THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF IN AMERICAN STATE PARTIES BY Roland H; Ebel A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1960 615730 o//‘7/r/’ ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF IN AHERICAN STATE PARTIES by Roland H. Ebel American political parties have been increasingly enlisting the aid of the professional and the expert to assist them in administration, research and public relations. This study presents an analysis of the role played by the paid professional staff personnel in American state parties and the impact of this role upon the power structure of these parties. Professional party staff personnel are defined in this study as salaried employees, responsible to the elected political leadership and working full or part-time as con- sultants or administrators in the headquarters or field office of a political party, candidate or public official. The definitim arbitrarily excludes both clerical personnel and elected party and/or public officials even though such Persons may be engaged in some functions of a technical or Professional nature or appear on the party payroll. ' The role played in the party by the paid professional and its effect upon the partypouer structure is approached from two perspectives. First, an inventory of the profes- Bional staff structure of America's 104 state and territorial ii Roland H. Ebel parties was made. By means of a questionnaire sent to state chairmen, data of a descriptive character were gathered on the types of staff employed by the state parties and their perceptions of future staff needs. In addition, socio-economic and career data were obtained by means of a questionnaire sent to individual party staff persons identified by the question- naire. Second, an analysis of a single state (Michigan) as a case study was conducted to determine (1) the perceptions of the political leadership as to the role properly to be played by the professional staff within the political party, (2) the extent to which the professional staff knowingly or unknowingly attempts to or succeeds in violating this “proper role,” and (3) the variables making for staff influence within the party. By means of extended interviews with political leaders and staff persons in the Democratic and Republican parties of Hichigan data were gathered on the perceptions by both the staff and the leadership of the proper limits within which staff personnel should exercise discretion in making decisions. Particular attention was directed toward specific situations potentially involving staff people in discretionary Power, e.g., writingspeeches, dispensing press releases, recruiting local candidates, etc. As a framework for the analysis, party staff personnel were conceived of as bureaucratically structured and thus subject to the ”laws" of behavior common to bureaucratic 111 Roland H. Ebel organisations as elucidated by such theorists as Robert K. Herton, Philip Selznick,.Chris Argyris, Alvin w. Gouldner and Rensis Likert. Thus, it was postulated that staff person- nel will seek to maximize their power M the party leadership and engage in behavioral mechanisms designed to protect their prerogatives. This, it was postulated, would tend to place the party leadership and the party staff in competition for the decision-making power in the party. These hypotheses, however, were found to be largely invalid. The data disclose a relatively high level of agreement between the party leadership and the staff person- nel as to the appropriate role to be played by the staff in the political party, namely, that although party staff Personnel bring a substantial amount of expertise to the functions of the party with the result that this expertise Sives them an impact on party decisions, these functions are Perceived as properly exercised within and subordinate to the ideological and decisional framework established by “‘9 Party leaders. Furthermore, staff personnel manifest a h18h degree of role acceptance. They tend to view themselves 3' advice-givers rather than decision-makers. In contrast t0 the pathological tendencies in bureaucratic behavior described by Merton and others, party staff personnel mani- fe“ little desire to usurp authority or to run the party ”Sanizations themselves. It is the conclusion of the study that while theOl'etically a party staff might be conceived of as bureau- °P8tically structured, the decentralized nature of American iv Roland H. Ebel state parties tends to reduce the hierarchic element in the party staff structure. Staff personnel become attached to individual candidates, office holders and party leaders and, while they cooperate with each other, they are not centrally directed. The ”cellular” structure of the party staff re- sults in an ease of access by staff people to key party decision-making points in the party which, in turn, has the effect of producing a consensual image between the party leadership and the staff as to what the proper staff role should be not attainable in a strictly hierarchic structure. This is because ease of access (1) enables the staff to have a direct influence over leadership attitudes on the proper staff role, (2) reduces the difficulties placed in the way 0? Performance that would occur if staff were expected to accomplish tasks without either discretionary power or access, (3) provides the staff with a sense of participation in decisions and reinforces its commitment to group norms, and (it) provides continuous consultation which obviates the need for extreme discretionary power. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Few segments of the empirical world are successfully explored without the assistance of many individuals. I am particularly indebted to Professor Joseph LaPalombara of Michigan State University whose provocative seminars stimulated my interest in the relationship between party structure and political behavior and under whose guid- ance the research has gone forward and to Professor Ralph h. Goldman who has given innumerable hours of patient assist- once. A special debt of gratitude must also go to Professor Frank A. Pinner, Director of the Bureau of Social and Political Research at Michigan State University which under- wrote a large portion of the costs of the research. He also save valuable assistance in the formulation of the mailed Questionnaires. ' Mr. Lawrence B. Lindemer, Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Michigan, Mr. Neil Staebler, Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee of Michi- can and Mr. William Monat, former administrative assistant t° G(Wernor G. Mennen Williams were particularly helpful in amenSing for interviews with Michigan's political leaders and Staff personnel. In the final analysis, if it were not for the many State Party chairmen and members of their staffs who took vi the time to answer questionnaires and grant interviews, the Thus, it is to these, study would not have been possible. the unheralded heroes of research, that this work is dedicated . vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT....................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................... vi LISTOFTABLES.................... xi LISTOFFIGURESeooooceooooeccocoa. xv1 LISTOFAPPENDIXESOOOOcocoooco‘cooooc xv11‘ PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter I. THE PROBLEM OF ORGANIZED POWER. . . . . . . . 1 The Search for a Conceptual Framework . . . 14 Major Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 MethOdOIOU O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 29 PART II. THE COMPOSITION OF STATE PARTY STAFFS IN THE UNITED STATES II. THE STAFF ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PARTIES . #8 Regional Patterns in Staff Organization . . 55 .The Professionalization of State Party Staffs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6“ Perceptions of Staff Needs. . . . . . . . . 78 III. sons “BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS or STATE PARTY STAFFSO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 91+ Inter-party Emulation in Staff Composition. 94 Party Competition and Staff Composition . . 105 viii Chapter Page IV. AMERICA'S PROFESSIONAL PARTY STAFF PERSONNEL 110 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Career Patterns of American Party Staff Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 'Influences on Recruitment . . . . . . . . . 140 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 150 PART III. THE PARTY STAFF IN ACTION: FUNCTION, ROLE AND INFLUENCE ‘V. THE IDEAL STAFF ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Theoretical Conceptions of the Ideal SthfROlecooooooococooooo 157 Perceptions by the Political Leadership in Michigan of the Ideal Staff Role. . . . . 16h Staff Functions and Tasks . . . . . . . . . 167 The Political Staff Member as a Person. . . 174 The Staff Member's Attitude Toward Discretionary Situations. . . . . . . . . 186 Leadership-Staff Relations. . . . . . . . . 212 Attitudes of the Political Leadership Toward Their Own Competence . . . . . . . 215 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 VI. THE PROFESSIONAL PARTY STAFF VIEWS ITS ROLE . 221 Perceptions of the Job. . . . . . . . . . . 221 The Staff Person's Attitudes. . . . . . . . 231 Intra-Staff Relationships . . . . . . . . . 267 Composite Staff Perceptions: Acceptance of Subordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 ix Chapter Page VII. CONCLUSION: THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE PARTY STAFFRomooeeoooooooooococo 277 The Search for a Conceptual Framework cont inued O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 278 The Data and the Theory . . . . . . . . . . 290 A Reformulation of the Theory . . . . . . . 305 Table' 9. 10. 11. 12, H C LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER '11 The Composition of Democratic State and Territorial Party Staffs: National Two- Party Totals C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C State Party Organizations Reporting Staff P081t10n8 by Region 0 o c o e o o o o o 0'. Utilization of Public Relations Firms by State Party Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . State Party Staff Professionalization Scores. Professionalization Scores Arranged in Bank order 0‘. C,C C C C- C C C C C C C C C C C C Professionalization Scores by Region. . . . . Average Differences Between the Two-Party ProfesSionalization Scores. . . . . . . . . Perception by State Chairmen of Adequacy of Staff Organization. . . . . ... . . . . . . Perception by State Chairmen of the Adequacy of Staff Organization Arranged by Competi- tive Groupings O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Most Pressing Perceived Staff Needs Reported by State Chairmen o o o o 0'0 0’. e o a o 0 Rank Ordering of Perceived Needs Indices by Region. 0 O O O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Rank Ordering of Perceived Needs Indices by Competitive Grouping. . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER III Inter-Party Professionalization Score Differences: Total Points. . . . . . . . . xi 0 Page 50 56 68 71 7a 77 8O 85 87 88 9O 97 Table 2. 1. 2. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Inter-Party Professionalization Score Differences. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 CHAPTER IV Socio-Economic Characteristics of America's Party Staff Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Curriculum Pursued by Party Staff Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . Comparison of Socio-Economic Characteristics of Staff Personnel, united States Senators and American Business Leaders. . . . . . . . Functions.of Party Staff Personnel . . . . . . Rank Order of Qualifications Staff Respondents Feel are Most Important for Political Staff ”O I"! O C O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Length of Service of Party Staff Personnel . . Extent to Which Job Tenure of Party Staff Personnel Has Been Interrupted . . . . . . . Skills and Experience Staff Personnel Perceive Themselves as Having When First Hired. . . . Group Affiliations of Party Staff Personnel. . Persons Influencing Staff Members to Enter Party Staff work 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Rank Order of Influences Motivating Profes- sional Staff Personnel to Accept a P01112108]. Staff J01). o a e o o e o o o o o a Political Activity of Family of Party Staff Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order of Reasons Cited by Professional Staff Members to be Important in Leading Them to Accept a Political Staff Iob_q . . . Number of Party Staff Members who Plan to Remain in Party Staff Work . . . . . . . .‘. Employment Motivations of Party Staff Person- nel: A Bank Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 98 112 119 122 12h 128 131 131 133 137 Inc 1C1 143 l#6 1&7 1&8 . .- ”sa- Table 1. 2. 9. 10. 11. 112. 13. CHAPTER V Perceptions by Political Leaders_in Michigan of the Need to.Increase Their Professional Staff 0 O O O O O 0‘ O O C O O O O O O C O O 0 Staff Additions.Perceived as Needed by' . Michigan Political Leaders . . . . . . . . . Rank Order of Traits Desired in Staff per- ceived by Mishigan Political Leaders .