Posted: 9:06 am PDT
So the day before the three day Memorial Day weekend, this happened.
Today, at approximately 12:30pm, @StateDept will make publicly available online 296 emails from former Secretary Clinton’s email account.
— Department of State (@StateDept) May 22, 2015
Where else would State dump these but at the foia.state.gov website, a slow and notoriously difficult to search website:
Today’s documents will be available via the State Department’s FOIA website, http://t.co/Ljamwdihba.
— Department of State (@StateDept) May 22, 2015
But there’s help from the Wall Street Journal, which offers a faster loading site than the FOIA website. It also allows you to tag any of the 800+ pages of emails.
— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 22, 2015
Yo! There’s no smoking gun, and everyone’s like whaaat? Teh-heh!
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) May 23, 2015
What are we learning from this first batch of emails?
1) The document dump is not arranged or ordered in any useful way. The emails from 2011 are mixed with 2012. Some of the emails are included more than once. Some of the redactions are rather odd, given that some of these emails were already published via the NYT. The former secretary of state is not referred to as HRC, only as “H.” The emails show an extremely small number of gatekeepers – Mills, Sullivan, Abedin, plus a couple of folks routinely asked to print this or that.
2) Sid, Sid, Sid — there are a good number of memos from “friend of S” or “HRC’s contact,” Sidney Blumenthal, who apparently had his own classification system. The memos he sent were marked “Confidential” although he was no longer a USG employee at the time he sent them and presumably, no classifying authority. Imagine the COM in Libya and NEA folks chasing down this intel stuff. Right. Instead of “OGA” for other government agency, State got “FOS”or “friend of S” as intel source.
3) “Pls. print” one of the former secretary of state’s favorite response to emails sent to her.
4) When former Secretary Clinton finally addressed the firestorm of her use of private email, she said: “I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” a self-assured Clinton told more than 200 reporters crowded into a U.N. corridor. (via Reuters). It looks like she had more than one email address, and we don’t know how many devices. The email below was sent from an iPad.
5) HRC gave a speech on September 12, 2012 Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya at the Treaty Room of the State Department.
Here is Harold Koh, the State Department Legal Adviser later that day thanking HRC for her “inspirational leadership.”
6) On September 14, 2012, HRC delivered her Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya atAndrews Air Force Base; Joint Base Andrews, MD. Video at: http://bcove.me/r4mkd76v. Below are some of the ‘thank you’ emails sent to her, but mostly to HRC through Ms. Mills:
From Deputy Secretary Bill Burns to H:
From State/CSO Rick Barton to Mills:
From NEA’s Brett McGurk to Mills:
From NEA/PD “blown away” to somebody to Mills:
From Protocol to Mills to Protocol:
7) On October 10, 2012, there was a congressional hearing on the Security Failures of Benghazi. “Did we survive today?” HRC asked. The “Pat” referenced to in this email is most likely Patrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management who testified at that hearing (see Security Failures of Benghazi: Today’s Hearing).
8) In November 2012, the House Intelligence Committee had a closed hearing that reportedly had the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Matt Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, CIA Acting Director Michael Morell and the State Department’s Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. Those could be the Matt and Pat in this email:
9) There was a meeting at the WH Situation Room on Nov 26, 2:35 pm on Benghazi. The invitation was for the Secretary +1, and if she was unable to attend, an invitation for one representative only. The then Executive Secretary John Bass (now US Ambassador to Turkey) asked Mills if she’d prefer “Pat” to attend or “Dan.” Dan is State’s former counterterrorism guy, replied “Pat should go” in reference to Patrick Kennedy. Mills asked HRC if she’s good with Pat going and she replied “I think I should go w Pat.”
10) On December 17, 2012, then State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland (now A/S for the EUR bureau) confirmed that the Accountability Review Board on Benghazi had concluded its work, and that the report went to Secretary Clinton that day (see ARB Concludes Work, Unclassified Report May Be Publicly Available on Wednesday). The following email is between Burns and Mills dated December 18, 2012. It mentions three names, Eric, Pat, and Greg Starr. We are guessing that the Eric in the email is Eric Boswell, the then Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and Pat is the Under Secretary for Management. The portion referencing Greg Starr was redacted except for Burns’ “I like the Greg Starr idea.”
