— Domani Spero
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]
In the years that we’ve blogged about the State Department and the Foreign Service, we’ve covered the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quite a bit. The complaints that reports to the OIG were ignored or forwarded to other parts of the bureaucracy are not new. We have readers bending our ears about that specific issue for years.
Recently, we had a Burn Bag submission saying “The OIG can’t and won’t save us. They stress, the Bureaus, not the OIG, should be the “bad leadership police.”
That is troubling, yes? To paraphrase the Dalai Lama, if people lose hope, that’s your real disaster. If employees start thinking and feeling that their institution do not care about them, how soon before the employees stop caring about their institution?
So we sent the following questions to the Office of Inspector General:
Is it true that complaints or allegations of bad leadership or mismanagement are forwarded by the OIG to the bureaus to handle?
Do you think that the bureaus are equipped to police their own ranks?
Who do you go to if you have complaints about mismanagement at the bureau level?
If top officials are not accountable for their bad leadership or mismanagement and as these officials are reassigned from one post to the next, doesn’t this build a negative impact on morale and ultimately on the institution?
I am trying to understand why the OIG, which is often, the last resort in many of these cases, does not think effective management and leadership is a priority as he embarks on his new tenure at State?
Yesterday, we received the following response:
Here’s the official OIG response, republished below in full:
Leadership and management are challenges for the Department and an oversight priority for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). IG Linick has discussed leadership and management issues directly with the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. Each of the divisions within OIG play a role, often collaborating to hold the Department accountable for ineffective leadership and mismanagement.
OIG’s Office of Investigations (INV) learns of ineffective leadership or management through Hotline reports, from our Office of Inspections (ISP), and in the course of its own investigations. INV addresses complaints about Department leadership and management in a number of different ways. OIG investigators conduct initial reviews of mismanagement involving fraud, waste, abuse, administrative misconduct, or retaliation against whistleblowers, for example, and refer matters to the Department of Justice when there is evidence of possible criminal or civil violations.
There are, however, circumstances that prompt OIG to refer leadership and management concerns to the Department. If, for instance, a complainant’s allegations relate to a personnel matter, such as allegations that an official used abusive language with subordinates, OIG may notify appropriate Department officials about the alleged perpetrator so that they may take action. Thus, if such a complaint were about a COM or DCM, OIG would notify the relevant Assistant Secretary and Director General. Matters referred to the Department are monitored for appropriate follow-up. In other circumstances, when warranted, OIG will send investigators to look into the allegations directly.
OIG’s Office of Investigations notifies OIG inspectors of allegations or complaints about leadership and management at posts and bureaus to help ISP prioritize its work and to identify areas that should be assessed during formal inspections. OIG monitors compliance with its recommendations and brings them to the attention of Congress through formal and informal means. ISP evaluates the effectiveness of leadership and management in the course of its inspections, and it may move up scheduling of a post’s inspection when these types of concerns surface in survey results or by other means.
Over the years, ISP has made recommendations to the Department aimed at improving Department-wide leadership and management issues, such as recommendations that the Department develop directives on leadership or management principles, conduct 360-degree surveys on its leaders, enhance First And Second Tour (FAST) mentoring, and be more innovative in providing sustained leadership and management training to Foreign Service Officers throughout their careers. The Department has already adopted some of OIG’s major recommendations, such as updating the Foreign Affairs Manual to address leadership. It has also begun to conduct its first 360-degree survey of COMs.
We appreciate State/OIG’s effort to address our questions. We hope this is helpful to our readers. We will have a follow-up post later on.
* * *
- State/OIG Files Report to Congress, Wassup With the In-Depth Review Over CBS News Allegations? (diplopundit.net)
- A Note About the Burn Bag (diplopundit.net)
- One Minute to Midnight on C Street: Update #6 on Joan’s Case – Stranger than strange after-hours e-mails from State’s OIG Hotline Coordinator (whirledview.typepad.com)
- State Dept’s Leadership and Mgt School Needs Some Leadership, And It’s Not Alone (diplopundit.net)
- Justice Dept. Inspector General Report Once Again Validates Whistleblower’s Allegations About FBI Lab Scandal (whistleblowersblog.org)
- Government Watchdog: The U.S. Has a Growing Federal Prison ‘Crisis’ (theatlantic.com)