‘. . . Political Agreement Expectations of Party Leadership in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . Utilization of the Professional Staff in Speedh Writing a e o o o c o o ... o e o o 0 Clearance Required.on Press Releases by Political Leaders in Michigan. . . . . . . . Circumstances under Which Clearance is not Required on Press Releases by Michigan Party RaderShip C C O C C C O C O O O O .0 O O O O . The Right of Public Relations Personnel to Revise Press Releases. . . . . . .3. . . . . The Right or Public Relations Personnel to Initiate Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . Extent to Which Michigan Party Leaders Feel That Persons in Staff Positions Tend to Make Decisions Rightfully the Province of July Constituted Officials . . . . . . . . . Summary Ratings of Political Leadership on Their Attitudes Toward Staff Discretion. ... Extent to WhiCh Political Leadership Expressed Feeling’at the Mercy of Their Staff, Personnel. 9-. o a o 0-9 a o are a o o a“: o Extent to Which Michigan Political Leaders Articulated a System for Evaluating the Reliability of Staff Research. . . t . . . . CHAPTER VI Perception of Change in Job by Michigan. Political Staff Member . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Page 170 172 175 180 188 196 198 201 203 210 211 216 218 225 Table 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 313. 14. 15. 16. Page Traits Perceived as Characteristic of_Profes- sional Party Staff Personnel by Party Staff People. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O, O O O O 0 228 Skills Perceived as Essential to Their Jobs by Party Staff People: A Rank Order. . . . . 229 Utilization of the Professional Staff in Speech Writing: Perceptions of Staff Respondents. . 233 Extent to Which Political Leadership Rewrites Speeches Prepared by Professional Staff: Staff Perceptions O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 235 Perceptions by Professional Staff as to Extent to Which Speeches Reflect Ideas of the Political Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Perceptions of Staff Respondents as to Their Utilization in the Preparation of Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . 239 Perceptions of Staff Respondents as to Clearance Required on Press Releases. . . . . 2&0 Clearance Required on Press Releases: Leader- ship and Staff Perceptions Compared . . . . . 241 Staff Perceptions of Their Right to Revise Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2&3 Staff Perceptions of Their Right to Initiate Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2th Right of Staff Personnel to Revise Press Re- leases: Staff and Leadership Perceptions compared 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Zus Right of Staff Personnel to Initiate Press Releases: Staff and Leadership Perceptions c ompared O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 2h 5 Summary Ratings of Professional Staff on Their Attitude Toward Discretion in the Handling of Press Releases. . . . . . . . . . 247 Initiative Permitted Staff Members in Field Organization Activities . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Perceptions by Staff Members of the Adequacy of Their Discretionary Power. . . . . . . . . 256 xiv Table Page '17. Perceptions by Professional Staff Members of the Place of Personal Convictions in Party Staff work. 0 O 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 26a XV Figure 1. 2. 3. LIST OF FIGURES Professionalization: Total Points. . . . Profile of Ideal Staff Types. . . . . . . Summary of ConClusions. . . . . . . . . . xvi Page 100 165 291 LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix Page A. Questionnaire: Political Party Staffs. . . . 311 B. Questionnaire: Political Party Staff Member 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 312 C. Interview Schedule: Political Leaders. . . . 320 D. Interview Schedule: Political Staff. . . . . 329 E. The Composition of Republican State and Territorial Party Staffs. . . . . . . . . . 348 The Composition of Democratic State and Territorial Party Staffs. . . . . . . . . . 352 F. Indices of Competitiveness. . . . . . . . . . 356 G. Professionalization Scores Arranged Accord- ing to Competitive Rating . . . . . . . . . 364 xvii PART I INTRODUCTION Political parties are increasingly enlisting the aid of the professional and the expert. What is the role (or roles) being played by the professional staff person in the modern party? What impact is he having upon the power struc- ture of our parties? An understanding of these questions is essential to the theory of party behavior. ' That the professional staff (or bureaucratic element) constitutes a center of power in the political party is probably an assumed but only occasionally articulated propo- sition. However, if it be assumed that in a hierarchically structured organization it is likely that persons having specific skills and access to reasonably technical informa- tion will tend to form an oligarchic group (and therefore a center of power) within that organization, it is not unreason- able to postulate that the paid, professional staff member will, by the nature of his skills and information, also constitute a power center in the party. This study is an inquiry into the power role(s) of the professional staff person in American state political Parties. It is believed that such an inquiry has implica- tions for two aspects of the science of politics. First, it seeks to determine what role is actually being played by this growing element in the modern political party and what impact this may have on both the political life and the ' nature of democracy as practiced in the United States. Second, it has as an objective the testing of a number of the central themes in organization theory within the context of the political party. These themes are (1) the “iron law of oligarchy' as enunciated by Robert Michels; (2) the effects of socio-economic homogeneity upon the power struc- ture of an organization as stated by Bendix; and (3) the power maximizing effects of a monopoly of information and the channels of communication as developed by Bernard, Simon and Selznick. More specifically, it is the purpose of this research project to determine whether such factors as the degree of homogeneity of a sub-group within a mass organization and its monopoly of special skills, information and channels of . communication tends to produce a controlling oligarchy as suggested by Michele and, in the case of a political party, where the political and bureaucratic elements constitute actual or potential rival oligarchies, what factors exist Imich might give the dominance to one or the other. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM OF ORGANIZED POWER Social scientists are becoming increasingly concerned with the role that organization plays in the maintenance and distribution of power in modern society. This concern stems from a growing body of data that indicates that the ability to organize the skills, matériel, and attitudes in any social system provides the person who controls this organization with the major instruments of social and political power.1 There are, in the literature of social science, three basic approaches to the problem of the role of organization in the achievement of political power. These approaches are (l) the inherent power of a highly rationalized, impersonal bureaucracy, (2) the tendency toward oligarchy, and (3) the dominance of certain skill groups. Although these approaches are highly interrelated they warrant discussion as distinct approaches to the problem. Buzgaugracy. The development of a highly rationalized administrative hierarchy which characterizes most of the public and private institutions in modern society has served as a major conceptual tool in the study of the maintenance and distribution of power. Based on the work of Max Weber, 'Mueaucracy - defined as an administrative system charac- terized by a high degree of specialization of function whose _* 1For example see Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin A. Trow and James 8. Coleman, Union Democracy: The Intggggl Pglitics 3 nun 4 participants are controlled formally by impersonal rules and informally by such incentives as a regular salary, a pension and an “office" - has been viewed as the most highly rational, efficient, and relentlessly powerful of all forms of human organization.2 Bureaucracy ”chains“ to itself its own partci- pants on the one hand and,on the other, completely 'overtowers' the person from the outside who seeks to deal with it.3 There are a number of factors that contribute to the power of bureaucracy as an organizational type. First, since bureaucratic organization is based upon technical specializa- tion, it tends to have a near monopoly over the knowledge and skills related to the matters with which it is concerned. The amateur dealing with a bureaucratic structure in the areas of its competence, as Weber suggests, '. . .finds himself in the position of the 'dilettante' who stands oppostie the expert....'“ Second, and related to the above, the hierarchic structure of a bureaucracy is designed to enable it to function in a much more rational manner than either an individual or a non-bureaucratically organized group of people are capable. This stems from the face that the expertise of many specialists are linked together in a com- munication net that provides the decision-makers with a ¥ 9; the Intemtional Typgggaphica; Union (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 195 : Reinhard Bendix, Higheg Civil Segvants in Am ric Societ (Boulder, 0010.: University 0 Co orado Press, 19 9 ; and Philip Selznick, The Or ani i W a n (New York: The McGraw-Hill Company, 1952;. 2Max Weber, “Bureaucracy,” m M W ' Es s in @2131, 'Ed. R. H. Gerth and C. Wright ills New Ior Oxford University Press, 1946). 31big., pp. 228-229: 232-233. “Ibid., p. 232. rs‘” I (.vn s ‘h‘iw . “fin-cu ‘0": s .‘ HI .r.' 0"- .'.l greater amount of relevant data than is available to either a single individual or an unorganized group.S Third, the substitution of rules for individual caprice tends to augment the control of the organization over its own members. Thus, the organization can be controlled from the top like a gigantic machine. This reduces the area of discretion «- the area subject to discussion and choice among its members.5 Bureaucracy, however, has its ”other face". More recent empirical research has shown that a bureaucratically organized administrative system does not, in fact, behave like a machine: Rather, its operation more nearly resembles a social system: Rcethlisbsrger and Dicks-on, reporting some of the earliest research in this field, have shown that bureaucratic structures tend to break up into informal sub- groups which may cr may not cooperate with the goals of the entire organization: They point out that people are incapa- ble of acting as cogs in an impersonal machine. Rather, . they tend to form small groups based on the face to face relationships which exist in the larger organization. These groups serve the dual function of providing the individual with his need for a sense of social relatedness and providing the group a measure of protection against pressures from without ad W from withm. The individual. becomes k WW ‘— ——'v 5Noel r. Gist and L. A. Halbsrt, Ur - t , (4th ed.; New York: Thomas I. Crowsll Company, 195 6Lipsst, 2;. 51., 22. 943., pp. hos-#04. :a:gd‘h‘ n‘poobv "‘ “.5 .01.- I O a part of this type of sub-group both because he wants to and because he is forced to by social pressure.7 Truman, in discussing the legislative process, describes the manner in which loyalty to the face-to-face group takes precedence over other loyalties - in this case, loyalty to his conception of the legislative office. Membership in the legislature...tends to set a man somewhat apart from others who have not had that experience and to expose him to competing claims from the legislative group, claims supplementing the in- fluence of expectations concerning public office..." These, like other groups exact a measure of conformity ‘ as the price of acceptance. Any person entering such an organization, at whatever level, is more or less subject to its claims if he wishes to 'belong" to it or to lead it. Once accepted he comes to identify the goals and claims of the unity as in some degree his own. Among those claims may be a body of unwritten rules definingthe proper way of hegdling the claims of various groups outside the unit. The develOpment of‘ sub-groups within bureaucratic structtn'es stems from the basic psychology of the individual. This psychology is composed of a number of elements. First, people do not become depersonalized when they participate in bureaucratic organizations. Rather, they participate as ”wholes”. Argyris points out' that the highly rational, impersonal and specialized nature of a bureaucratic structure tends to run counter to the personality of the average adult. Instead of being allowed to act independently, _ A v 7F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson; 35mg- ment mad the '0 er, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University mai~1 ’ PP. 3'5600 8David B. Truman, The Gove al P cess (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), pp. 3- 5 0 i 7 positively mid work with a diversity of objects, modern bureaucracy relegates him to a passive and dependent status and anchors him to a limited range of tasks. This creates tensions which result, he says, in one of a variety of dis- turbmces within the organization. One such disturbance is the creation of infomal groups to sanction deviant behavior.9 Second, every individual is subject to forces outside of the bureaucracy in which he works. As Truman points out, "the notion of a neutralized public servant without con- flicting motivations is an illusion; The public official is not a 'blank sheet of paper on which the organization can write what it wills". As a human being he comes to his position with group affiliations and preferences and he forms additional ones during his tenure".10 The fact that a bureaucratic structure is part of a wider social structure which also generates pressures which impinge upon the. loyal- ties of the individual defines the limits of collaborations“ _. A jw— f 96hrise~Argyris, "The Individual and Organization: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment," A s tive 3c ° ce Quanta-3;, (June, 1957). 