The ARB report was released the same day this email was sent (see Accountability Review Board Singles Out DS/NEA Bureaus But Cites No Breach of Duty; also see Accountability Review Board Fallout: Who Will be Nudged to Leave, Resign, Retire? Go Draw a Straw. Mr. Boswell was one of the four employees thrown under the bus. On February 1, 2013, Gregory B. Starr was sworn in as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security and Director of the Diplomatic Security Service. Mr. Starr also served as Boswell’s successor as acting DS Assistant Secretary until he was formally nominated by President Obama in July 2013.
11) On December 20, 2012, the State Department’s two deputies, William Burns and Thomas Nides went before Congress instead of Secretary Clinton (see Clinton Recovering, Top Deputies Burns and Nides Expected to Testify Dec.20). Thank yous all around with HRC saying thank you to Burns and Nides. Thereafter, Cheryl Mills sent an email praising HRC’s email as being “so nice.” This was then followed with more thank yous from Nides and Burns.
12) So nothing surprising in the emails except the parts that may give some of us toothache. And the missing parts. This is only the first batch of emails although our understanding is that this constitutes the Benghazi-related emails. If that’s the case, it is striking that we see:
a) No emails here to/from Eric Boswell, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security.
b) No emails directly related to the other three employees put on administrative leave, Diplomatic Security’s Charlene Lamb and Steve Bultrowicz, and NEA official, Raymond Maxwell (although he is on a few courtesy copy emails) see The Other Benghazi Four: Lengthy Administrative Circus Ended Today; Another Circus Heats Up).
c) No emails to/from Gregory Hicks who was Embassy Tripoli’s DCM at the time of the attack and who would have been attached by phone/email with Foggy Bottom (Hey! Are telephone conversations recorded like Kissinger’s?)
d) Except for an email related to one of the ARB panel member, there are no emails related to setting up the ARB, the process for the selection of ARB members, the assistance requested by the ARB, the support provided by the State Department to the panel, etc. What happened to those emails?
(By the way, we also have not forgotten that Former State Dept DAS Raymond Maxwell Alleged Benghazi Document Scrub Pre-ARB Investigation).
13) Then Secretary Clinton was using at least two emails from her private server according to these released emails. It does not look like anyone from the State Department could have just sent her an email by looking her up on the State Department’s Global Address List (GAL). But certainly, her most senior advisers including the experienced, career bureaucrats at the State Department must have known that she was using private email.
Seriously, no one thought that was odd? Or did everyone in the know thought it was beyond their pay grade to question the practice? Let’s imagine an entry level consular officer conducting official business using a private email server. How long would that last? Right.
So what happened there? Ugh! Pardon me? You were just doing your job? That CIA briefer also was just doing his job.
Posted: 1:01 am EDT
First, the State Department told the court that the Clinton emails won’t be released until next year.
— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) May 19, 2015
But US District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras rejected the proposal and ordered to State Department to get on with it on a rolling basis.
— VICE News (@vicenews) May 19, 2015
And then — oh, look!
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 19, 2015
According to NYT, here’s what happened:
In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she had sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated release in January 2016.
“They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But as much as they can expedite the process, that’s what I’m asking them to do.”
Because Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a personal email account while at the State Department, much of her correspondence has been shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of the 2012 attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya.
By printing emails, Hillary Clinton forced the State Department to spend 5 weeks putting them back in digital form http://t.co/6Z2yTGc8hT
— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) May 21, 2015
Someday, somebody will helpfully calculate the labor cost of 12 employees doing this for 5 weeks; something that could have been avoided if the responsible people were doing their jobs responsibly in the first place.
In any case, Congress has now threatened to benghazimazi the State Department funding, not all of it, just some, of course. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), chairwoman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for State and foreign aid told The Hill that funding could be withheld from the agency’s programs and efforts “unless it relates to our own national security or our allies.” According to The Hill, GOP sources said divisions such as Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs and the Office of the Secretary could be affected. Whether this would be a tame who will blink first contest or a real pissing contest, remains to be seen.
— The Hill (@thehill) May 20, 2015
Also, on May 21st, this happened:
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 21, 2015
About 350 pages of the Clinton emails obtained by The New York Times and now available online, represent about a third of the roughly 850 pages of emails from Secretary Clinton’s personal account that have been turned over to the Select Committee on Benghazi. The emails seemed to be all Sid, Sid, Sid, but there are also emails from the former Ambassadors to Libya, Chris Stevens (p.116, p.138, p.341) and Gene Cretz (p.70, p.346), former A/S for NEA Jeff Feltman (p.68, p.71), Cheryl Mills, State Department management go-to guy, Pat Kennedy (p.330), among others. Click here to read it or download the pdf file here.
