Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Would You Rate Rex Tillerson’s Job Performance?
Rex Tillerson seems to be criticized by every imaginable group: State Department employees, ex-employees, the media (of course), and now Congress. I thought it would be worthwhile to figure out, on balance, whether the disapproval is justified, and how he and his State Department are performing. Unfortunately, it’s not a pretty picture. And it’s not all Tillerson’s fault.
One of the first complaints is the large number of vacancies in the 75,000-employee State Department. One reason is that Tillerson is trying to re-organize the Department to have it run more efficiently and to free up resources to be used in more effective ways. Unfortunately, while he works on re-organization, lists for candidates provided by the Trump administration are being largely ignored by senior aides of State; most of the people at those levels are from the former Obama administration. One staffer describes the problem this way:
Foggy Bottom is still run by the same people who designed and implemented Obama’s Middle East agenda…. Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created.
Thirty-eight of the highest ranking jobs haven’t been filled; it’s unclear whether Tillerson assumes that some positions can be combined or eliminated, or he simply hasn’t had time to make his choices.
To become better acquainted with State, Tillerson has become involved in many review and decision processes that were once made at a lower level. He’s been accused of micromanaging, but he may not have a choice since it’s clear that he doesn’t, and probably shouldn’t, trust his own staff, according to his spokesman:
C. Hammond said Mr. Tillerson was simply tackling the problems of an unwieldy bureaucracy that his predecessors had ignored. And the more he has learned about the department, according to Mr. Hammond, the more problems he has found. ‘What we are discovering is that there are a series of problems that have been neglected and ignored,’ Mr. Hammond said. ‘And they are causing larger problems that can be fixed if things are vetted properly and installed.’
Tillerson himself commented on his organization, saying it was “not a highly disciplined organization,” and that “decision-making is fragmented, and sometimes people don’t want to take decisions.”
In another example of State defying the President’s policies, a report was issued that was criticized by Congress for blaming Israel for terror attacks and claiming Palestinians rarely incite violence, adding that it “remains unclear why terrorists engage in violent acts.” This report also reflects the policies and relationships of the previous administration with the Middle East.
Other complaints about Tillerson’s management decisions include the corporate history lost when senior officials leave; the dearth of hiring younger people due to the hiring freeze; his cutting 8 percent of staff and deciding on a 31-percent budget cut before the reorganization plan was complete; his involvement with everyday decisions that keep him from addressing concerns that others feel are more important; and his public statements of differences with the President.
In spite of all the criticism, Tillerson has taken decisive action on behalf of the State Department. He is assessing the glut of special envoys dealing with such issues as climate change and human trafficking. His re-organization plans are being developed after extensive reviews of the organization and in consultation with employees by two outside consultants. He is reviewing the traditional responsibilities given to high-level officials that have included the ability to approve hundreds of required reports provided to Congress, the design of new embassies, and the coordination of income tax issues between the US Treasury and foreign governments; in determining whether these lines of authority, along with many others, are legitimate, he has revoked them for now.
He continues to make diplomatic trips to foreign countries and still has the support of the President. In a rare public comment, he acknowledged the poor morale of his department: “It is to be expected that we will go through some morale issues early on,” he said, adding that he was “mindful of it.” “I pay attention to it,” he said.
But he said he was carrying out the policies of a president elected by the American people, and to those who cannot adjust to the new administration, “we have given them permission to go do something else.”
The train has left the station, folks.
So what do you think of Rex Tillerson’s performance to date?
Published in Foreign Policy, Politics
Let me put that slightly differently:
Better said, otlc. Either way, it’s bureaucratic stonewalling, and pathetic. So much for service to the country.
For goodness sake. Wouldn’t these be the career staffers who implemented GW Bush’s foreign policy before Obama’s? That’s the point of being a career staffer rather than a political appointment.
Another possibility suggests itself.
This could be because the Deep State (aka The Swamp) wants to implement the previous President’s foreign policy because it hates America.
Or it could be because it wants to keep the country from being drawn into war and the global security system into a collapse that threatens America’s position – and the realistic steps to achieve this do not match the rhetoric the pubic was sold. Which implies a more profound problem.
Or am I very cynical?
Great. He needs to take that group of career employees who no longer answer to the Executive branch, and nuke them the heck out of DC. Anyone in Washington who has an agenda other that that of the duly elected President either needs to implement his agenda per their job, or get the *&^^%$%$ out.
