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
Of course, that makes sense. And I don’t think assessing the consequences has anything to do with smartness; it has to do with direct experience of the people who are in the department. Thanks.
Edit: I’d also add that being in those situations requires a degree of maturity and professionalism. I understand the sympathy that arises, but in another sense, those who serve need to balance their assessments with US interests.
Here’s a beautifully written description of the problem from Bugles and a Tiger, the first volume of soldier (Afghan frontier in the 1930s, WWII in Mesopotamia and Burma,) novelist, and screenwriter John Masters’ memoirs. This is from Afghanistan:
Bugles and a Tiger and the second volume, The Road Past Mandalay are both very much worth reading. I first saw them mentioned on one of the late Col. David Hackworth’s recommended reading lists for junior officers. These lists were very interesting documents in themselves, and some of the books on them provided this civilian with much food for thought.
In theory, the permanent nature of Foreign Service jobs has a valid function: institutional memory in a political system in which the head of government and the head of state are the same person – who serves at most eight years in office. Many international trends and issues are extremely long lived.
The UK has been very fortunate in its current Head of State; she herself has provided a great deal of continuity.
This is a fascinating addition to this discussion, otlc. It supports what MWM was saying. Thank you.
Rex Tillerson spent his business career at one company, Exxon, where amazingly he rose through the ranks to serve a decade as CEO of its world-wide organization with some 80,000 + employees.
From the standpoint of managing a large organization, he seems superbly qualified by experience to be at the head of State.
However, in my view, his having been at only one company is a distinct disadvantage to his mission of overhauling the bureaucracy. While he came to know Exxon inside and out, at State he is the “new boy,” and as such subject to the weight and inertia of its size, its multiple functions, its entrenched civil service legions that naturally resist innovation, and its vicious political infighting that characterizes most large organizations, especially government ones.
On balance, then, I understand his first year as one spent taking stock and studying for the new boy to get his bearings. I recall he made several swings to try to connect with most of State’s denizens. OK, then.
Now, having done all that, if he does not or cannot see to it that, immediately, every U.S. Embassy and Consulate around the world places on prominent display, same as ever before, the official portrait of the American president, I’d judge him a failure. Surely, a little bit of symbolic butt-kicking would be in order. Then, let the re-organization pick up steam.
Are you serious? Is the President’s picture not on display? If so, that is stupid, petty and insubordinate behavior. I agree with you, Fritz!
Petty? You betcha. This was covered by no less a reliable source than the Washington Post in September, eight months after the inauguration. More recently, there was an article at PJ Media:
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/no-trump-portrait-embassies-swamp-still-controls/
Sad.
Bugles is a book I return to periodically. Here’s Masters again. He’s just recapped the lofty, swirling ambitions he had on finishing at Sandhurst:
Lt. Col John Masters, DSO OBE
4th Gurkha Rifles
1914-1983
Good grief. Those people need to grow up, big time. If nothing else, it’s about honoring the presidency, even if you don’t like the man.
Nuh uh.
For a good ex-Foreign Service blog, try thediplomad.com
Do you mean thediplomat.com? Could you give me a hint about what I’m looking for?
No, the d is correct. It’s a great blog from Lewis Amsalem, a retired long serving FSO.
Now that was weird. When I put in the web address without www, I got a website seller; when I added www, it went through to Amsalem’s site. Anyhow, it is a thoughtful, sometimes funny blog and I can see why you appreciate him. Thanks for the tip!
And then the State Dept goes and spends a day on some sort of transgender memorial. Really, Rex?
Having come from Exxon, he has to be acclimatized to being unpopular.
Today’s latest news is, I think, a defining moment for Tillerson.
Breitbart London reports:
If the hammer doesn’t come down on Kostelancik in a hurry, Tillerson is hopeless.
Thank you! Talk about audacity! Just another example of people essentially acting as outlaws to defy the current administration. It’s so outrageous that I find it difficult to believe–but it’s real.
That can change with the next administration. Corruption endemic clientitis and radicalization of the Civil Service or other departmental versions, not so easy.