Posted: 4:43 am EDT
Dr. Terry Newell will address – through cases, exercises, and practical tips – not only how to speak truth to power, but how to keep your job when doing so, as well as what leaders need to do to foster the moral courage needed in their organizations.
Foreign and Civil Service members best serve when they voice their concerns about a policy or practice that fails to advance the mission and goals of their agency or the U.S. government. Leaders also need to encourage professional criticism or, as it is sometimes called, constructive dissent. AFSA has long supported constructive dissent through its awards program.
Dr. Newell spent nearly forty years in the federal government including distinguished service in the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Education, and the Office of Personnel Management. Since leaving his last position as Dean of Faculty at the Federal Executive Institute, he has concentrated on writing and teaching about ethical leadership in government. His books include The Trusted Leader: Building the Relationships That Make Government Work; Statesmanship, Character and Leadership in America; and – most recently – To Serve with Honor: Doing the Right Thing in Government. This book is filled with case studies, checklists, and stories of exemplary public servants, offering a practical, readable roadmap for acting ethically.
Posted: 12:02 am EDT
Via Burn Bag:
Yes, the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) has a new mission: “CSO advances the Department of State’s understanding of how to anticipate, prevent, and respond to violent conflict through analysis and planning; monitoring, evaluation, and learning; and targeted, in-country efforts that inform U.S. government policymaking.” Since there’s no longer any mission element about stabilization and stabilization operations, why is that being left in the Bureau’s name?
Posted: 2:27 am EDT
In March, the State Department’s Chief of Staff David Wade left his post to start an adventure in parenthood. Secretary Kerry released a statement on his departure.
— Department of State (@StateDept) March 6, 2015
Two days later, Jonathan Finer was officially appointed as Chief of Staff. He previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy.
— Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) April 30, 2015
The Travels With Secretary Kerry page indicates that he has travelled to 59 countries, logging 769,650 miles, and 339 travel days. So far, his total flight time is 1,671.18 hours or about 2.5 months spent flying around the world.
— DOS African Affairs (@StateAfrica) April 30, 2015
What’s this question about who’s running Foggy Bottom?
There’s the Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken as Foggy Bottom’s stay-at-home dad. Wait, he’s often traveling, too. As Secretary Kerry was on his way to Africa, D/Secretary Blinken was in Mexico:
— Antony Blinken (@ABlinken) April 30, 2015
But there’s Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources (D/MR) Heather Higginbottom as Foggy Bottom’s stay-at-home mom, right? We thought that’s the main reason why the State Department asked for a second deputy, so one is always home to mind the shop. But as Number #1 was on his way to Africa and Number #2 was in Mexico, D/MR Higginbottom was in Paris to mark the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) fourth annual International Jazz Day:
— Heather Higginbottom (@hhigginbottom) April 30, 2015
Foreign Policy’s John Hudson reported recently that when “Kerry crisscrossed the globe to various diplomatic hotspots during the first two years of his tenure, Wade rarely left Washington and instead consumed himself with the personnel and management decisions that go along with running a massive bureaucracy.” A State Department official also told FP that “Finer, will continue to travel with the secretary, albeit less frequently than in his previous role as deputy chief of staff.”
That’s raised concerns among some rank-and-file diplomats that no single point person will fully fill the role of Wade, leaving Foggy Bottom without a stay-at-home dad to make important decisions while Kerry’s abroad.
Hold it. No need to worry. More from FP:
A new key change, which hasn’t been previously reported, is Kerry’s appointment of two deputy chiefs of staff to assist Finer at home and abroad.
Tom Sullivan, the younger brother of Hillary Clinton’s loyal foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan, became the new deputy chief of staff for policy this month. Formerly serving as a liaison between the State Department and Congress, Sullivan will advise Kerry on policy and join him on most of his foreign travel. That will allow Finer to remain in Washington more often.
Still, Finer, unlike Wade, will still play a significant role in traveling with the secretary and aiding his policy decisions — including on a trip this week to Africa and South Asia, according to one official.
Meanwhile, Jennifer Stout, formerly the chief of staff to the undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, has been named deputy chief of staff for management. In that role, Stout will assist Finer in his day-to-day management issues in Washington.
“We felt that two deputy chiefs of staff was the best way to structure our front office to meet the big challenges and opportunities of the last two years, and to advance the secretary’s priorities on the road and in the building,” said a senior State Department official.