Tillerson needs to delegate the recruitment of his leadership team to someone with long experience in State and foreign policy and a policy preference suitable for this administration, and clean house. John Bolton comes to mind, he’d be a good match for policy and temperament, There are far more political appointment positions at state than any other department, and for just this reason. Thousands of political appointees must be replaced and replaced quickly if he expects to be able to move State in any direction.
Tillerson does not even profit from Bush Administration holdovers because Bush had problems in this area himself. The stories coming out of the Bush State Department were of Deep State resistance almost from the start.
From what I hear Tillerson has a vision of how to sweepingly revamp the org chart to be more effective, but State will slow roll him into oblivion and the wrong people, even in the right org chart, will not serve him or the American people well.
State has been known for years to be on the Left. Only this time, they so despise Trump that I think they are more determined than ever to damage his administration. Just because someone is a staffer, Zafar, doesn’t mean they aren’t partisan.
I don’t think these people hate America (although some probably do); I think they are misguided and are full of their own power to influence and control. Unfortunately they probably have acquired way too much power and we can now see the results.
It’s not their job to manipulate the system to operate the way they think it should work. They are bureaucrats and have no right to sabotage the system because they don’t like it. I doubt their goals are noble, but rather self-serving. Frankly, I think at this point we are all cynical, or becoming cynical with each passing day.
I think a big part of the problem is not knowing who should replace them. Being an outsider, he probably wonders who will be loyal, who is knowledgeable, who will put the President’s agenda first. The vacuum already created (supposedly) with those who have already left is leaving work undone.
It’s all pretty daunting, isn’t it? Just like your namesake! I just hope he can get the help he needs before the Deep State suffocates him. I do believe one article I read said one person is helping him, but he needs a larger, stronger team to move forward.
The worst problem with Condaleeza Rice was her inability to bring her Department to heel.
I also had the impression that she wasn’t always favorable toward Israel.
Also true but I think the fact that the State swamp got more fetid on her watch is probably more consequential.
It could be a version of
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm”.
But I don’t know what is in their hearts either.
Possibly a mixture of the noble wish to safeguard the nation but also the baser desire for power.
There were a couple of leaked telephone transcripts at the time of Rice and the Israeli Prime Minister that left me with the same impression. I was shocked to read of her pushing the jaded Palestinian viewpoint that way.
My brother has about 30 years in with the State Department (don’t worry, he’s one of the good ones). He told me once that when you hear the word “Diplomat”, you should think “Bureaucrat”.
Sounds to like he should just blow away all the political holdovers, and start fresh. Yep, it’ll leave organizational holes and some things will fall on the floor, but then the effort is 100% straight ahead, rebuilding, rather than worrying about back stabbing and leaks.
Thank you, Ms. Quinn, for a most appropriate piece. Almost all of us who have had to work with the US State Department in far away places will confirm to you this: It is a very dysfunctional organization and from which it is difficult to receive much timely help. Most of these people could care less about US companies who are trying to sell US goods and services abroad. I have never been treated as a citizen ‘customer’, a taxpayer who needs a little help with, e.g., how a particular government ministry is really organized and who makes decisions. One is treated rather as a “bother” when one asks for anything that helps us do business.
I sincerely hope Tillerson can straighten out what must be the worst part of The Swamp.
(I do not envy Tillerson. I spent 32 years in national security matters working alongside the Department, in tandem with it, at odds with it, and on a few occasions inside it as a detailee. Its cadre is a curious mixture of modest people of great ability and expertise, and loud, incompetent egos with no great ability other than that of self-promotion. It is truly overdue for a house-cleaning and downsizing. I stipulate that many of its problems predate Obama.)
Anyway, the answer to your question depends in large part on what Tillerson’s marching orders are. Probably, only Trump, Pence and McMaster know the specifics, but you could reasonably expect him to be rated in the following general areas: Policy Formation, Knowledge of Work, Communication, Problem Solving and Crisis Management, Administration, Initiative, Leadership, Responsiveness, and a host of lesser duties found in his 360 degree Performance Appraisal.
Tillerson took the helm in unusual times, with an especially unusual Chief Executive, a Ship of State that is way off course, and a crew having (generally) misplaced loyalties, a tendency to sabotage if not mutiny, and an eight-year history of selection and promotion dictated by political rather than professional standards. Added to his challenges is the fact that his two immediate predecessors were intellectually and morally corrupt.
At this early stage in his assignment, I would say that Tillerson ‘Meets Expectations’ in most areas.
We don’t, really, know what goes on behind the scenes, but I believe that he merits a grade of ‘Exceeds Expectations’ in Problem Solving and Crisis Management, noting that he has to deal with a rank amateur immediately above him and an often mutinous crew below him. I would give him the same grade for Responsiveness for essentially the same reasons.