3-23. lorm. 22c cit" P. 450. ( $11". J. Rcethlisberger, H ement M e (Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni ty recs, 1950 , p. 43. Odegard states, for instance, that a public servant has loyalties to (1) political leaders, (2) administrative a“sari-ore and subordinates..(3) the courts, (4) members of his profession, (5) the ethical system of the state aid society, and (6) his own soul and personal integrity. See Peter 'R. Ode ard, ”Toward A Responsible Bureaucracy," m w. 292 March, 1954). 19. Third, the individual brings to the orgmization his own irrational‘ities. Mn is motivated as much by emotion as by logic. His values, hopes and fears will have a direct effect upon the way in which he performs his duties.12 In addition, the very regularized pmcedures of the bureaucracy often result in what Merton calls ”trained incapacity" . The necessity of following regulations, for instance, produces a bureaucrat who is overly concerned with rules. There is developed in him the psychological tendency to displace the goals of the orgmization with its regulations. Thus, the docile bureaucrat may become, in effect, a sabotetn' of the goals of the organizatien.13 Bureaucracy's "other, face“ is well summarized by Philip Selznick in his article, "An Approach to the Theory of Bureaucracy." He states that sociological research re- quires that a number of hypotheses be made about btn'eaucrscy. First, that every formal organization creates an informal organization which works to modify the goals of the tonal organization. Second, this process of modification is due primarily to the fact that the professed goals of the ' orgmization often conflict with or fail to solve the immedi- ate problems of the participants. Third, since people are primarily concerned with the solution of their on personal k _A “F‘- _____ lzfloethliaberger, 22. LE" PP. 20-310 13Robert K. Merton, "Bureaucratic Structure ad . Pairsenality," Read I (éd. Robert K. Merton, Allss P. G,ray Hoe y and Rama: 0. Solvin; Glencoe, I111-11013: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 364-366. 9 problems, the actual procedures of the organization (as reflected in the activities of its members) will reflect attempts to solve personal and internal problems of the organization itself rather than accomplish its formal goals.14 What, then, is the power of bureaucratic organization? Does the existence of a group of specialists organized in hierarchic fashion produce an irrestible administrative organism or are there tendencies within such structures that substantially reduce the power of the bureaucracy to Operate effectively? This brings us logically to a consideration of a second approach to the organization of power - the phe- nomenon of oligarohy. I gligggggz. The tendency toward oligarohy, states Robert Michele, "....is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very princi- ple of organization".'15 This is due to the fact that an organization requires a certain corps of expert officials , A; 14Philip Selznick, "An Approach to the Theory of Bureaucracy fl American Sociolo ical Review‘ VIII (February, 19#3). #7-51. For empirical studies of the modification of goals within a bureaucratic structure see Melville Dalton, ”Unofficial union Management Relations," American Sociolo i- Rsviow* XV (October, 1950), 611-619; geymour Martin Politics f the em Socialism' The Interns Un encoe, 11.: he Free Press, 19 4); and Mel l e Da , "Managing the Managers," Human Orgggiz - tion, XIV (Fall, 1955). 4-10. 15Robert Michele, Political Parties: A figgiolggica; Study of go Oligmmgg figs es 0 g cm emocragx en.and Cedar P lencoe, .: e Free rose, 1949) p. 35. 4 10 tdguide its affairs. Because it takes time and experience to. acquire these technical skills, the rank and file per- ceive the incumbent official as indispensable to the organi-. zation- Coupled with this is the fact that the leadership develops the techniques (such as the control of the election machinery) to perpetuate itself in office. Describing the principle of oligarchy as it, relates to the leadershippf political parties by members of legislative bodies Michele ‘ states, As...experts, intimately acquainted with all the hidden aspects of the subject under discussion, many of the deputies are adept in the art of employing digressions, periphrases and terminological. subtleties, by means of which they surround the simplest matter witha maze of obscurity to which they alone have the clue. In this way, whether acting in good faith or in bad, they render it impossible for the masses, whose 'theoretical interpretere' they should be, to follow them and they elude all possibility of tee cal control. They are the masters of the situation. Oligarchy, for Michels, rests upon three essential factors: (1) the incompetenceof the rank-and-file member, (2) the technical indispensability of the expert officials, and (3) the psychological and economic compulsion of the official to seek to retain his present position since to return to his former position would mean the loss of income and social status.17 The ”iron law of oligarchy" has been both praised and blamed. Maurice Duverger sees the principle of oligarchy P—'—— “— 16M' D. 85s 3“ $130 pp. 83-84e . A 1711315,” pp. 86; 206-207. See also 0. W. Cassinelli. The Law mugarchy, Am 0 c Sc 0 - ‘ fl. XLVII (September, 1953). 7 1. w— 11 .aaa basic phcmmonmmopcan political parties.18 In .fset. he accepts this notion as descriptive of most all . social groups. He states, In consequence the leadership .of political parties - like that of most present-day social groups: trade unions, associations, business rims. and so on - iggmedzgld mmiagciéafityii9dmocrauc in unset. Trow and Coleman in their study of the Inter- .naiinnal Typogranhical Union. come to a somewhat less sweep- ing conclusion. “They discovered that many of the oligarchic mechanisms found by Michele and his followers ("monopolies of power-status, funds and communications channsls which. the officials of most ordinarily possess....") were‘not notice- able in the ITU; or, if present, ”their effects were greatly mitigated by other elements in the system'.20 On the other hand, at the close of their study, they concluded somewhat circularly that the reason why oligarchy did not.exist in the ITU was because no simle clique had a monopoly. of the resources of politics. 21 Opposition to the theory of an iron law of oligarchy, then, stems from three major sources. First, as was . 18Maurice Duverger, Poilitical Parties. Trans. Barbara and Robert North (New York: ohn ey an Sons, Inc., 1951:) pp. 133-190; 19942.. p. 133. 201.1.pset, 23., 21,-: o ._ cit... p. 13. 2 , p. 413. Probably their most valid con- clusion is t ”...there is much more variation in the tarsal organization of associations than the notion of an iron law of oligarchy would imply." See p. 405. 12 mentioned above, there is no conclusive proof that oligarcmr is. characteristic of all organizations. Second, the law, of oligarchy assumes that the followers are either an inert mass or, in the case of a bureaucracy, that the bureaucracy is- a completely neutral and monolithic organism. The theory neither takes into consideration the possibility of rival oligarchies nor the fact that inbureaucratic organizations there are strong tendencies toward goal modification and, at times, outright sabotage, both of which would have the effect of. reducing the power of the oligarchy.22 Third, Michele never developed an Operational definition of what-oligarohy is. nor did he clearly differentiate it from "organization” itself.23 Skill-Elia Theory. A third approach to the problem of. organized power centers aromd the notion .that a political system receives its essential character from the types of skill groups that control the instruments ‘of.-power,;i.e.. those organizations which have the power to mobilize skill. material and consent. .. Lasswell and his disciples seem to view political institutions and the other organized instruments of power sabeing essentially neutral and subject to capture by that Smup whose particular skill either dominates society as a whole or is able to make alliances with other skill groups. __ 223mm, 91.. «215.. p. 71. 2303831110111, 221 Me; PP. 773-784e 13 Thus, he sees contemporary revolutionary movements as alliances among experts in propaganda, organization and coercion.24 While Lasswell is concerned primarily with the types of. skills that become generally dominant within a given political system, other students of organization have focussed upon the power roles of certain organized skill amps within» m political and social institutions. Par- ticular attention has been given to the intellectual and the expert.25 This literature tends to minimize the power of the intellectual and the expert. Merton, for instance, holds that the expert in a social science role experiences a high degree of insecurity due to the imprecision of his discipline. This facwr, he asserts, produces a high degree of docility.26 Reitzler paints the same picture The expert, he states, is 30 enmered with his specialty that he is willing to work . 2“Harold D. Laeswell, The World Revo ution Of 0 .Tlme: A Framework For Basic Folio Rese ch (Stanford, 5131?ch Stanford University Press, 19515; Daniel Lerner, Nazi Elite (Stanford, California; Stanford University Rees, EEI); and Harold D. Lasswell. "The Garrison State and S cislists on Violence " The American Journal of Sociolo XLVI January. 1941) 455—4653. 25599 Robert K. Merton, "The Intellectual In A Public Bureaucracy," in Social Theo_1% and Social Strucgge (Glencoe, s: The Free rose, 19 9 Kurt eitzler, On the Paychology of the Modem Revolution," Social Resear x (September, 1943), 320-336; and Harold E. w'll' ens—El. in u .. .1 lactglg In Lagr U?i§ns: Organization% Pressures E Igofessioga; oles” encoe, linois: ree ress, 26Mem, 22o 9-1-30, PP. 162-165. 1a at it for anyone who recognizes its value to the extent that he is willing to pay for its exercise. Experts like to be given a chance in their own field. Full of ideas of what could be done there, they are eager to do it. Therefore they are inclined to accept the leads 5 who can be expected to give them their ”chance.“ 7 The Search For A Cause u Fr me o k This inquiry, as was stated at the outset, is an attempt to study the role of a specific group of persons (the professional party staffer) in a mass organization. SIt is assumed that - because these persons work under some form of hierarchically ordered authority, have specific Skills and access to reasonably technical information - this group is potentially an organized minority in the party. This assumption rests on two secondary assumptions. First, it is assumed that their access to technical informa- tion, skill, etc., provides them with the tools necessary to bacome an organized minority. Second, it is assumed that common skills, professional activities, etc., may very well Produce group identification that will weld them into an Organized minority in the party structure. This set of propositions necessitates the raising of two related questions. First, what is the nature of this youp‘f Is it a bureaucracy, an oligarchy, or a skill group? Second, which of these approaches is most able to provide us ¥ with a valid conceptual framework with which to study the 27Reitzler, 92. gi_t_., p. 328. 