“Smart move in my view,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who recently left the State Department as a member of the Israel-Palestine negotiating team.
Traditionally, Goldenberg said, the deputy chief of staff has traveled with the secretary and been a key policy advisor. Meanwhile, the chief of staff runs the politics, messaging, and internal management of the department, he said.
The new set-up, Goldenberg said, will delegate much of the internal dealings to the deputy. That will free the chief of staff to “do more big picture policy instead of constantly being forced to deal with tough management questions,” he added.
Sigh. Everyone is looking at doing policy.
Here are the new folks reportedly running Foggy Bottom.
Jonathan Finer| Chief of Staff
Term of Appointment: 03/08/2015 to present
Jon Finer is Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of State, where he previously served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. He previously worked for four years at the White House, most recently as Senior Advisor to Deputy National Security Advisor Antony Blinken. Before that he was Special Advisor for the Middle East and North Africa and Foreign Policy Speechwriter for Vice President Joseph R. Biden. He joined the Obama Administration in 2009 as a White House Fellow, assigned to the Office of the White House Chief of Staff and the National Security Council Staff.
Prior to entering government service, Jon was a foreign and national correspondent at The Washington Post, where he reported from more than 20 countries and spent 18 months covering the war in Iraq, embedding with the U.S. Marines during the 2003 invasion and based in Baghdad in 2005-2006. He also covered conflicts in Gaza (2009), Russia/Georgia (2008) and Israel/Lebanon (2006); the 2004 U.S. Presidential campaign; and the 2004 Major League Baseball playoffs.
Before the Washington Post, Jon spent a year in Hong Kong as a Henry Luce Foundation Scholar, working as a reporter and editor at the Far Eastern Economic Review. He has a law degree from Yale, where he co-founded the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project; an M.Phil. in international relations from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and an undergraduate degree from Harvard. He was born and raised in Norwich, Vermont.
Jennifer Park Stout | Deputy Chief of Staff
Term of Appointment: 03/11/2015 to present (see YouTube Video via US Embassy New Zealand)
Jennifer Park Stout serves as Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State John Kerry.
Jennifer has served in a number of capacities both in and out of government. Most recently, Jennifer was Chief of Staff to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Richard Stengel. Prior to that, she was Special Assistant to the President in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.
From 2012 to 2013 as Vice President of International Government Relations for MetLife, Jennifer supported government and industry relations and international business segments in the Asia Pacific. From 2010 to 2012, she was a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau at the State Department, leading the bureau’s public affairs and public diplomacy strategy.
Previously Jennifer was Senior Advisor and Director of Senate Affairs in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the State Department and spent 11 years on Capitol Hill, working as a legislative aide to then-Senator Joseph Biden on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, Senator Jim Webb, and Representative James Moran.
Jennifer holds a M.A. in International Affairs from George Washington University and a B.A. from James Madison University.
Thomas D. Sullivan |Deputy Chief of Staff
Term of Appointment: ???
Mr. Sullivan does not appear to have an online bio at state.gov. He is currently listed as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
According to FP, Tom Sullivan is “the younger brother of Hillary Clinton’s loyal foreign policy adviser” Jake Sullivan. The older brother previously served as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and also as deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. One other interesting connection here: like Jake Sullivan, the new Chief of Staff Jon Finer has a law degree from Yale. Both have a M.Phil. from Oxford, and both were Rhodes Scholars.
Back to the younger brother — Senator Amy Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota gave a Tribute to Tom Sullivan during the 112th Congress on the occasion of his departure from the Senate and his move to the State Department.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the exceptional leadership and dedication of my deputy chief of staff Tom Sullivan, who has been with me since my first days in the Senate and will soon be leaving to accept a senior adviser role at the U.S. State Department.
To say that Tom will be missed would be an understatement. Over the last 6 years, he has distinguished himself as an invaluable member of my staff, rising through the ranks and filling many key roles along the way. He started out as a legislative assistant, but it wasn’t long before he was serving as my deputy legislative director and, eventually, my deputy chief of staff.
In many ways you could call Tom the nerve center of my office–the utility player who can step in and perform virtually any task that is asked of him, regardless of whether it is press strategy or scheduling or legislative analysis. No policy was ever too complex for him, no assignment too daunting, no challenge too thorny.
Tom’s versatility is especially apparent in his knowledge of policy, which spans the full spectrum of State and Federal issues. He came to my office with a background in foreign relations but quickly became an expert in everything from energy to technology to health care, mastering and remembering even the most minute of details without losing sight of the forest for the trees. That is a rare talent, and Tom has it in spades.
