Strengthening the Three-Legged Stool of Policy Analysis, Organization, and Leadership
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11684302 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Isabel V Sawhill (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1989 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 501-501 |
| Publication date | 1989-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0276-8739 • E-ISSN: 1520-6688 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3324940 |
| OpenAlex | W1986617282 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
To discuss these three articles is to walk into a lion’s den of fundamental controversies and tensions that underlie all of public policy. Analysis, organization, and management could be viewed as the three legs of our profession. The issue is not which leg is most important but how each supports the stool as a whole. The authors of these articles would, I’m sure, acknowledge as much. Nevertheless, each has been willing to play devil’s advocate for a particular point of view. The result has been a fascinating and instructive debate. Three Complementary Emphases Let me start with the Brandl argument. He accepts the now-popular notion that government is often unproductive. The problem, he says, has nothing to do with policymaking. It has everything to do with the behavior of individuals in government bureaucracies. Nothing guarantees that such individuals will act to advance the mission of their agencies rather than their own self-interest. The result is shirking, withholding of information, and other inefficient or subversive activities about which citizens complain. Two mechanisms exist to bring bureaucrats’ behavior more into line with their agencies’ missions: incentives and inspiration. The literature thus far has focused almost entirely on the former-that is, on economic incentives. Brandl suggests that inspiration may be equally if not more important. But how does one inspire? Brandl does not elaborate, and he thus leaves us in suspense (at least until he finishes his book). He does suggest, though, that one way to motivate people is through leadership. This brings me to Behn’s argument. It is a fine example of using the case method to prove what cannot be proved in any other way. Leadership is all, says Behn, after walking us through his cases. His is a convincing presentation, and right after reading it, I’m solidly in his corner. All we have to do is clone the Ira Jacksons and the Charles Atkinses of the world. On further reflection, however, two problems occur to me. One is that I don’t know much about cloning. And the second is that, even if I did, the results might be disappointing. Atkins was a top official in the Dukakis campaign. We now know the results of the campaign. Which Charles Atkins “case” results am I to believe: the “ET Choices” case or the Dukakis campaign case? I am especially concerned given that the success of the ET Choices program, and the reasons for that success, have not been documented. How do I know that welfare recipients are not leaving the rolls because of low unemployment in the state, rather than because of Atkins’s transforming leadership? In short, I want a little more analysis
Business · Political science · Conflict Management and Negotiation
| Highly cited | No |
|---|