While leadership approaches at the FAO shape direction and influence, managerial tools determine how work is planned, coordinated, and executed on a day-to-day basis. During my WBL, I observed that the FAO relied on a mixture of traditional administrative methods and emerging project management practices. This section analyses the key managerial tools and approaches used in the workplace, including planning instruments, coordination mechanisms, documentation practices, and risk management methods. It also reflects on how I personally adopted and adapted these tools in my assigned tasks.
5.1 Planning Tools-Timelines, Task Breakdown, and Event Schedules
Time management and planning are central to international events and city diplomacy projects, particularly those involving multiple stakeholders and fixed deadlines. In practice, the FAO often used event schedules and internal timelines as informal planning tools. These were usually prepared in the form of Word documents or simple tables specifying key dates, activities, and responsible units.
However, these tools were not always sufficiently detailed to support complex coordination. For example, early drafts of the work plan for the Cuenca–Xi’an Ceramic Mural Initiative mainly listed target dates for major milestones (e.g. mural completion, unveiling ceremony, media coverage) without breaking them down into sub-tasks such as content approval timelines, signage production, interpretation arrangements, or security coordination.
To address this gap, I independently developed more structured timeline tools inspired by Gantt chart logic. I broke down major tasks into smaller components, sequenced them logically, and aligned them with internal approval procedures. Although these were created in a simple tabular format rather than specialised software, they functioned as practical project management tools by clarifying dependencies and making bottlenecks visible.
5.2 Coordination Tools-Meetings, Follow-Up Logs, and Responsibility Mapping
Coordination at the FAO relied heavily on meetings and written notices. Regular coordination meetings were convened to brief stakeholders, relay leaders’ instructions, and allocate responsibilities. Nevertheless, without systematic follow-up tools, decisions made during meetings sometimes failed to translate into timely action.
In my work on projects such as the Silk Road Cities Roundtable and the Euro-Asia Economic Forum preparation, I observed that verbal agreements in meetings were often not accompanied by clear, written responsibility assignments. This made it difficult to track progress or hold specific units accountable when delays occurred.
To mitigate this issue, I began maintaining simple coordination logs and responsibility matrices. After meetings, I summarised key action points, identified responsible departments or individuals, and, where possible, specified target dates. These informal matrices functioned similarly to RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) tools used in project management, even if they were not formally labelled as such.
These practices improved my own ability to follow up systematically and also helped senior staff quickly recall who had agreed to what in previous discussions. Although these tools were not yet standardised across the organisation, they demonstrated how managerial approaches could be strengthened through relatively simple, low-cost interventions.
5.3 Documentation and Information Management Tools
Documentation is a core component of managerial practice in a government setting. The FAO relies extensively on formal written documents—red-headed notices, internal memos, briefing notes, meeting minutes, and external correspondence—to record decisions and communicate instructions.
From a managerial perspective, these documents serve several important functions: they provide traceability, ensure consistency of information, and protect the organisation by clarifying what has been formally approved. However, their effectiveness depends on clarity, structure, and accessibility.
During my WBL, I contributed to documentation by drafting bilingual emails, event briefs, and explanatory texts for public-facing materials. In doing so, I adopted a more structured documentation style, using clear headings, bullet points, and standardised phrasing. This not only improved readability for internal staff but also facilitated smoother communication with international partners.
At the same time, I noticed that the FAO lacked a centralised, easily searchable repository for project documents. Files were often stored separately by individuals or divisions, making it difficult to access historical information or reuse successful templates. This indicates that while documentation is valued, information management tools remain underdeveloped—a gap which my City Diplomacy Strategic Handbook seeks to address conceptually.
5.4 Risk Awareness and Contingency Management
Formal risk management frameworks such as risk matrices or scenario planning were not explicitly used in daily work. Nonetheless, risk awareness was deeply embedded in the FAO’s culture, particularly in relation to political and image risks. Staff members were highly cautious about sensitive wording, topic selection, and interactions with foreign partners, reflecting a strongly risk-averse institutional mindset.
In practical terms, risk management often took the form of multiple layers of document review, conservative decision- making, and preference for “safe” options. While this approach reduces the likelihood of serious diplomatic errors, it can also slow down project implementation and discourage experimentation.
In my own work, I experimented with basic risk identification practices. For example, when planning materials for public events, I prepared internal checklists identifying potential issues such as translation errors, misalignment between Chinese and foreign names or titles, and last-minute changes in delegation composition. Although informal, these checklists functioned as simple risk management tools that helped to prevent avoidable mistakes.
5.5 Use of Digital Tools and Technology
Digital tools were used selectively in managerial practice. Staff commonly used office software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) for drafting and presenting information, and messaging applications for faster coordination. However, dedicated project management or collaboration platforms were not widely adopted.
Within this context, I made greater use of Excel to build structured tables for timelines, task tracking, and contact lists, effectively turning generic software into ad hoc management tools. In communication, I used email for formal exchanges and approved messaging channels for quick clarifications, thereby balancing formality and efficiency.
These experiences suggest that there is considerable potential to improve managerial efficiency by formalising the use of digital tools—such as shared calendars, online collaborative documents, or simple project dashboards—rather than relying on individually developed spreadsheets and informal messaging.
5.6 Personal Managerial Learning and Application
My WBL experience at the FAO significantly shaped my understanding of managerial tools in a governmental IR context. Confronted with complex coordination tasks and rigid administrative procedures, I learned to:
- Break down broad tasks into manageable sub-activities with clear deadlines.
- Record and track commitments after meetings using informal responsibility matrices.
- Draft clear, structured documents that function as working tools rather than mere formalities.
- Use simple checklists and logs to anticipate and mitigate practical risks.
- Leverage common digital tools as improvised project management instruments.
These practices reflect an applied understanding of managerial approaches that complement leadership behaviours. They also demonstrate how even in a highly formal and bureaucratic environment, relatively small changes in how information is organised, shared, and monitored can make a significant difference to project outcomes.
5.7 Overall Assessment of Managerial Approaches
In summary, managerial tools at the FAO are currently characterised by a reliance on traditional administrative instruments, supported by emerging but uneven adoption of more modern project management practices. Formal procedures ensure accountability and control, but they are not always sufficient for complex, multi-actor international projects.
My experience suggests that strengthening managerial approaches—through clearer task breakdown, more systematic responsibility mapping, better information management, basic risk tools, and selective digitalisation—would greatly enhance the FAO’s capacity to manage international relations projects effectively. These insights feed directly into the subsequent analysis of organisational tools and the recommendations section of this portfolio.