Mr. President, as you know, Senate offices often become like their own little family units. In the last 6 years, Tom Sullivan has become an esteemed member of the Klobuchar family, and he will be sorely missed–not just for his skill and expertise but for his composure, kindness, and unflappable good nature. We wish Tom well in his new position at the State Department and know that we can expect to see great things from him as he begins a new and exciting journey in public service.
We should note that the new COS Jon Finer is currently traveling with Secretary Kerry on his trip to Sri Lanka, Kenya and Djibouti.
Now we’re just waiting for the announcement of four new special assistants assisting the two newly appointed deputy chief of staff.
So serious question. Who’s interested in addressing the “tough management questions” and fixing whatever is broken in the building? Anyone?
Posted: 12:36 am EDT
Updated: 4/28/2015 at 7:35 am PDT
The State Department recently issued guidance for its American direct-hire employees on “Toxic Behaviors at Work: Where to Turn For Help (see ALDAC 15 STATE 45178). “ The aim was “to help mitigate the impact of toxic behaviors in the workplace, should they occur.” It notes that “The stress this causes can lower productivity and employee satisfaction, and make it harder for the Department to retain strong employees and perform its best.” A separate guidance will reportedly be issued for local employees and contractors.
What is toxic behavior? According to the State Department, the following is what constitutes toxic behavior:
Toxic behaviors are unwanted and can be verbal or non-verbal. They are behaviors that a reasonable person would consider offensive, humiliating, intimidating, or otherwise significantly detrimental to their ability to do their work. They include, but are not limited to: violent behavior, e.g., throwing items, breaking items; threatening behavior, i.e., intimidation, bullying, yelling, passive aggression, exclusion, lack of communication and/or cooperation; unethical behavior or the appearance of it, loafing, insubordination or failure to follow instructions, discrimination, or harassment.
Let’s add a few more warning signs from Kirk Lawrence of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School:
Types of toxic behaviors include tearing others down, passive aggressive leadership, destructive gossip, devious politics, negativity, aggressiveness, narcissism, lack of credibility, passivity, disorganization, and the resistance to change. These behaviors—individually or combined—can create a toxic workplace environment.
The State Department guidance cable does not provide examples of toxic behavior so we had to do some archive diving where we found some relevant examples:
- A Principal Commercial Officer asserted that there were multiple violations of due process resulting “in an oppressive work environment.” He claimed that “Resolution of this grievance is in the national interest because any organization in which accountability does not exist, managers may act on whim, and decisions and personnel actions are based not on facts but on hearsay, rumors, bullying and fear affects all employees including myself, paralyzes decision-making, erodes morale, makes risk-taking impossible, erodes motivation and performance . . . .” (Case No. 2011-018)
- A Senior FSO who was an office director at one of the bureaus was charged with inappropriate conduct in interactions with his staff and others. The charge and specifications include repeatedly referring to women as “bitches” and “hormonal,” yelling, banging on his desk and forcefully expressing his political views throughout the office. This Senior FSO yelled at subordinates and peers, demonstrating threatening and aggressive behavior towards them in violation of the workplace violence policy, evincing anger management issues, and damaging office morale. According to one witness account, there was a tendency to berate people publicly. “The office has this term being of in the tribe and out of the tribe. You can be put out of the tribe by him. There is a culture of fear to be put out of the tribe. Everyone tries to tip toe because it is not a good place to be. He will take away TDY and site visits and make life difficult.” (FSGB Case No. 2011-004)
- An FS-01 Office Director referred to a former colleague as a “bitch” and used “little officer” and “little employee” to describe women. He sent an e-mail to officemates “which could be viewed as offensive” and received a Letter of Admonishment. (FSGB Case No. 2010-0035)
- Most employees described this ambassador as aggressive, bullying, hostile, and intimidating, which resulted in an extremely difficult, unhappy, and uncertain work environment. The ambassador eventually resigned but not before most of the embassy’s senior staff, including two deputy chiefs of mission (DCM) and two section chiefs, had either curtailed or volunteered for service in Kabul and Baghdad (via pdf here).
- One ambassador’s policy successes were overshadowed within the mission by a leadership style that negatively affected morale. Many mission staff reported that the ambassador occasionally criticized and belittled certain section chiefs and agency heads in front of their peers. Mission staff noted front office reliance on a group of trusted mission leaders. Others not in the favored category were more likely to receive attention to weaknesses rather than strengths or potential. (via)
So this is not really a case of “toxic behaviors in the workplace, should they occur,” is it?
