Government Organization Problems Choice of organizational structure is inherently political Many organization problems recur Creating an effective organization is challenging

Kaufman’s Organizational Values Herbert Kaufman (1956) detailed three basic organizational values for organizational structure: – Neutral competence: creation of a highly skilled bureaucracy insulated from political interference that can undermine efficiency

Kaufman’s Organizational Values (continued) – Executive leadership: strong elected executive— president, governor, mayor—and strong and loyal department heads all politically chosen – Representativeness: organizational arrangements that respond to legislative interests and to clienteles most affected by agency decisions

Search for Effective Organization Organizational problems are not new Often when new problems arise, some of the best alternatives developed earlier only lead to other new problems Endless search for better coordination Coordination: attempting to integrate the operations of different agencies without sacrificing the expertise that is their very reason for existence

Neutral Competence Organizational Concerns Choice among criteria of good organization Interagency conflict Interagency coordination Role of staff in supporting and controlling operating activities

Organizational Criteria Set of reference points to choose among alternative structures Possibilities: public acceptance; adaptability; consistency of decisions; professional competence; participation, representation, and diversity; effective database; cost and timeliness; promotion of private efficiency; accountability to the president; accountability to Congress; and compatibility with state regulation Each criterion is important; not all can be satisfied at the same time

Interagency Conflict Conflict occurs when mismatch of organization bases identified by classical organization theory: purpose versus clientele, or function versus area Conflict occurs when all relevant organizations have the same purpose

Interagency Conflict: Purpose versus Clientele Purpose: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) serves general population through health research and health system financing and welfare programs Clientele: Department of Veterans Affairs serves veterans Conflict occurs when HHS attempts to serve veterans through its national programs

Interagency Conflict: Function versus Area Function: State Department has functional bureaus focused on human rights and humanitarian affairs, environmental and scientific affairs, etc. Area: State Department manages nation’s foreign policy; traditional internal organization is by region and country Conflict occurs because inevitably no functional issue stops at any nation’s border

Interagency Conflict: Purpose-Based Agencies Conflict occurs between purpose-based departments State, Treasury, Justice, and Defense all have fuzzy missions that have evolved radically since these departments were first created Overlap when dealing with new issues: Cold War, terrorism

Interagency Coordination Conflict can undermine coordination Horizontal coordination draws related agencies together in common purpose Vertical coordination requires intervention by a coordinator

Interagency Coordination: Horizontal Interagency agreements: treaties negotiated between the concerned agencies to establish specific boundaries and to clarify which agency will do what without interference from the others Interagency committees: cabinet, subcabinet, and bureau levels exist to promote collaboration in jointly occupied areas

Interagency Coordination: Horizontal (continued) Lead agency formula: one agency designated to lead and attempt to coordinate all agencies’ activities in a particular area Clearance procedure: requires that an agency’s proposed decisions in a subject- matter area be reviewed, whether for comment or for formal approval or veto, by other interested agencies

Interagency Coordination: Vertical Two warring agencies are brought together by organizational superior of both A person with formal authority imposes a decision and monitors agencies’ compliance with it

The Role of Staff Staff activities: agencies rely on these support units to promote their functioning, assistance to line officials Line activities: operating activities, command of line officials Three different staff roles: pure, auxiliary, and control

The Role of Staff: Pure Pure-staff or staff: staff that provide general support to agency’s line activities Provide assistance to the president, not direction to department officials other than to convey presidential instructions Job responsibilities: identifying issues likely to require presidential action, assure due process among interested departments, ensure affected parties are clearly informed of decisions once taken, monitor implementation of presidential decisions, assess results of decisions taken

The Role of Staff: Auxiliary Auxiliary staff: staff that provide a housekeeping function or administrative support Job responsibilities: accounting, research, public affairs, publishing

The Role of Staff: Control Control staff: staff that help top officials secure leverage over the organization Job responsibilities: monitoring performance and enforcing compliance with standards and procedures

Reorganization Reorganization efforts have tried to solve these organizational concerns Two attempts: comprehensive reorganization of the executive branch through an act of Congress or by altering small handful of bureaus Most presidents have attempted reorganization

Obstacles to Reorganization Few reorganization ideas translated into action Departments and bureaus seek to protect turf Iron triangle: interest groups, congressional committees, and departments or bureaus that share interest in an issue area – May resist reorganization efforts if threatened

Conclusion Organizational problems fall into patterns that reoccur and can be seen at all levels of government Structural problems but also political motivations to organizational failure Agencies come to life when studied as groups of people charged with programs with ambitious and contradictory goals and bureaucrats with overseers controlled by executive, legislative, and judicial branches