1474 



The implication of this demonstrated interconnectedness among 

 international technolooical issues is that organizations cannot operate 

 effectively if they are limited in scope to a particular function or issue. 

 Coordination is essential to ensure that each mission organization, 

 national or international, does not operate at cross-purposes with 

 other organizations with other related missions. In the United States 

 this coordinating function on international technological issues and 

 functions is the responsibility of the Department of State. There 

 does not appear to be any clearcut assignment of corresponding 

 responsibility for coordinating international mission agenc}" functions. 

 Moreover, there does not appear to be an}^ extensive discussion of 

 the need for such international agency coordination. And, indeed, 

 the extent to which the U.S. Department of State is organized, 

 equipped, and manned to coordinate U.S. aspects of these functions 

 and issues is open to serious question. 



Iievitalizing the Department of State for Initiative and Leadership 



A critique of the Foreign Service in 1967 stressed that the rewards 

 of promotion went to the cautious and the penalties to the "boat 

 rockers." Said the article, in part: 



Over the long pull, the 30-year career, the survival quotient of the "boat 

 rockers"' is negligible. By and large, those who conform to the system are in 

 charge of performance evaluation. . . .The sheer weight of opinion outside 

 the Service as well as my own experiences, real and shared, indicate that there 

 is some basis for our critics' attacks and our own doubts. 



. . . My conclusion, then, is that it is the system of rewarding the cautious 

 and penalizing the bold that creates and maintains a Foreign Service which 

 does not realize its responsibilities for analysis and advocacy and which does 

 generate political and public distrust and criticism .... 



. . . What we lack is a sj'stem which permits [creative] men to realize their 

 potential, what we have is a system which so discourages them that many turn 

 to other careers or lapse into a safe mold.^^s 



The structure of the Department of State and of the Foreign 

 Service appears to focus attention on, and extend preferment to. 



=M Thomas D. Boyatt, "The Case for Traditional Diplomacy," Foreign Service Journal 44 (December 



1067), p. 37. , - 