The State Department unclassified guidance helpfully provided a section for “Roles and Responsibilities” — some of the points enumerated below like, how it’s “nearly impossible to succeed in changing a toxic situation without making any changes in your own behavior” — are rather questionable. We understand the consequences of meeting fire with fire but it sure looks like the onus is on the person who perceives the toxic environment here, rather than the person who is causing it. Take a look:
It is incumbent on everyone working at the Department of State to conduct themselves in a professional manner. This means not only refraining from engaging in toxic behavior, but also following the appropriate steps when confronted by someone who is engaging in such behavior. Meeting the toxic behavior of another with toxic behavior of one’s own is neither productive nor professional.
It is imperative to keep the following points in mind as you consider how to address a situation that you find toxic or counter-productive:
–> If a supervisor is telling you what needs to be done, in a reasonable and non-threatening manner, and holding you accountable for doing it, in a reasonable and non-threatening manner, this is not toxic behavior. This is their job. Therefore, you are required to follow supervisory instructions, unless there is substantial reason to believe that the instruction given would place you in a clearly dangerous situation or cause you irreparable harm. If you perform the action instructed, you do have the right to register a complaint or grieve later.
–> You cannot control the behavior of others, only your own.
–>You should take some time to consider your own role in a situation you find toxic.
–>It is nearly impossible to succeed in changing a toxic situation without making any changes in your own behavior.
–>These are not easy things to do. Stretching oneself in a situation that is already difficult is additionally unpleasant. However, it is a necessary part of one’s own development and the improvement of one’s work environment.
Has somebody been reading those management books about “stretching” again? You’re in a toxic workplace, and your boss is an ass and a bully, and you’re “stretching” yourself, so your boss would be more pleasant? No, you’re stretching yourself so that you’ll be more pleasant to your toxic boss, who will, of course, cease being a bully and an ass? No, whaaat?
Ay, dios mio! Who writes this stuff?
The State Department guidance identifies 10 key resources for toxic behaviors:
- The Office of the Ombudsman, Workplace Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (wCPRc)
- Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR)
- Human Resources/Employee Relations/Office of Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline (HR/ER/CSD)
- Employee Consultation Service (ECS)
- Human Resources/Grievance (HR/G
- Diplomatic Security Office of Protective Intelligence Investigations (DS/TIA/PII)
- Diplomatic Security Office of Special Investigations (DS/DO/OSI)
- Foreign Service Institute (FSI) Leadership and Management School (LMS) Leadership Coaching
- Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
- Unions for State Department Employees: American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1534, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), or the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1998.
That’s a long list but dear ones, aren’t you forgetting the meat in the soup?
What about leadership?
Leadership—or the lack of it—lays at the core a toxic workplace. When a toxic workplace develops on a peer-to-peer level, it is the lack of leadership that allows it to fester. All too often, however, toxic workplaces are created from the top down, when managers or supervisors are the root of the problem. One study found that 37 percent of workers said they had been bullied at work and that the majority of those bullies (72 percent), were bosses. (via)
A piece on toxic culture from forbes.com notes that there is a large body of research showing that a leader sets the tone for the office and sets an example for internal comportment. “Executives who claim to operate at such a lofty level that they cannot be bothered by the daily operations or political scale-balancing of their organizations are simply poor leaders.”
One HR manager interviewed by Peter Frost in Toxic Emotions at Work (Harvard Business School Press) also observed:
“Fish stinks from the head!” The higher up the toxic person is, the more widely spread is the pain, and the more people there are who behave in the same way. If you have a CEO who delivers public lashings—in effect does his performance appraisals in public—then you will have the lieutenants begin to join in.
We understand the intention is good but c’mon folks … to issue a lengthy guidance on toxic behavior in a workplace without addressing leadership is like serving yak soup without yak meat.
Here are some wild yaks to look at when you read that official guidance. Not quite the same but better than nothin.
More yak meat here:
- How Toxic Colleagues Corrode Performance (Harvard Business Review)
- The Toxic Handler: Organizational Hero—and Casualty (Harvard Business Review)
- Workplace Culture That Fosters Toxic Behaviour pdf (Prentice Hall)
- How to Overcome The 6 Most Toxic Employee Behaviors (Fast Company)
- Time to Treat Toxic Emotions at Work (HBS Working Knowledge)
Posted: 1:22 am EDT
Updated: April 16, 2015, 7:42 pm PDT
Last week, there was a Burn Bag submission we posted on the many losses in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations’ engineering staff. We’re republishing it below, as well as reblogging a post from The Skeptical Bureaucrat. Maybe this would help save the State Department leadership from having to say later on that no one made them aware of this issue.
