Channels, Fall 2018

Page 80 Schwall • 21 st Century Javelin Catchers presidential presence (Cohen, Hult, and Walcott, 2012). This involvement also takes into consideration the individual chief's skill, time, and relationship to the president. A COS is more likely to be viewed as a proxy if they are perceived to be close in relationship to the president and can accurately speak for the administration's policies. White House Organization There are three major models of White House organization (Johnson, 1974; Campbell, 1986; Hess, 1976; Buchanan 1990). 2 Research suggests that chiefs of staff, in addition to presidents, help to shape the organizational structure of the White House (Cohen 2000; Kernell and Popkin 1986). Both individuals sit at the top of the White House hierarchy and both steward the influence and power needed to change the organizational structure. Each management style is associated with costs and benefits that inevitably surface when a particular organizational structure is used. In practice, it is rare to find strict adherence to one management model. Many presidents use different models in different policy areas. These models closely coincide with Porter's (1980) classification of presidential advisement patterns, which are less concerned with the establishment of a certain organizational model and more interested in patterns of policymaking within the larger executive branch. Formalistic Model . The formalistic model features a clear-cut division of labor and hierarchy of power, with particular duties ascribed to specialists (Buchanan, 1990; Walcott and Hult, 2005). The formalistic model can be found in presidential administrations such as Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush and feature a significant delegation of presidential authority to specialized staffers, including the chief of staff. 3 The formalistic model has several advantages. First, the model's emphasis on division of labor to specialized staffs tend to yield more thorough and a higher quality policy analysis than other models. The formalistic model is closely associated with the centralized management advisory style that requires White House staff to filter ideas and impose the imprint of presidential goals on all actions undertaken in the president's name (Porter, 1980). Second, the formalistic model allows the president greater flexibility in how he allocates his time and energy. Other models, which provide much freer access to the president, gain those benefits at a significant cost: the loss of presidential control over time and schedule. Potential disadvantages of the formalistic model include a tendency toward slow and cumbersome operations. Further, many scholars point to a lack of presidential accountability in the formalistic model because its tendency toward greater presidential isolation and delegation increases the amount of actions taken by others in the president's name, increasing the likelihood that some of those actions will be beyond the scope of the president's constitutional powers. Competitive Model . The competitive model is marked by a deliberately open and informal 2 See Figure 1: Performance consequences of management styles. Source: Pika, 1988. 3 The prevalence of Republican presidents using the formalistic model highlights the phenomenon of "partisan learning," defined as the "tendency to transmit organizational philosophy along party lines" (Hult and Walcott, 2004). Until the appointment of Hamilton Jordan as COS in the Carter administration, no Democratic president had a formal COS, opting instead for the collegial method of White House organization (discussed below).