15' power role of the paid professional in modern political parties? It is with this latter problem - the search for a conceptual framework - that this section is concerned. Bureauczgcz. One method of approaching the power role of the professional in the political party is to view him as a member of a specialized bureaucracy within the party. His power, in theory, would stem from the inherent power of any ”ideal” type bureaucracy as conceived by Weber and his disciples.28 The use of the concept of bureaucracy as a conceptual framework, however, has a number of weaknesses. First, while the concept is helpful in a theoretical explanation of how organization maximizes power, it does not, in itself, solve the problem of competing internal sub-bureaucracies which tend to sabotage the formal bureaucracy itself.29 It is theoretically possible that a formal bureaucratic structure might be so divided by competing informal internal bureau- cratic structures that it has no power at all. Second, the use of the bureaucratic concept as an explanation of the power inherent in organization is not adequate since the power of bureaucracies are greatly diluted Is their own pathological behavior. Sub-group loyalties and (niqnesy the overlapping group affiliations of its members, and _ ‘ 3. 28See pp. 3-4. 29Me1ville Dalton, "Conflicts Between Staff and Line Hm: erial Officers,” American Sociological Review, XV (June, 1950 . 342-351. 16 the perversions springing from the ”trained incapacity" of its participants all go together to make a bureaucracy some- thing less than the overtowering force which Max Weber en- visioned. ' Third, even in the early theoretical literature, bureaucracy was viewed somewhat paradoxically. 0n the one hand, the bureaucratic structure was the most powerful of organizations in the areas of its competence. On the other hand, it was looked upon as neutral and subject to control by whomever was in a position to give it orders. The only solution to this paradox lies in the contention that bureaucracy is in a power position vie-a-vis those persons that approach it from without but is completely docile with respect to its own master. What, then, is the power position of a bureaucratically organized group of party professionals? Who are the outsiders and who are its masters? Must the concept of bureaucracy be disgarded as a framework in which to study organized power? While no actual bureaucracies having all the elements which might logically give them the power theoretically inherent in their formal structure actually exist, the ”ideal type" itself can be used as a reference point by which to measure deviation from the ideal. we must look, then, for ‘mueaucracy acting as organizational power wherever we can find it. It is conceivable that agtn. l bureaucratic power - My only reside in a very small segment of a formal bureaucratic structure. 17 Oligazchy. A second method of approaching the power role of the professional party staff person in the political party is to view his as a member of an oligarchy. This approach has at least two advantages. First, it enables the researcher to disregard formal hierarchic relationships as primary evi- dence of the staff person's power role and allows the researcher u: seek for systematic power relations wherever he can find it. Thus, uninhibited by considerations of formal structure only, Duverger was able to discover various types of oligarchies in European parties.3° Second, oligarchy can be used as a method of more accurately conceptualizing the structure of the cliques and sub-groups which reduce the power of a formally organized bureaucracy. Probably the major drawback to the concept of oligarchy as it was formulated by Michele is that he never clearly differentiated between oligarchy and bureaucracy as organizational types. In the final analysis, both con- ceptions or descriptions of the power role inherent in organization are based on the monopoly of skill and channels of communication. The major difference between them con- sists in their formal structure. ,An interesting problem is posed when one looks at the Dover position of the professional party staffer in terms of — ) 3°Duverger, pp. 933.. pp. 151-157. 18 these two conceptualizations. As far as formal party organ- ization is concerned, the professional staff person is a member of a bureaucracy technically under the control of an oligarchy, i.e., a political oligarchy. Skill-Elite Theory. The third approach to the problem of the power role of the paid professionals in a political party is to view them as a skill elite whose power rests on the fact that they monopolize certain skills and expertise which are indispensable to the party leadership. This ap- proach, however, also has its weaknesses. First, can it be said that a monopoly of skill by itself constitutes power? It would seem to this writer that the possession of skill does not necessarily mean that the skill group would work together with the degree of unanimity required to give them power. hThere would be good reason to believe that the same forces would be at work as are present within a bureaucracy, namely, cliques, "trained incapacity," etc., which would greatly reduce the actual power of the group to either materially affect or sabotage the decisions of the formal party leadership. Second, as Wilenski points out, the political leader- ship tends to acquire the expertise that the outside expert is originally recruited to provide.31 Thus, there gradually develops a rival skill elite which reduces the indispensa- bility of the original one. Thus, the question must be 31Wilenski, 22. 213;” PP. 198-205- 19 raised - does skill in itself have any long-range power role in a political or social institution? Third, the same question must’be asked of the skill- elite construct that was asked of the bureaucratic approach, namely, how does it differ from oligarchy? Are not Vilenski's intellectuals Michels' oligarchs? ngclusion. It is the opinion of this writer that, in spite of its defects, oligarchy presents the most promis- ing framework within which to approach the study of organized power. Following Duverger, it is contended that oligarchy manifests itself in a number of structural forms.32 A given ,oligarchy may have the structure of bureaucracy or may be tied together by charisma or face to face relationships or may have aspects of all three. By using the conception of oligarchy'as a theoretical model the researcher is enabled to look at an organization in all of its parts and identify the centers of power and determine what structural charac- teristics and technical skills provide them with whatever power they do possess. For instance, some of the elements producing power for which the researcher can look are (1) the delegation of discretionary power, (2) a knowledge of the ”ropes," (3) irreplaceable skills and knowledge held by certain individuals and, (4) those customs and procedures which tend to cement the functionary in his position. AA 32Duverger, pg. git," pp. 151-157. 20 For purposes of this research project the leadership of the political party is viewed as being composed of two actual or potentially rival oligarchies - the political oligarchy and the professional oligarchy. That is, there are or may be two groups within the party that have a sub- stantial monopoly of skill, knowledge of the ”ropes," a network of supporters, etc. The political oligarchy has the essential structure of a "camarilla," i.e., ”a small group which makes use of close personal solidarity as a means of establishing and retaining its influence."33 The group is composed of both legal and ”behind the scenes" leaders of the party. The professional (staff) oligarchy is essentially a bureaucratically organized skill group whose ties are pro- fessional in nature. Members of this group are recruited to do a specific job for the party and are paid a salary. Although theoretically the political and professional oligarchies stand in superordinate and subordinate positions respectively, they are viewed as actual or potential com- petitors for power. Attempt should be made to state clearly what is meant by power. Power, as it is used in this study, has tmth positive and negative features. In the positive sense, Inwer can be described as the frequency with which the oPinions and viewpoints of neither an individual or a group ___ f f 3?;pig,, p. 152. 21 within the organization become the basis of actual decisions. It is recognized that technically the power to make decisions rests with the official party leadership. However, the ability of elements of either the professional or political oligarchy to see its viewpoints become the official policy of the party is what is meant,- in this instance, by power. More simply stated, is the political oligarchy forced to listen to and accept the opinions of the professional oli- garchy it it is to survive or feel that it is in its own best interests to do so? If so, power is said to reside in the hands of the professional oligarchy to the extent to which its advice is accepted. If the survival of the political leadership does not depend upon the advice of the profes- sional oligarchy (or if it fails to perceive that it does) or if it does not believe that following such advice is in its best interests, power is said not to reside in the hands of the professional. In the negative sense of the term, power denotes the extent to which either an individual or a group of indivi- duals in the organization are capable of sabotaging the legitimate commands or goals of their superiors. It should be noted that this sabotage may stem from deliberate intent or may result from such non-deliberate causes as "trained incapacity.” In either case, it is probably more accurate to say that power, when used in this sense, is more re- flective of lack of power on the part of the party leader- 8hip than actual power on the part of appointed subordinates. 22 Majoz Hmfleses The propositions being tested can be grouped into two areas. A first group of propositions relating to the power position of the bureaucratic element in a political party can be stated as follows: Pamsiflon I: In general terms, the professional staffs in American political parties will have one of the following two power roles: a. By virtue of their special skills, access to specific types of information, and monopoly of certain channels of communication, the party professionals will be in ‘a position to either control or materially influence the decisions made at or by the ”political” levels of the party- or b. Due to the fact that the party professionals are either lacking in special skills and information or are trained to be "neutrally competent"34 they will be manipulable by the political ele- ments in the party . More specifically, their degree of influence will depend upon the following factors: _‘ ‘- 3“By ”neutral competence” is meant essentially docillity, 1.e., willingness on the part of the party bureaucrats to take orders and do a "good job“ irrespective of their on: convictions. v—i ——— .——v 23 Skigl'Faetgzg l. The degree to which their skills and informa~ tion are perceived by the political leader- ship to be crucial to the success of the party. 2. The degree to which these skills and informa- tion are perceived by the political leader- ship to be of a technical nature and thus not within their competence. 3. The degree to which the channels by which this information reaches major decision points are monopolized by the party professionals. 4. The degree to which the professional haying these skills is perceived by the political leadership to be irreplaceable. Irreplace- ability can be defused as the difficulty with which an.outside staff expert can be re- cruited and prepared to adequately discharge his duties. Factors making for irreplace- ability are (1) lack of adequate replacements for existing personnel, (2) lack of suf- ficient time (particularly during a politi- cal campaign) to train such replacements, and (3) lack of sufficient funds to hire such replacements. d., O 1. 24 z » Fa s The degree to which the party bureaucracy is structured in such a way as to maximize opportunities for discretion on the part of the professionals. Structural factors mak- ing for discretion are (1) size of staff organization, thus increasing the need for delegation of authority, and (2) degree of geographic, functional and/or political decentralization, thus increasing the remote- ness of centralized authority. That is, the more the party deploys its personnel in the "field," breaks up its staff into functional specialties (such as fund raising, organizing, publicity) and/or allocates staff to differ- ing political campaigns (state-wide, GOD! greesional, state legislative, etc.) the more remote will be the central authority and the more discretionary power will reside in the hands of the professional. The degree to which the party professionals control the instruments of internal party control, i.e., the party press and other media of communication such as manuals, instructions, research documents, policy statements, reports, etc. f. 25 Sgcigl Factors 1. 