This may sound counterintuitive, but I would give him a grade of ‘Below Expectations’ in the areas of Administration and Leadership because of his tardiness in clearing out Obama era senior officials. An empty desk is less dangerous than a desk staffed by someone intent upon sabotaging your policies. Tillerson is still too tolerant of insubordination and passive aggression, and should be quicker to sack or reassign problematic individuals at all levels, even if he has to detail a special assistant to fill in for them until a qualified replacement can be found. The fact that he has not done so is a major factor in his inability to exceed standards in many areas.
All the above being said, I like the man, approve of his instincts, approve of his priorities, and wish him all the best.
That sounds about right, Zafar. I just wish that their wishes to safeguard were acted out in noble ways. That’s my problem with their efforts.
That sounds about right, Zafar. I just wish that their wishes to safeguard were acted out in noble ways. That’s my problem with their efforts.
Now that is telling, MWM! I’m glad we’ve got at least one good guy in State! I’m impressed he could stick it out that long. He’s either dedicated or a glutton for punishment! ;-)
I love that idea, LO, but I don’t know if he would survive the chaos and political fallout. Do you think Trump would stick with him through all of it?
The impact of this inept organization is huge, from companies to foreign governments to our own citizens. Thank you for sharing your first-hand experience, Arnold. It must have been very frustrating and disappointing.
Thank you for such a detailed and insightful description for how things work, Giaccomo! I really appreciate it. You make a lot of sense and your review of his performance is very helpful. You’ve made an important addition to this post. I like him, too, and hope he can survive all the garbage that will be tossed his way. I think he’s a good man. Thanks again.
It’s called “going native”. [And it’s not just a US thing] The intent of a diplomatic mission is to represent the interest of the Home country to the Foreign country. What frequently happens instead is the mission represents the problems of the Foreign country back to the Home country.
It’s essential to get rid of anyone appointed by Obama and that includes career officers promoted into key positions under Clinton. State has always been resistant to change, some times for good reasons. Kennedy hated the place in part because the best and brightest of that disastrous administration were going to remake the world according to abstractions in their heads and career officers pushed back. Carter’s people were worse. Congress and newly elected administrations treat foreign policy issues according to the 24 hr news cycle, some intellectual fad or just out of ignorance, and above all constituent interests. The career folks in contrast see themselves as far more knowledgable than they actually are, especially the young ones, as an elite that’s smarter than everybody else. However, after several decades moving around the world trying to figure out how the world works and what we can do to promote US interests, the best sort things out and acquire some humility but they’re the ones that resist new administrations’s fads. Those moved forward under an ideological administration like that of Obama or under the harridan feminist probably share the former administrations post modernist neo marxist views or are careerists which is almost as bad. We might look for good officers who did poorly under Obama. It will take time to sort out. Tillerson could bring in some old hands (he might have to go back to Reagan’s state) to help him identify who among the career folks to get rid of. But no matter how good, without a clear foreign policy direction, people scattered around the globe will go about their business as they see it and we’ll get entropy. Clear leaderships means clear foreign policy speeches laying out a foreign policy vision and an absence of impulse tweets.
State is a terrible, terrible institution.
There are some things it needs to do – like issue passports. It does this reasonably well, though putting actual execution up for competitive bids would return much better customer service.
State is massively bloated. It does not view itself as working for elected officials, but instead very much as the public “servants” in Yes, Minister! The entire institution is the living proof of the wisdom of C. Northcote Parkinson.
Sweeping layoffs are in order.
MWM, what is the consequence of receiving this information, and why is the intent reversed?
Excellent points, I. I see the lack of a clear foreign policy as a big problem, especially since Trump and Tillerson are not on the same page. I don’t care if they disagree, but they should have those discussions in private and come to an understanding. Discussing their differences in public and through the media (no matter how hard they work at covering them over) is not helpful.
That’s why I had no problem with his starting out with 8% staff cuts and 31% budget cuts from the get-go. The bloat was obvious, and those actions sent a powerful message (and ticked off a lot of people) that changes are a-comin’. Thanks, iWe
It requires someone smarter than me to describe the consequences.
As to “why”, it’s basic human nature. The diplomatic staff are embedded with the people of the host country. Assuming a non-hostile environment (USSR, etc), and particularly in the case of smaller/poorer countries, there’s going to be natural sympathy for the problems of the host country and a “how can we help” mentality.