We’re actually considering sending a love note to the 7th floor. Something like, “Hey, subscribe to Diplopundit. You may not always like what you read but we’ll tell you what do not always want to hear.” Or something like that.
On second thought, maybe we shouldn’t. They might decide to go back to just Internet Explorer and then all of our readers there won’t be able to read this blog ever again. In any case, here is that burn bag submission, repeated for emphasis:
Is the State Department leadership aware that there have been many losses of OBO [Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations] engineers in the last 18 months, leaving more than a 20% deficit (OBO words via email, not mine) in engineering staff, with more contemplating separation? Does it care?
Below from The Skeptical Bureaucrat: Have Hard Hat, Will Travel (used with permission):
Diplopundit’s Burn Bag entry about OBO’s losses in engineering employees made me think back to the retirements and resignations I’ve noticed among my good friends in Overseas Buildings Operations over the last couple years. Yeah, I think there is indeed a pattern there.
A demoralization among OBO’s engineers would kind of make sense in the context of OBO’s overwhelming focus on Design Excellence, or, to use the new name for it, Just Plain Excellence. (The word “design” was dropped from the program’s name about one day after the disastrous House Oversight Committee hearing in which OBO’s Director and Deputy Director were severely criticized for favoring artsy & expensive embassy office buildings over functional & sensibly-priced ones.) In a Design Excellence organization, the architects are firmly in charge and the engineers will always play second fiddle.
According to the Burn Bag information, OBO has lost about 20 percent of its engineering staff. There is substantiation for that claim in the current USAJobs open announcement for Foreign Service Construction Engineers, which says OBO has “many vacancies” in that field:
Job Title: Foreign Service Construction Engineer
Department: Department Of State
Agency: Department of State
Agency Wide Job Announcement Number: CON-2015-0002
MANY vacancies – Washington DC,
A Foreign Service Construction Engineer (FSCE) is an engineer or architect, in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations working specifically in the Office of Construction Management, responsible for managing Department of State construction projects overseas. The FSCE is a member of a U.S. Government team that ensures construction is professionally performed according to applicable plans, specifications, schedules, and standards. The FSCE must adhere to the highest standards of integrity, dependability, attention to detail, teamwork and cooperation while accepting the need to travel, to live overseas, and when necessary, to live away from family.
Those vacancies are for permanent, direct-hire, Foreign Service employees. In addition, there were also personal service contractor vacancies for OBO engineers announced on Monster.com five days ago. That one is looking for General Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and Civil/Structural Engineers.
Why isn’t there also a need for Electrical Engineers? After all, you can’t spell Geek without two Es.
It looks like engineers are indeed exiting OBO in large numbers. Why that is, I can’t be sure. But I have to think it is not a good thing for my friends in OBO.
Sources tell us that William Miner, the director of the OBO’s design and engineering office was one of those who left in the last 18 months and Patrick Collins, the chief architect retired in January this year.
The USAjobs announcement cited by TSB does not indicate how many vacancies OBO plans to fill. In addition to the open vacancies for Foreign Service Construction Engineers, USAJobs.gov also has one vacancy for a Supervisory Engineer (DEU) and one vacancy for Supervisory Architect (DEU). The monster.com announcement linked to above includes full-time, non-permanent-temporary non-status jobs with initial 1 year appointment renewable for 4 years. All must be able to obtain and maintain a Top Secret security clearance. Oh, and relocation expenses will NOT be paid.
These are the jobs advertised via monster.com:
- Industrial Security Specialist DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Program Development, Coordination, and Support
- Telecommunications Specialist DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Construction Management
- Civil/Structural Engineer DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Design and Engineering
- Physical Scientist DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Facility Management
- Acquistion Specialist DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Special Projects Coordination
- General Engineer DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Construction Management
- Mechanical Engineer DOS, Overseas Buildings Operations / Design and Engineering
A 2013 HR stats indicate that OBO has 81 construction engineers including 10 who are members of the Senior Foreign Service (SFS). Those numbers are, obviously, outdated now. And we’re not sure what “more than 20% deficit” actually means in actual staffing numbers. But if we take a fifth from that HR stats, that’s about 16 engineers gone who must be replaced not just in the staffing chart but also in various construction projects overseas.