3. The degree to which the party professionals are characterized by sufficient socio- economic homogeneity so as to enable them to act with a fairly high degree of unanimity and agreement of purpose. It is assumed that the existence of sub-groups within the professional bureaucracy will decrease its capacity to act in concert, and thus, to decrease its influence. The degree to which the party professionals perceive themselves as having common values, goals or needs. The degree to which the party professional, individually or as a group, is perceived by the political leadership to have the support of segments of the party's rank and file or of segments of the society as a whole. The degree to which the professionals_them- selves establish the "tone" of the party as a result of the fact that they are constantly engaged in verbalizing its attitudes and opinions for the party leadership. WA 1. The degree to which the professional per- ceives the party‘s goals as being contrary to his personal norms. 26 2. The degree to which the political leadership requires the professional staff person to engage in activities which violate his per- ception of his role. 3. The degree to which the professional oligarchy is characterized by the disruptive elements known as ”trained incapacity", i.e., red tape, "playing it safe," etc. ngpgsitign II: The ability of the political leader- ship mn a given party to resist the power of the professional staff will depend upon: 8. b. C. d. M A The degree to which the professional staff is imbued with the attitudes of neutral competence. The degree to which the professional staff is recruited from a social stratum that is sub- stantially "inferior“ to that of the political element of the party. The degree to which the political leadership in the party has its own expertise and its own sources of information. The degree to which the political leadership does not identify with the frame of reference and/or the attitudes of the professional staff.35 __ — 35There may very well be a tendency for state chair- men, for instance, to develop "administrative" interests and attitudes at the expense of political" ones: to identify with his staff rather than with the party's political leader- sup. their e.‘ 2955‘ w Add to 1:51 27 More specifically, the power of the political leadership vis-a-vie the professional staff rests upon (1) the extent of their independent expertise and knowledge and (2) upon their ability to develop docility on the part of their pro- fessional staff through recruitment, training and super- visory techniques . It to insure f. 8. is assured that the political leadership will seek this docility by the following techniques: By recruiting personnel that is in sympathy with the ideology of the party. By using in-service training programs to develop attitudes of ideological sympathy or neutrality on the part of the professional staff. By employing whatever sanctions are at its disposal such as the power to promote and dis- charge personnel. It is also seemed that there may exist within the body of the party professionals certain characteristics which will tend to enhance their tendency toward docility. These are: h. 1. .10! A sense of identification with the party and/or its success. A legal-rational attitude which tends to accept unquestioningly the legitimate orders of the political leadership. A code of ethics which militates against organi- zational sabotage. -.." tbs“ .p‘ .Mi WWW - .’ u _ f . a; new. '- W131i ' _~"‘_:&:‘f-$' refer! 2*; ‘3‘ ‘32 ‘ ‘ O. :a¢~_ 28 k. A feeling of having an ”investment" in the organization in the sense of seniority, promotion possibilities and/or salary. 1. A lack of suitable employment alternatives. Propggition III. A relatively high degree of socio- economic homogeneity within the bureaucratic element (pro- fessional staff), thus producing relative ease of communica- tion and common attitudes within it, will have a reinforc- ing effect upon either Proposition I or II. Conversely, lack of such homogeneity will tend to reduce the degree to which the bureaucratic element will be successful in influencing the political element since the Vchances are great that they will be unable to act in con- cert.36 A second area being researched is the extent to which the bureaucratic element in the party exercises a unifying (or disunifying) effect upon the party. One might reason- ably expect that a high degree of shared attitudes on the part of the professional staff will tend to produce party unity provided their opinions on matters within their pro- vince, e.g., campaign, finance, public opinion, etc., are sought by the political element in the party. This can be set forth in the following proposition: ‘_ 36Lack of homogeneity may, however, be a barrier against neutralization due to the “unanticipated conse- quences" in an organization containing diffuse elements. s“ Q’ 0" I "‘ cv- ,'"'v.. aa‘ ‘ .. :‘.A I. s ‘e I ET 29 Propgsitipg Iv: Homogeneity of attitudes on the part of. the party professionals will have a unifying effectxon the party to the extent that their advice is somhtby the political leadership of the party. Methodology The Manchu staff m. The professional staff person is a salaried employee, responsible to the elected political leadership and working full or part-time as a consultant in the headquarters or field office of a political party, candidate or public official. He is a "man of know- ledge” in the-sense that he brings or’is expected to bring to the problems to which he is assigned a body of specialized information and skill.. This skill may be derived either from formal training or "experience."37 This definition excludes clerical persons, elected officials and politically accountable party personnel such as state'or county chairmen, national comitteemen, etc. However, it is recognized that the researcher will find that the line between the political and staff role will often be blurred- Thus, the differing degrees to which the staff role is played by persons participating in the day-to-day activities of the political party can be presented schemati- cally as follows: k A ——v 7—— ———— ~— 37nerinition based on Wilenaki's definition of the staff person in trade unions. See Wilenski, pp. git” p. 32. “'7. FV As 1. 30 Politiciag with staff functions - e.g., State omens Staff persons who have political power or politi- cal functions. a. Hold Jobs as a reward‘for political activity. b. Hold Jobs as a representative of a particular political leader or faction. Staff persons who have no directpoliticalpower or political connections. Clerical personnel who engage in certain» types of work that can be classified as a staff or pro- fessional function - e.g., the secretary who occasionally speaks to party womens' groups.39 As a meme of determining the extent to which the above named persons have staff roles (as opposed to politi- cal or clerical roles) the following criteria may be applied: 1. 2. 3. They hold appointive rather than elective posi- tions. That is, they donot hold cons itution- ally prescribed (and thereby protected positions. Their recruitment is based on their training and/or experience in one of the following types of skills rather. than upon their status within the party. a. Research b. Managerial c. Publicity Pure clerical activity consumes no more thm.l25 percent of their time. For purposes of this study, the powerrole of the professional .staff in state party organizations is being examined. Thus, the professional staff of a' state political Party can be said to include the following elements: —— V—f v—fivv a 33Not. 'a professional staff person under this definition. 39Not a professional staff person under this definition. 1. 3. 31 Paid organizers at the state and county level. Full-time public relations men, advisors and administrative aids at the gubernatorial, state legislative and state central committee levels. Consultants and consulting firms retained by the political party or individual candidate to work in.specific fields such as advertising.and fund raising. / Research Design. The research will view the role of the staff it is the essential the state performed scriptive from two perspectives. At the descriptive level objective of the researcher to determine (1) the structural outline of the professional staff at level and (2) the basic activities and/or functions by these Persons. More specifically, the de- section of the project will provide the following information: 1. Organizational status of state professional staffs A. Number and types of staff pgsitions in the party organ za one. s expec ed the the following types will appear: 1. FUnctional types40 a) Organizational, e.g., field organizers, etc. b) Publicity c) Research and policy formation d) Administrative, e.g. administrative assistants, office managers, etc. e) Fund raising k 40 There will, no doubt, be an element of functional overlapping with certain staffers playing more than one role, e.g., a publicity man may play a policy role. B.. 32 Organizational types. (The professional staff person may perform a given functional role in , any one of the following locations in the total organization.) a) State or county party organizations b) Special committee of the state or county party organization, e.g., county finance committee c) Candidate's personal staff, e.g., campaign manager d) Incumbent official‘s personal staff, e.g., governor‘s public relations experts Conditions of employment 1. 2. 3. Salary Terms of employment a) Consultant fee or per diem b) ”Nine to five“ type Type of tenure arrangement a) Career security . b) Subject to capricious dismissal 11. Description of the professional staff person A. ,Socio-econcmic data: Age, sex, education, social and economic class, religious background, racial and/or ethnic background and community of origin. 1. 2. Skillndata Types of Jobs or functions performed a) Skills required b) Level of training required Training a) Training possessed upon entry b) Types of in-service training 33 C. Career line data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Parents' occupation and education Professional staff person's education Occupational history Haw recruited into staff position Tenure a) Length b) Continuous or intermittent Evaluation of future career opportunities III. Recruitment and training A.- Recruitment 1. ‘2. Channels of entry a) Reputation for information or skill b) Professional status c) Recommendation (1) By other staff member - (2) By party leader (3) By other professional person ‘ d) Successful volunteer work e) Special training, e.g., Citizenship Clearing House program, Folk Fellowship in Practical Politics, etc. Requirements a) Educational level b) Experience (1) In politics (2) In other fields 34 c) Degree of political and/or ideological commitment B. In-serzgce training: Schools, workshops, confer- ; eneea, trust onal manuals“, apprenticeships , professional societies and/or professional confer- ences C. Supervision 1. Evaluation procedures 2. Disciplinary procedures The foregoing descriptive data performs two functions for the total research project. First, it provides basic descriptive data about the party professional staff as a developing political institution in our society. Second, it provides much of the backginund information for the more analytical sections of the project. The descriptive section of the study was conducted on a nation-wide basis involving the following procedures: (1) A questionnaire sent to the state chairman of every state and territorial party asking for basic information on the composition of their staff and the major staff needs of their particulu- (2) Upon receipt of the above question- naire, an instrument designed to obtain socio-econcmic md career data on the individual staffer“2 was sent to staff persons identified in the questionnaire. This descriptive data on the structure and composition of state party pro- fessional stern is reported in Section II of the study. ¥ '— 4189e Appendix B. ”See Appendix C. 35 At the analytical level it is the objective of the researcher to do an analysis in depth of a single state as a case study to determine (1) the perceptions of the politi- cal leadership as to the role properly to be played by the professional staff within the political party, i.e., the proper limits within which staff persons should exercise discretion in making decisions, (2) the extent to which the professional staff knowingly or unknowingly attempts to or succeeds in violating this ”proper" role, and (3) the vari- ables making for staff influence within the party. Relative to the perceptions of the political leader- ship as to the proper role to be played by the professional staff, it has already been stated that the ability of the political leadership in a given party to resist the power of the bureaucratic element will depend in part on the degree to which the former does not identify with the frame of reference and/or attitudes of the latter.“3 Thus, it was expected that the following would be discovered by the researcher: l. The political leadership would view itself as both the legitimate and actual source of decisions on political and/or party matters. 2. The political leadership would define the staff role as properly ranging from technical assistance to advice h 4‘ “BSee Proposition II, d, p. 26. 36 but will reject the idea that staff should .-be allowed the discretion to make policy decisions. 