USA 
United Kingdom
The State Department's Head of HR, Lew Olowski, is leaving his role after overseeing 1,350 job cuts, while unions, courts, and employees question the wider staffing fallout.
Lew Olowski, who served as Chief Human Capital Officer for the Bureau of Personnel and Training, is departing for a senior post in the Office of Foreign Missions. The agency declined to comment.
Olowski directed a summer reduction in force that affected nearly 1,350 employees across the department. The agency issued more than 1,100 RIF (Reduction in Force) notices to civil service staff and nearly 250 to Foreign Service personnel based in the US.
Senior officials described the effort to Congress as the most extensive and complex workforce downsizing of its kind and said they coordinated with the Office of Personnel Management throughout the process.
Some employees who received notices were formally separated in September. The department also attempted to conclude layoff actions for nearly 250 Foreign Service officers and a smaller group of civil service employees last week. A federal judge in San Francisco halted those moves with a temporary restraining order connected to an ongoing lawsuit brought by unions before the government shutdown. The action challenged the administration’s ability to pursue wide-scale layoffs while federal funding was unresolved.
Unions challenge layoffs and raise compliance concerns
The amended lawsuit argues that multiple agencies, including the State Department, are not fully observing requirements in the stopgap funding bill that paused the administration’s layoff authority. Democracy Forward, which joined the case, said the filing also seeks to reverse “other unlawful RIF actions” at the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, and the departments of Education and Defense.
Workforce sentiment within the diplomatic corps has been strained as staffing cuts and rapid organizational shifts continue. A survey conducted by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) gathered feedback from more than 2,100 active-duty Foreign Service employees. AFSA found that 98% of respondents experienced lower morale this year, and 86% said workplace changes since January limited their ability to carry out US diplomatic priorities.
Before the changes, about 17,000 active-duty Foreign Service officers served in the department. AFSA estimates that nearly 25% of the workforce departed this year, including those affected by layoffs, retirements, and deferred resignation offers.
What Really Drives Employee Engagement? The Six-Pillar Framework
Half of the workforce is so dissatisfied that they're actively looking for new opportunities.
A lack of engagement, workplace culture, well-being, and work-life balance are among the biggest challenges facing organisations today. And while many businesses invest in multiple employee initiatives, a collection of disconnected programs won't stop people from leaving. The answer isn't more employee engagement initiatives - it's ensuring your strategy is built on a coherent, evidence-based model that addresses the factors that matter most.
Within this report you can explore:
The six foundational pillars of employee engagement that drive stronger retention, productivity, and business performance.
Practical strategies for applying each pillar to build a high-impact employee engagement programme.
A framework for aligning engagement with business goals to create a more motivated, committed, and high-performing workforce.
Download the report today and discover how to build an employee engagement strategy that drives meaningful engagement, boosts retention, and improves performance.
Concerns over HR leadership background
Olowski’s earlier appointment to the department’s top HR role drew scrutiny from AFSA. The group said in April it was “deeply concerned” because the role is traditionally held by career Foreign Service members with extensive experience.
It added that placing an “untenured, entry-level officer who has only served one complete overseas tour” into a position central to expertise, service, and non-partisanship raised broader concerns about how professional progression is valued within the department.
