EDHE 6710

03.11.2009

(four case studies presented tonight; political and anarchical)

Presidential Teams

makeup of such a team?

various functions of these teams:

utilitarian/formal/task related/decisions (very focused, specific purpose)
expressive/social/interactive/counsel (group that actually has the confidence of the president)
cognitive/sense making/intellective/feedback (giving feedback to the president; can be difficult)

some of these functions are more likely to be found in specific institutional models

factors that limit teams:

leadership orientation: does the prez believe in team leadership?
institutional context; may work better in certain inst. models than others
comfort with sharing information; is the prez comfortable sharing info?
trust; if you can't trust, you won't be open to teams
respect; do you respect the individuals that are a part of your team? their opinions, positions, etc.? if you don't respect them, you probably shouldn't have them on your team.

constant competition for power and resources
"a supercoalition of subcoalitions with diverse interests, preferences, and goals" (Birnbaum citing Cyert & March)
meetings filled with drama; have to be prepared for the inevitable "gotcha" (leading questions, etc.)
can't just "do your job" to succeed
collegial = family; bureaucratic = machine; political = shifting kaleidoscope
indifference (to others' goals, thoughts, etc.)
instability provides stability
president as mediator (trying to keep some kind of balance)

organized anarchy: do what you want (with inherent limitations)

problematic goals (unreasonable, controversial, don't fit the institution)
unclear technology: many systems of delivery, but no way of measuring their effectiveness
fluid participation: may not know who is involved in what
"garbage-can decision-making" (Choen, March, Olsen): not sure why some items end up in the "garbage can"
presidential leadership: symbolic
such a system can only function if you have a lot of time or resources