Even if OBO can ramp up its hiring the next 12 months, it will still have the challenge of bridging the experience gap. A kind of experience that you can’t reconstruct or replicate overnight unless OBO has an implantable chip issued together with badges for new engineers. Experience takes time, time that OBO does not have in great abundance. Experience that OBO also needs to rebuild every five years since in some of these cases, the new hires are on limited non-career appointments that do not exceed five years.
According to OBO, the State Department is entering an overseas construction program of unprecedented scale in the history of the bureau. What might also be unprecedented is OBO engineers running out the door in droves.
Why is this happening? We can’t say for sure but …
- We’ve heard allegations that an official has “run people out of the Department with his/her histrionic behaviors” and other unaddressed issues in the workplace that have generated complaints from staff but remained unresolved.
- There are also allegations of “poor treatment” of OBO employees and families while in the Department or even when trying to separate.
- One commenter to the Burn Bag post writes about problems within the Department of “an extreme lack of planning which will have caused our children to attend three schools in three countries just this year alone.”
- Another commenter writes, “I know it’s TRUE, because I recently departed. Somewhere along the way OBO decided that Design Excellence meant more architecture and less engineering.”
Posted: 11:43 am EDT
The cornerstone of the 21st century statecraft policy agenda is Internet freedom. The policy contains three fundamental elements: the human rights of free speech, press, and assembly in cyberspace; open markets for digital goods and services to foster innovation, investment, and economic opportunity; and the freedom to connect—promoting access to connection technologies around the world. A third of the world’s population, even if they have access, live under governments that block content, censor speech, conduct invasive mass surveillance and curb the potential of the Internet as an engine of free speech and commerce.
— 21st Century Statecraft
U.S. Department of State
We’ve made references in this blog about the Great Firewall of State, most recently, when we blogged about the FS promotion stats on race and gender (see 2014 Foreign Service Promotion Results By Gender & Race Still Behind the Great Firewall of State), What we did not realize is that there is an entire operation at the State Department running the firewall operations from Annex SA-9. It is run by the Firewall Branch of the Bureau of Information Resource Management, Operations, Office of Enterprise Network Management, Perimeter Security Division (IRM/OPS/ENM/PSD/FWB).
Sometime this week, some folks apparently were no longer able to access this blog from the State Department’s OpenNet. OpenNet is the Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) network in the Department. It provides access to standard desktop applications, such as word processing, e-mail, and Internet browsing, and supports a battery of custom Department software solutions and database management systems.
At this time, we believe that the block is not agency-wide and appears to affect only certain bureaus. Not sure how that works. We understand that some employees have submitted “unblock requests” to the State Department’s Firewall Operations Branch and were reportedly told that http://www.diplopundit.com/ has been categorized as “Suspicious.”
Holy moly macaroni!
We don’t know what constitute “suspicious” but apparently, under State’s Internet policy, this gives the agency the right to block State Department readers from connecting to this blog and reading its content.
But … but … this is the blog’s 8th year of operation and State has now just decreed that this blog is “suspicious”? Just for the record, this blog is hosted by WordPress, and supported by the wonderful people of Automattic. Apparently, the State Department’s DipNote also uses WordPress. Well, now that’s a tad awkward, hey?
Was it something we wrote? Was it about the journalists who ran out of undies? NSFW? Nah, that couldn’t be it. Was it about the petty little beaver? Um, seriously? Maybe that nugget about the aerial eradication in Colombia was upsetting? Pardon me, it’s not like we’re asking folks to drink the herbicide. Come again? You have no expectation of privacy when using the OpenNet? Well, can you blink three times when we hit the right note?
What should we call our State Department that’s quick to criticize foreign governments for blocking internet content for their nationals then turns around and blocks internet content for its employees?
Wass that? The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing? Blink. Blink. Blink.
We sent a couple emails to the IRM shop — email@example.com and Dr. Glen H. Johnson, the senior official in charge of IRM ops asking what’s going on. It seems the emails were chewed to bits, and we haven’t heard anything back. Looking for Vanguard contractors to blame? Blink.Blink.Blink. We’ll update if we hear anything more.
Via Burn Bag:
Is the State Department leadership aware that there have been many losses of OBO [Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations] engineers in the last 18 months, leaving more than a 20% deficit (OBO words via email, not mine) in engineering staff, with more contemplating separation? Does it care?