, chap. 3, “Participation and Reorganization,” pp. 515-537.

16 Toward a Modern Diplomacy. Walker, “Our Foreign Affairs Machinery: Time for an Overhaul,” gives the general outlines of the new AFSA leaders' thinking.

17 AFSA's board chairman, Charles W. Bray III, was quoted as welcoming the Macomber Program when it was announced, calling it “a major step forward.” Home, A. D., “Foreign Service Revamping Unveiled,” Washington Post, January 15, 1970, p. A27 Google Scholar.

18 The term in quotations is Mosher's, from his “Introduction,” in Governmental Reorganizations, p. xvii.

19 The themes of State's organization, personnel system reforms, and overall foreign affairs relationships have dominated the reform programs and proposals cited in note 4. While most have devoted some attention to all three, this is not completely true, as the following summary indicates:

20 See, for example, Destler, Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy; Hilsman, Roger, The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs (New York: Harper and Row, 1971)Google Scholar; Allison, Graham T., “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review, 63 (09, 1969), 689–718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allison, , Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar; Allison, Graham T. and Hal-perin, Morton, “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications,” World Politics 24 (Supplement, Spring, 1972), 40–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halperin, , “Why Bureaucrats Play Games,” Foreign Policy, 2 (Spring, 1971), 70–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halperin, , “Sources of Power in the Foreign Affairs Bureaucracy,” paper delivered at the 1972 Annual Meeting, American Political Science Association, Washington, September, 1972 Google Scholar; and Neustadt, Richard, Alliance Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970)Google Scholar.

21 Argyris, Some Causes of Organizational Ineffectiveness Within the Department of State.

22 Task Force VII, Democracy in the 70's, p. 291 Google Scholar.

23 Task Force IX, Democracy in the 70's, p. 377 Google Scholar.

24 Macomber was reported to feel that most of what it would be possible to do had been accomplished, and that the reformers were at the point of stock taking and trying to determine what else might be done. Interviews in State, August and September, 1972.

25 Technically, members of the FAS Corps were to be appointed as Foreign Service Reserve Officers with unlimited tenure (FSRU) under the authority of Public Law 90-494. See Management Reform Bulletin No. 8, February 16, 1971. The suit, filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, was based in part on the fact that civil servants are not subject to dismissal except for cause, while members of the unified Foreign Service system would come under selection out procedures if their performance was rated at the bottom of their respective cohorts for two successive years. Civil servants transferring to the FAS Corps would thus be somewhat less secure in their careers than previously. Until this question is resolved, only those already in the Foreign Service System (e.g., FSOs, FSRs, FSSOs) can be transferred to the FAS Corps, and the program is proceeding on this limited basis, with a terminal date of December 31, 1974.

26 Given the small number of new FSOs in recent years and the personal decisions of many to leave the service after a brief period, it can be argued with some justification that those who remained long enough to be subject to junior threshold review were likely in fact to be qualified for full acceptance, and that the review might function differently if and when more junior FSOs enter the service and a large percentage of them desire to remain for a full career.

27 For details on this election, see “AFSA Recognized as Exclusive Representative for Foreign Service Employees,” Department of State News Letter, No. 142 (02, 1973), 15 Google Scholar. State's grievance procedures have also been the subject of congressional interest, and hearings were held by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on State Department Organization and Foreign Operations during 1972. Details on the interim grievance procedures in effect pending development of permanent ones can be found in Warnock, John A., “The Foreign Service Grievance Board: How it Handles Its Cases,” Department of State News Letter, No. 142, (02, 1973), 12–14 Google Scholar; and Simkin, William E., “Foreign Service Grievance Board-Remedies Available and Needed,” Department of State News Letter, No. 149 (10, 1973), 23–27 Google Scholar.

28 Although estimates vary slightly, there are about 20 per cent fewer State employees in 1972 than there were five years earlier. The centralization may also be cyclical, since it has occurred before only to be reversed later.

29 For details, see “S/IG Introduces Far-Reaching Changes in Inspection Process,” Department of State News Letter, No. 148 (08–09, 1973), 29 Google Scholar.

30 MRB # 25, July 6, 1971.

31 These seven officials are the Secretary, Deputy (formerly Under) Secretary, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Under Secretary for Security Assistance, Counselor, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, and Deputy Under Secretary for Management.

32 These common staffs and support units were the Executive Secretariat, the Planning and Coordination Staff, Press Relations, Protocol, Legal Advisor, Congressional Relations, Inspector General of Foreign Assistance, and Inspector General of the Foreign Service. Before this change, these units were tied more closely to just one of the Seventh Floor officials, usually the Secretary or Under Secretary. In early 1974, the Planning and Coordination Staff was renamed the Policy Planning Staff.

33 For the problems of previous programming efforts, see Frederick Mosher, C. and Harr, John E., Programming Systems and Foreign Affairs Leadership: An Attempted Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; and U.S. Senate Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, Committee on Government Operations, Planning-Program-ming-Budgeting (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1968)Google Scholar.

34 Rourke, Francis E., Bureaucracy and Foreign Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p. 49 Google Scholar.

35 Fesler, James W., “Administrative Literature and the Second Hoover Commission Reports,” American Political Science Review, 51 (03, 1957), 140. Emphasis in originalCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 This argument underlies most of the works cited in note 20, and is made more explicitly in Lindblom, Charles E., The Policy Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968)Google Scholar and Lindblom, , Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment (New York: Free Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

37 One such episode is reported in Welles, Benjamin, “State Department Tells Its Missions Not to Air Dissent,” New York Times 11 22, 1971, p. 11 Google Scholar.

38 The reported attitudes of younger FSOs are based on discussions with some of them and on the reactions of others quoted in the press with respect to individual cases during the period 1970-72.

39 The term is used by Clark, Keith C. and Legere, Laurence J., Chap. 2, “The Main Issues,” in The President and the Management of National Security>, ed. Clark, and Legere, , p. 17 ,+ed.+Clark,+and+Legere,+,+p.+17>Google Scholar.

40 See the White House Announcement on “The Structure, Role and Staff of the National Security Council,” February 7, 1969 Google Scholar. Reprinted in Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 5 (02 10, 1969)Google Scholar. See also Rogers, William P., “Message on the Department of State's Responsibilities,” 02 7, 1969 Google Scholar, reprinted in U.S. Senate Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, Committee on Government Operations, “The National Security Council: New Role and Structure” (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1969), pp. 3–4 Google Scholar.

41 Mosher, , “Some Observations About Foreign Service Reform: Famous First Words,” Public Administration Review, 29 (11–12, 1969), 602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Richardson left State in June, 1970, to become Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and then briefly, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General.

43 Much of Crockett's program is summarized in “A Management Program for the Department of State.” See also Leacacos, John P., Fires in the ln-Basket: The ABC's of the State Department (Cleveland: World, 1968), pp. 317-78, 358-64, 456-57Google Scholar.

44 Bennis, Warren G., “Theory and Method in Applying Behavioral Science to Planning Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7 (10–12, 1965), 339 Google Scholar.

45 See Gouldner, Alvin W., “Organizational Analysis,” in Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects, ed. Merton, Robert K., Broom, L., and Cottrell, L. S. Jr. (New York: Basic Books, 1959), p. 400–428 Google Scholar.

46 Provisions of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 relating to this commission, which is chaired by Robert D. Murphy, are contained in Title VI. See Congressional Record 118 (June 15, 1972), H 5716 for the final text.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.