3. That segment of the political leadership which is publicly elected would tend to define the proper staff role more narrowly than the non-office holding segment of the party leadership (state chairmen, county chairmen, etc.). This is due to the fact that: (l) the non-office holding segnent has duties similar to those of the staff and will tend to make less of a differentiation between themselves and the staff. (2) The office holding segment will have a keener sense of their role as "officials” - a role placing ultimate responsibility in their hands alone and thus not subject to delegation.. A 4. The political element will show a limited aware- ness of the extent to which: (1) discretionary decisions are made directly by the staff, and (2) that the over-all boundaries of their decisions are set by the information, appointments, etc. channeled up to them by the staff. Relative to the extent to which the professional staff knowingly or unknowingly attempts to or succeeds in violating this ”proper" role, it was expected that staff persons, while having a greater awareness of the discretion- ary aspects of their role than the political element, will not have a clear conception of their true power. The major theoretical prepositions relatim to the palitical leadership have been set forward on pages 22 to 28 of this chapter. The primary system employed [in .QQ‘K‘HM ehueid‘ u Xe I.“ U £“gn64 “'ithg' 37 analysing the extent to which the behavioral patterns sug- gested by these propositions actually characterize the attitudes and behavior of leadership and staff personnel will be to compare the perceptions of the political leader- ship as to what they feel constitutes the proper staff role with respect to these patterns, and the perceptions of staff members as to what they feel the proper staff role to be. Attention will be primarily directed to specific tasks and duties engaged in by staff personnel. For instance, the researcher will not be particularly interested in eliciting from party leaders a generalized statement of the extent of discretion staff people should have in handling press re- leases, but rather, the circumstances under which staffers must clear such releases, the circumstances under which minor and/or major changes can be made, etc. What emerges from this type of analysis is a composite pictm'e of the general attitudes of the party leadership and party staff of what properly constitutes the staff role as measured by a series of attitudes toward specific day to day situations. It is thus possible to draw a number of conclusions relative to the types of relationships existing between the leadership and the staff and their relative power positions in the party, in terms of the following questions: L 1. Do the leadership and staff elements hold similar or conflicting views of the proper staff role? 2, If similar, do the role perceptions of the leader- ship tend to produce docility or power seeking on the part I. 38 of the staff? That is, to what extent do the expectations of the leadership permit and/or encourage the staff to in- crease its discretionary authority at the expense of the leadership? 3. If conflicting, do the role perceptions of the staff tend to motivate them to increase their power vis a 33 the leadership? 4. What phases of the staff operation tend to be free from control by the leadership, either because the leadership doubts its own competence, because such freedom conforms to the expectations of the leadership, or because the staff mnopolizes expertise in the area in question? Data g‘athgmg procedures. Attention has been called to the fact that the role of the professional staff in' American political parties will be viewed from two per- spectives, the descriptive and the analytical. Descriptive data was obtained by the use of two different mailed questionnaires. A one-page questionnaire"4 was sent to 104 state and territorial party chairmen in March, 1959 asking them to report the types of staff personnel assigned to their party organizations, the utilization they make of public relations firms and their perceptions of future staff needs.45 A total of 94 party chaimen responded for a Msee Appendix A. 45 The mailing of the original questionnaire to state chairmen obtained from lists in the office of the Michigan Republican State Central Committee and the office of the Michigan Democratic National Oommitteeman was followed by two subsequent mailings 'to non-responding chairmen. 39 response rate of 93.8 per cent. Those not responding. were Republican party chairmen in Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Wyoming and Hawaii and Democratic party chairmen in Missis- sippe, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. The data obtained from this questionnaire are discussed in Chapters II and III. A second mailed questionnaire46 designed to obtain information on the socio-economic background of party staff personnel, their career patterns and expectations was sent to those persons whose positions were listed on the question- naire retmned from the state chairmen. The questionnaires were sent to a total of 167 persons in two waves in April and May of 1959. From this mail-out there were returned 74 usable questionnaires for a response rate of M.9 per 002111.47 A —*—‘v “See Appendix B. ”Little consensus exists concerning the relative validity of varying rates of rettn-ns from mailed question- naires. Estimates vary from Herbert A. Teaps' contention that" . .one seldom needs to content himself with less than 95 per cent returns . . ." to the more moderate con- tention of Robert Ferber that” . . .the response rate is usually anywhere from O to 50 per cent.“ Lawrence E. Benson states that questionnaires mailed to elite groups will average about 40 per cent.- See Herbert A. Toops, "Question- naires,” En cl 0 edia of Educational Resear h- ed. Walter S. Monore rev. e acm- an Company, 1950), pp. 949-950, Robert Ferber, ”The Problem of Bias in Mail Returns: A Solution,” Pablic Opinion §uarter1b XII (Winter, 1948), 669 and Lawrence enson ' urveys Can be Valuable," .239" X (Summer, 1946’ 237. On the basis of the literature one is forced to pre- dict that the sample employed in. this aspect of the study tends to slightly over-represent those persons who are more \/ 40 No claim is made for the representativeness of the sample. Some states, notably Michigan where the researcher is fairly well known, showed a greater response thm others. However, all of the usable questionnaires were employed in the analysis.48' Thus, the conclusions drawn from the data are considered to be exploratory and of partial validity in nature. These data are discussed in Chapter IV. The data for the case study section of the project were obtained by interviews with party leaders and profes- sional staff people in Michigan during the Spring of 1959. The miverse selected for interviewing contained the follow- ing individuals : highly involved inpartystaffworkmdlieintheupper socio-economi’c levels - in other words, the elite elements amongthe party staff personnel. However, since it is not unlikely that due to their professional status party staff people will naturally fall in the upper socio-econonic levels as far as the society at large is concerned, it can be argued that thehfactors motivating replies to mailed questionnaires will work to produce a fairly-“representative group. It could also be the case that the .9 per cent returning the questionnairerepresents a higher proportion of permanent, non campaign-only staff people. See Philip Salisburg, "Eighteen Elements of Danger in Making Mail Surveys,“ Sales Mmgement XLIV (February, 1938) 28ff. For the problem of small numbers see footnote 50, p0 Me ”The number of usable questionnaires by state are as follows: ' Arizona 2, California 3, Colorado 1, Connecti- cut 3, Delaware 2, Florida 1, Georgia 1, Illinois.2, Indiana 2, Iowa 1, Maine 2, Michigu: 18, Minnesota 2,- New Hampshire 1, New Jersey 5, New Mexico 2, New York 5, North Dakota 2, Oklahoma 1, Oregon 2, Pennsylvmia 4, South Dakota 1, Texas 2, .. Utah 1, Vemont 1, Virginia 1, Washington 13), geet Virginia 1, Wisconsin 2, Wyoming 1, ad Washington, . . l. ' 41 Democratic Pm Leaders Chairman, Democratic State Central Committee ' Democratic National Committeeman Vice Chairman, Democratic State Central Committee Democratic National Committeewoman ....Governor, State ofMichigan Justice, Michigm Supreme Court Lt. Governor, State of Michigan Michigan Secretary of State Michigan Attorney General Minority Leader, Michigan House of Representatives Republican Pglitical Loggia Chairman, Republican State Central Comittee Republican National Committeeman Vice Chairman, Republican State Central Committee Member, Republican State Central Comittee and volunteer gubernatorial campaign manager, 1958 1958 gubernatorial candidate and titular leader of Michigan Republican Party Speaker, Michigan House of Representatives Chairman, Kent County Republican Committee Chairman, Oakland County Republican Committee Chairman, Wayne County Republican Committee Former Chairman, Republican State Central Committee Fomer gubernatorial candidate Former Speaker, Michigan House of Representatives49 Il9While not currently holding public or party office, \ 42 Democratic Professional Staff Personnel Press Secretary to the Governor of Michigan Executive Secretary to the Governor of Michigan and 1958 campaign director Former Executive Secretary to the Governor of Michigan Speech writer for the Governor of Michigan Researcher and Speech Writer for the Governor of Michigan Administrative Assistant to the Governor of Michigan Former Administrative Assistant to the Governor of Michigan Administrative Assistant to the Lt. Governor of Michigan Director of Public Relations, Democratic State Central Committee - Field Organizer, Democratic State Central Committee Field Organizer, Democratic State Central Committee Former Field Organizer, Democratic State Central Committee Administrative Assistant, Democratic Caucus, Michigan House of Representatives Republican Professional Staff Personnel Public Relations Director, Republican State Central Committee Press Relationstssistant to Republican Gubernatorial Candidate these three former party leaders must be considered to be a part Vith of the party leadership and all three have worked closely staff'members currently on the Republican Party staff. 43 Administrative Assistant to Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Assistant to Republican Gubernatorial Candidate and to former State Chairman ' Administrative Assistant to the Chairman, Republican State Central Committee Organizational Director, Republican State Central Committee Field Organizer, Republican State Central Committee Executive Secretary, Kent County Republican Committee ‘Executive Secretary, Wayne County Republican Committee Executive Secretary, Oakland County Republican Committee Former Executive Secretary, Genesee County Republican Committee Executive Secretary, Genesee County Republican Committee and former press secretary to the Governor of Michigan Executive Director, Republican State Finance Committee Administrative Assistant, Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives A.number of considerations went into the selection 01’ the interviewees. First, it was decided to limit, in so far as possible, the interviewing to current political 1asiders and professional staff personnel. However, due to the high turnover rate in both categories, a few persons "1‘0 had recently vacated official leadership positions or a“Eff jobs were interviewed. Second, it was relatively difficult to define the boundaries of the state party #‘ M II he 44 organization. That is, it was difficult to decide whether or not a definition of the Michigan Republican or Democratic pmy should include congressmen, state legislators, county chairmen or state administrative officers and their re- spective staffs. The plan followed was to include only those segments of the party leadership and staff structure that are related significantly to state political problems and the state-wide campaign. Thus, congressmen, congres- sional candidates, local officials, local candidates and their staffs were eliminated as not being significantly related to either state political problems or the state-wide culpaign. On the other hand, in addition to the state party chairmen and the staffs attached to the state central com- mittees, the Governor, state legislative leaders and county Ohairmen and their staffs were included in the interviewing. In addition, such state party leaders as vice-chairmen, na‘lzional comitteemen and committeewomen who, although not directly responsible for directing the party staff but who Work closely with them, were also included. It should be 110th that, when defined in this fashion, close to a total uluv-arse of state political leaders and staffers was ob- tallied.5° 50Although analysis based on a small number of cases Evolves substantial risk, in m exploratory study such as 11:13. one is necessarily committed to small numbers of cases. u should be noted, however, that the data. under scrutiny is °t a sample but rather. almost a total universe. Paul T. thnd’ Ralph M. Goldman and Richard 0. shin point out in 13 connection that " . . . numbers as small as 4 to 10 in 45 _ A number of the problems in the interviewing situation should be noted. Irho most recurring difficulty was that of insufficient time for the interview. Political leaders - particularly office holders - work under tight schedules. Often it was impossible to obtain sufficient time to com- plete the interview. Consequently, it was often necessary to omit questions in, the interview schedule in order to accommodate the time limit of the interview situation. As a means of over coming this problem, attempt was made to arrange the questions according to their importance without 8attrificing the continuity of the interview. However, the interviewer often found it necessary to innovate as he moved thmugh the interview. A second problem stemmed from the fact that the Pea‘pondents had such differing functions and tasks in the —_¥ *— fl 3 Single cell of a table can be statistically significant “hen the relationships lean strongly in one direction; that if an event can happen in only one of two ways, the proba-p ' bility that 4 events will happen in the same way by pure chlance is approximately 6 in 100: for 5 cases, it is about 3 in 100. In .most statistical work, results are considered 81.Snificant when no more than 5 cases in 100 may be expected ‘0 deviate'due to chance alone.'