bout de papier, September 1983 // Septembre 1983, p. 1
Well, the other shoe has dropped. We have been shaken up once again. It has been called an “organizational adjustment”, but what the Under-Secretary announced June 30 amounts to a second, fundamental reorganization of the Department of External Affairs. There is still much we don’t know. The new structures have not fully hardened; key appointments are still being announced; staffing of the new units is proceeding in an atmosphere of considerable uncertainty. Though in comparison with ITC/DREE the disruption and dislocation have so far been less devastating to personnel and for this our Management is to be commended. However, it will be a challenging Fall in Ottawa as people, positions, units, lines of command and communication, and — critically — physical locations come into closer alignment.
As a Department, we have taken a step into the future of geographical, functional and operational policy integration. What does it all mean for us as foreign service officers? How will these changes affect the substance of our work, and the nature of our jobs? Will another dislocation on balance improve this institution’s performance, or simply create new tensions and problems? Time will tell.
PAFSO recognized that something had to be done and this was one of the themes of the colloquium held last winter. The Departmental structure we were given eighteen months ago, with its triadic architecture and leadership, was bristling with contradictions, and did not seem to be working as well as its resources and potential authority suggested. Rather than eliminating friction, the first reorganization sometimes seemed merely to have internalized it. Rather than promoting efficiency, it often appeared to have increased misunderstanding. Many of us had argued for further structural change, to improve communication and efficiency and to bring unity of purpose to the diversity of our efforts. Now, like it or not, we’ve got it. What do the changes really amount to? First, and probably most important, the new structure is an attempt to create a unified Department of External Affairs in which the Department’s different responsibilities and activities are given stronger geographical and more streamlined functional focus. The five geographical ADM’s will thus bear the burden of balancing different Canadian interests within their respective regions, and of matching resources and activities in pursuit of those interests. The functional ADMs will have to ensure the broad direction and coherence in managing trans-regional programme and policy issues.
Clear centers of responsibility and authority for regional programs and policies as well as for functional direction and coherence have been created. But do the ADM-ships have the necessary resources to effectively manage policy and programs, finances and administration? Can immigration or information work be done better through program divisions in geographical branches than through the traditional central, but geographically structured, units? Will the quality of our outputs improve as the learning curve rises? We shall have the answers to some of these questions over the coming months.
Like the reorganization of January, 1982, the new structure is supposed to reflect the trade and economic priorities of the Government. Fine, although there is no obvious and direct relationship between the new structure and trade priority in the narrow sense. But the new geographical focus, and greater coherence in the organization, is bound to help. And eventually it will allow us to speak with a clearer voice to the Canadian business and export communities. But with all the attention to economic priorities, the Department must not neglect other less prominent but no less important (or more important) dimensions of its work: global peace and security, immigration, family reunification, public diplomacy, development work, to name but a few. These are continuing responsibilities that reflect long-standing national objectives, and that converge with long term Canadian economic interests.
An optimal structure is important. But structure alone is not enough. It won’t necessarily produce better and more timely advice to Ministers, or deliver more effective programs abroad. The new Department of External Affairs, just like the old Department, the old Trade Commissioner Service, and the former Immigration Foreign Service, is above all people. What matters most is whether we have a sense of common purpose and shared objectives; whether we believe our talents are being recognized and properly utilized; whether senior management commands confidence and loyalty through a lifetime of service. The Department has drawn heavily on the resources of patience and dedication to excellence of its officers over the past few years. Great stresses have been put on the Department’s human capital in the course of successive upheavals. So, despite the talk about reorganization being finalized September 1, the biggest step in the creation of a new and more effective Department of External Affairs has yet to be taken. That is to demonstrate to the nearly five thousand Canada-based employees of the Department that they are its most vital resource. On the human side, the agenda for the next six months is crowded. Among the priorities:
• to end the uncertainty over staffing. The sooner the new units are manned and operational, the sooner we can all get on with our work and get rid of the organization tensions and question marks that have burdened the Department for so long.
• better upward, downward and horizontal communication not just on organizational matters but on questions of substance. We need a more regular and open dialogue with management. A number of positive steps in this direction were taken in the past year. Let’s build on them. Communication is the life blood of this Department.
We are in a new era. It is up to us, as members of the Department and as Foreign Service Officers, to make this new mechanism work.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, September 1983 // Septembre 1983, p. 1. Read the rest of this issue →