.I See The Politics of PI'eaidenti Nomin Conventi s (Washington, 5.5.: The No 8 n ution, 9 0 Po - Furthemrs, George W. Snedecor states thats”It seems reasonable that the possibilities of munch in ample IllaErna are more and more restricted as the sample size ap- ~ Washes that of the pepulation." See S atistical Methods 4581:1: 121.; Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State M ege recs, 9 , While it may appear that the small mmbers problem flees in connection with the 74 mailed questionnaire re- P011393, that data are being primarily used for descriptive es whereas the Michigan data are being offered as p‘I'H-al validation of hypotheses concerning staff behavior. 46 pm that questions applicable to some were inapplicable to others. Thus, there resulted a certain unevenness in the quantity of responses to any single question. Finally, the interviewer met with a certain ammmt 'of evasion md stereotyped responses on the part of a number of interviewees. This was particularly characteristic of office holders. The end result of these difficulties is that the re- searcher was not able to obtain a tightly knit set of responses to 'his questions. Rather, he obtained a series 01‘ ”cases" which, while not susceptible to rigorous statisti- ca]. analysis, when taken together, however, present a fairly clear picture of politician and staff perceptions of the PPO‘per staff role. PART I I THE COMPOSITION OF STATE PARTY STAFFS IN THE UNITED STATES Section II of this study seeks to outline in some detail the staff organization of the Democratic and Republi-f can: state and territorial parties. Chapter II will largely comprise an inventory of the state and territorial party staffs as they are currently organized. Chapter III will examine some of the major variables effecting the composition 01' party staffs. Chapter IV will describe the socio-economic background and functions of the nation's political staffers. ‘1'? CHAPTER II THE STAFF ORGANIZATION OF THE STATE PARTIES Staff organizations of state and territorial parties in the United States are characterized by great diversity. If staff size is used as a measure of this diversity we find that party staff organizations attached to state central committees range from no staff at all in either party in Nevada to thirty employees attached to the New York Republican organization. Size of staff is not the only factor differentiating state organizations from each other- Party organizations differ in the functions performed by staff personnel. Many Party organizations are content to limit themselves to secretarial help while others apparently feel the necessity to have on their staffs such ”luxuries" as full-time di- rectors of women's activities. This chapter will describe the staff organization of mflaky-four state and territorial parties responding to a Hpom zusom :H nauHHsHoonu n Hunooxo can agapooth o>Husooxo ‘ .noshHono manna on upssuaHuam o>Hpanp Honcomaon nonconop n m uanHaua moosHonH .o>Ha:ooxo Hogans» a mo unmadmmdwmqmme m 5H mm N N m mm OH OH n m a: nHmaoa m m mu H H n HH 3 m a : Hm oHumpooaoa m m :m H H 3 3H m s w H : mm :mOHHpsgom .y ma m2 no «a L <3 m mm m om so to ma uuoHuamm HoHuouHhaoB can macaw magma an coaaonom noHuHmom uo oaks zoom you mHmpoa HanoHumc mHmqu hupmmnozp "muhmum magma HloouHALOp can one»: OHumhooaoa mo :oHaHmonaoo oxanu.H mqm1 '{‘..’~:wr—-.¢!4‘ V .5; . 3.3a; -'~.£H.Vr:k —- ‘._ ‘% L'P‘NT‘J‘V 9 nui¢J1uisgieru 22”.. L "iii... g. :2," . - a 5.! ,IPE: 4x.“ . 55 professional competence, however, is a major “perceived need” of twenty-two state chairmen.n A third observation also tends to belie one of the current myths of politics, namely, that public relations budgets are the preserve of the Republican Party. Twanty- five party chairmen reported having one or more professional public relations men on their staff. Eleven, or M per cent of the total, were Democrats. More Republican chairmen, however, appear to perceive the need for this type of pro- fessional assistance. Twelve Republican as against eight Democratic chairmen cite PR help as their “one or two most pressing staff needs.”12 Regional Patterns In Staff Organization Party staff organization appears to follow certain ”Eglonal patterns. Table 2 summarizes the data on staff °Pganization by region. Again, the most universally reported staff position by region, other than clerical, is that of administrative 3’818tant, executive director or executive secretary with f1"e of eight regions reporting 50 per cent or better of t"'heir party organizations having this position filled. Public relations personnel is concentrated in three regions - 11See Table 10. 12See Table 10. . . .:._LH.. (rap. ‘ it; Q. 11‘ 14 .u. . a m! n m o o H H o N o n m sH Hssoa 56 N m o o H H o H o H n a oHsnsoosoo n o o o o o H. o N m m ssoHHsscsm moumum muonusom H N H H n w n o N o m oH Hausa H m H H N n o o H o N n oHssnoossa o n o o H m n o H o s n ssoHHnsaom nosssm oHpssHs< sHssH: N m o o H H H H o H s NH Hausa o s o o o o o o o o n w oHsssoosso N s o o H H H H o H H s ssoHHpsssm noumpm cmsHmsm xez mz o .. Iv E1? . Thaifimmmww -. l'. o..’ . Tl . : . . "Noumea mesOHHou on» no concaaoo one uaonoa use: o N o o o o o o o o o o N Horse 0 H o o o o o o o o o o H oHsssoosso o H o o o o o c o o o o H ssoHHssnom meHao»Haaoa N N m o o o o N o o o s m Hosea , H H n o o o o H o o o N n oHsssoossn H H N o o o o H o o o N s ssoHHsscsm sosssm oHNHosN N N a o o o n H o o H N “H Hausa H H s o o o N H o o H s m oHssssoaon H H n o o o H o o o o s N ssoHHnsnsm nousum mHsuaaoz ma m2 0 «H <3 m as a on so so as msHsson nos .02 cochanooIIN mamoappm on box son «0902 ”OOHm onaosm .mummHmH sHmmH> «monopHaaoa .mo»mmHnnm3 .mowmao .mHsh0hHHmo .HHm3m= .mxan« «oHuHomm . .memohz .nmaa .oonoz 3oz .mom>oz .mmmumo: .onmcH .ocmaOHoo .mmouHa< «mHsamso: .spoxso suaom .suoxmo sane: .mxnmunoz .nmwmma uanmHm .mHanONHa .oHso .maomoanz .sme20H: .msoH .manomH .mHosHHHH «Hmaamoo .mHmepH> use: .oomuommoa .maosmeo .H930anz .ommHhamz .thSNnou «socaom .mHmHmaH> .mmwoa .mmHHoamo mason .mmHHoamo sumo: .HmaHmmHNNHz .mmmHuHsoq .sHMAoeo .ooHaOHm .usnmmxh< .sampsH< ususom .o.a .moumesmma .mHmmthmamom .xao» no: .homaoh noz «ohmsmHmo uermmHu< 0H: .amoaao> .camHuH 000nm .eaHnmnamm sez .auaonasommmm: .omdm: .u50Huoemaou “cmmHmdm xez v0anu§OUDIN mqmH> >>H>H> Middle Atlantic States Delaware New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Whahington, D. C. >>H>> HH>IH Southern States .Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Texas Virginia 1' __ *1 .Border States >HIIIIIH>> HHHHHHHHI> Kentucky Maryland Missouri Oklahoma ' Tennessee west Virginia H>I> HIHHH> H I TABLE 8--Continued 81 Region Response of State Chairman Democratic Republican Central States Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin HHHbH HI Plains U) 6" m d' (D m HI>HI >> Kansas Nebraska Nerth Dakota South Dakota HHHH >>HH Mountain States Arizona Colorado IIdaho Montana Nevada New Mexico lJtah \iyoming ¥ ¥ Alaska California Hawaii Oregon Washington - e pqr~.-<.- I- *- HH>>>H>H Pacific States HHHHH I>HHH>H> HHI HH 82 TABLE 8--Continued WW- . Response of State Chairman Region Democratic Republican Territories I H Virgin Islands Puerto Rico *Abbreviations: A = Adequate; I = Inadequate; - = No Response. 83 Percentage of State Chairmen Viewing Their Professional Staff As Adequate Republican (Competitive) 70 Democratic (Non-Competitive) 50 Democratic (Marginally Competitive, Democratic Dominant) 50 Democratic (Competitive) 46 Republican (Marginally Competitive, Democratic Dominant) 40 Republican (Marginally Competitive Republican Dominant) 38 Democratic (Currently Competitive) 33 Democratic (Marginally Competitive, Republican Dominant) 15 Republican (Non-Competitive) 10 Republican (Currently Competitive) 0 One possible way to explain the high satisfaction level on the part of the state chairmen in competitive states is to postulate that they already have highly developed staff organizations. This proposition is not supported by the data since the competitive states have a lower average professionalization score than the marginally competitive states. Probably the only valid explanation for this phe- nomenon is that the parties in the competitive states are reasonably successful and therefore do not view the building of a professional staff as a major road to power. 84 It should be noted in this connection, however, that there is a marked tendency in all competitive groupings for the minority party to be lgpp satisfied with its staff organ- ization than the majority party. This is particularly true in the South where only the Republican organization in Alabama expressed satisfaction with the adequacy of its staff. Thus, it would appear that minority parties feel that the building of a professional staff is at least one source of future electoral success. This data is summarized in Table 9. As a second method of attempting to ascertain the perceptions of state chairmen as to their staff needs, they were asked to indicate what they considered to be their “one or two most pressing staff needs.” This data, already dis— cussed earlier, is summarized in Table 10. Again it will be seen that the Republicans nationally have slightly greater perceived needs than do Democrats.23 As a means of determining the types of states and regions which have the highest level of perceived needs, a perceived needs index was developed based on the professionalization index employed earlier in this chapter. The formula is as follows: 1. State parties expressing a need for personnel in the ”general executive“ category were given four points for each item listed. 23Democrats nationally had a three per cent higher level of satisfaction with their staff than Republicans. 85 TABLE 9.--Perception by state chairmen of the adequacy of staff organization arranged by competitive groupings States Response of State Chairman Democratic Republican Total Non-Competitive Group Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Louisana Mississippi North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Total Adequate A A I I I A 3 (50%) H HHIHHHHHHH|> (10%) 4 (25%) Competitive Group Arizona Colorado Connecticut Illinois Indiana Iowa Nevada New Jersey New Mexico Massachusetts Minnesota Washington Wyoming Utah Total Adequate ‘. N HHHH>>>>H>H>>H (50%) HI>>>H> H>>HI \l 3"! (64%) 14 (56%) 86 TABLE 9--Continued ____________________T______________________________._________. Response of State Chairman States Democratic Republican Total Currently Competitive Group Kansas I I Maryland - I Pennsylvania a I Total Adequate 1 (50%) o (0%) 1 (205:) Marginally Competitive Group: Democratic Dominant* Kentucky A A Michigan. I I Missouri A I Ohio - - Rhode Island - A West Virginia I I Total Adequate 2 (50%) . 2 (40%) 4 (44%) Marginally Competitive Group: Republican Dominant California Delaware Idaho Maine Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New York North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Vermont Wisconsin N HHHHHHHH>HH>H I I A I I I I A A I A A I 5 Total Adequate (15%) (38%) 7 (26%) *Total adequate fer marginally competitive group: Democratic Party - 4 (23.5%); Republican Party - 7 (38.8%) and total - 11 (31.4%). 87 .om .o com .NsoHuNH>oanas c» max some 0 NH o o N NN oN o NN NHssoa o N o o N o N o o oHooaooaoo o N o o H NH NH o NH ssoHHnesoN :o 0 NH <3 N on NN so No Hosea enoaaHmao woman he copnoacn News: woman oopHooaoo wsHNNono unozau.OH mumrd)d halo pic: hlc>rdod 100.0 Total 44 "See Table 4, Chapter 2. 98 .3} TABLE 2.--Inter-party professionalization score differences Inter-Party Number of States Per cent Point Difference Reporting This Difference of Total o 10 22.7 1 7. 2 211: 1 ‘+7.7 3 2 3i 2 4 7 4} 1 74.9 5 2 5i 1 6 0 7 3 1 8; 1 9 2 10 1 100.0 Total 44 “*See Table 5, Chapter 2.. 99 Finally, the following graph demonstrates the extent to which the two parties parallel each other in profession- alization. Twp-party incidence of staff positlops. .The degree to which similar positions appear on the staffs of the two parties in any given state is also an index of the phenomenon of emulation. Four staff positions have been selected for analysis: general executive, field organization, finance and public relations. When the two-party incidence of each position for all of the 44 comparable states and territories is computed it is discovered that 56.3 per cent of the units manifest a similar pattern of incidence relative to the general executive category; 90.9 per cent are similar with respect to the presence of field organizers on their staffs; 81.8 per cent are similar with respect to finance personnel; and 75 per cent are similar in their recruitment of public relations personnel. While the gross data above would indicate a high level of inter-party similarity as opposed to dissimilarity, this appears to be due largely to the fact that in many states neither party has the given position on its staff. Thus, when the similarities and dissimilarities between party organizations in only those states havipg the staff position are computed, a somewhat different result obtains. Of the 31 states having general executive personnel, 38.7 per cent are similar while 61.3 per cent are dissimilar. Of the seven states having field organization personnel on 100 3H. NH. 0N Nu NN NN on 330w Hesse "aoflsnaddsoanoouoami . n ouduaw 102 Nahum Suddnaum 01!. 0 CW 0 .— Cu 5.3m 032038 ('1 ”N s .3 .‘...K l1)“ 8:580). H 103 their staffs, “2.9 per cent are similar while 57.1 per cent are dissimilar. With respect to public relations personnel, 38.8 per cent states were similar; and with respect to finance only one of nine units is similar. In conclusion, it is the opinion of this writer that the data on the two-party incidence of staff positions in the states supports the hypothesis that the parties tend to emulate each other in the development of staff organ- ization. The fact that the degree of similarity is lower when the states not having a given staff position are re- moved, can be explained by the fact that there is, of necessity, a time period within which this emulation takes place. That is, one party will tend to lag behind the other in its perception of the utility of a given staff function. Over time, however, emulation will take place. The uti ation of ub c elati n f s. The extent to which public relations firms are utilized by the state and territorial party organizations provides a final index of the phenomenon of emulation. Of a total of 35 comparable units, there are eighteen (51.“ per cent) in which both parties utilize a PR firm to some extent; four- teen units (#0 per cent) in which one party utilizes a PR firm and one does not; and three in which neither party uses such a firm. Of the eighteen states in which both parties utilize a public relations firm to some extent, in eleven 10“ (61.1 per cent) the level of utilization is identical,’+ and seven (38.9 per cent) differed in the extent of their utilization. Conclusiggs. The proposition that the two major parties within a state will tend to emulate each other in the size, general composition and professionalization of their staffs is, in the opinion of this writer, supported by the data. The evidence can be summarized as follows: 1. State parties will tend to have similar profes- sionalization scores. Between 20.5 and 22.7 per cent of the states manifest no professionalization point spread between the parties depending upon whether the Total Point Score or Professionalization Score is used. In #7.? per cent of the states the parties will be within two points of each other out of a total point spread of 1“. 2. State parties will tend to show a similar incidence of specific staff positions.‘ Similarity of recruitment of the four staff positions studied - general executive, field organization, finance and public relations - evidences itself in 56.3, 90.9, 81.8 and 75 per cent of the instances respectively. 3. State parties will tend to have a similar pattern of utilization of professional public relations firms. In 51.# per cent of the comparable states both “Respondents were asked to indicate whether they utilized a public relations firm on a year-round basis, during campaign periods only, or neither. 105 parties utilize a public relations firm to some extent and in 31.4 per cent of the states the utilization is exactly similar. The high level of emulation seen in the data tends to indicate that one party is highly motivated by what it sees the other party doing. There is, apparently, a good deal of trading of perceptions as to what organiza- tional devices will lead to electoral success. Further research is needed to determine whether parties trade perceptions in other areas of activity. The results of such research should cast additional light on the factors producing similarity between the parties and moderation in our party system. Part Com etit on and St f m siti n The notion that the minority party in the less competitive states is characterized by organizational weak- ness is relatively common to political science. Schlesinger states that: It is clear that the distinction between the one-party predominant and the one-party cyclical states lies in the position of the minority party. In the former states, the lesser party gives every evidence of being fragmentary and weak in organization. When it wins, it is most likely to be purely by default, due to some sudden vulnerability of the majority party, a major national trend, or a split within the major party. The electorate is not irrevocably wedded to the dominant party; a majority of the voters can bring themselves to vote for the opposite party. But the 106 minority organization is so weak that it is unable to follow up its momentary advantage, frequently because of its inab lity to present attractive and capable candidates. While organizational weakness extends to many party functions other than staff organization, the size and pro- fessionalization of a party's professional staff is one index of the organizational strength or weakness of the party. As a test of the proposition that the minority party is weak in the less competitive states, the Professional- ization Total Points Scores6 are used as a basis for com- paring the two parties on a state by state basis. Looking first at what Schlesinger terms "one-party states" it is found that the minority parties, as a group, have a slightly higher total Professionalization Total Point Score than the majority party.7 This can be seen from the following total points scores: 5Schlesinger, 22, cit,, pp. 1125-1126. 6See Chapter 2, Table 4. This score includes clerical positions. 7Four states originally included in the one-party category by Schlesinger were excluded. Arkansas, Hississippi and South Carolina were not included due to insufficient data. vermont can no longer be considered to be a one-party state. 107 £42229. W W Alabama 3 1 Florida 2% 4 Georgia 0 4; Louisiana b 0 Oklahoma 1 1 Texas 12% 10$ Virginia _3_ _3_ Total 22% 24 When the seven comparable states above are viewed indivi- dually, it is seen that the majority party has a higher score in three, the minority in two, and two states are even. Although the results differ slightly depending upon whether one looks at the total score or at the number of states that have a preponderance of points, it is clear that the minority party is not substantially weaker in professional staff organization in the states compared. The results are similar when the “one-party cyclical“ and “one-party predominant” states are compared.8 The 8The data of Figure_I in Schlesinger, op, gi§., p. 1122 has been up-dated to 1958. Thus a number of states fall into a different competitive classification than they did in the original article which dealt with the period 1900-1950. Currently, the states can be classified as follows: Competitive - Indiana, Washington, Idaho, New Jersey, Montana, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming. One-party Cyclical - Massachusetts, Minnesota, Connecticut, Michigan, ebraska, Pennsylvania, Iowa, South Dakota, Maine, Illinois, New York, Utah, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, West Virginia, 108 majority party in the seventeen comparable states classified as one-party cyclical show a one point edge over the minority party (148-147). In the nine one-party pre- dominant states the minority party has a one point edge over the majority party (39-38). The minority parties in both classifications manifest slightly higher professionalization levels than the majority parties when viewed on a state-by-state basis. In the one- party cyclical states the minority party has a higher level of professionalization than the majority party in eight states, a lower professionalization score in seven states, and two are even. In the one-party predominant states the minority party has a higher professionalization score in five states, a lower score in two states and two are even. There is, however, a substantial difference in the level of professionalization between all of the state organ- izations in the one-party cyclical group and the one-party predominant group with the former averaging 8.70 total points per party and the latter averaging 4.27. Conclusions. While the attempt to explain the difference between the position of the minority party in the one-party predominant and one-party cyclical states by attributing it largely to weak organization cannot be New Mexico. One-party Predominant - New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Ca 1 ornia, Kansas, Delaware, Oregon, Maryland, and Kentucky. See Joseph A. Schlesinger, ”The Structure of Competition for Office In the American States,“ Egggvigral Science, V (July, 1960) 197-210. 109 invalidated on the basis of one index of organizational strength, the data of this study tend to indicate a possible weakness in that approach. If it be valid to assume that the size and composition of a party's professional staff is somewhat reflective of the attitudes of the party leader- ship toward organization, then the fact that there is relatively little difference between the majority and minority parties in staff professionalization would seem to indicate similar attitudes toward party organization on the party of both sets of leaders.9 By the same token, if the structure of a party's professional staff organization is any reflection of its ability to mobilize its volunteer organization, the majority and minority parties tend to enter the political fray quite evenly matched. Thus, while it can be argued that the minority party has fewer volun- teers to do its work, a narrower base from which to finance its activities - both definable as organizational weakness - and that professional organization does not automatically produce grass-roots organization, the balance among the parties in professional staff development points to the fact that possibly organizational strength has not been as crucial a factor in electoral success as heretofore supposed or that this is one gap that the minority parties are rapidly closing. 9There is also relatively little difference between the attitude of the majority and minority party leadership rela- tive to their perception of the adequacy of their staffs. 64.0 per cent of the chairmen of the minority parties stated that their current staff is inadequate for their needs and 65.2 of the chairmen of the majority parties made a sim113r statement. See pp. 78-93. CHAPTER IV AMERICA'S PROFESSIONAL PARTY STAFF PERSONNEL Introduction Chapter II of this study outlines the basic structure of state party staffs in the United States. Those data, however, tell us nothing about the type of people who assume these positions, their career patterns or their expectations. The purpose of this chapter is to enquire into the socio- economic background of the nation's party staff people, how they are recruited, the length of their tenure, their general qualifications for the position they hold, and their expectations concerning their jobs and their future careers. The data of this chapter are based on an analysis of 74 questionnaires received from party staff personnel throughout the country in April and May of 1959.1 Of the 74 respondents used in this analysis, 89 per cent work on a full time basis and 97 per cent have regular appointments. Less than 3 per cent of the sample work during campaign periods only. Thus, this group of respondents tend to represent the regular employees of the 1See Questionnaire: Political Party Staff Member, Appendix B. For a discussion of the methodology employed in this chapter see pp. 38-40. 110 111 state organizations and not those professionals who move in and out of the political arena from election to election. It will be seen from Table 1, which summarizes the socio-economic characteristics of American party staff personnel, that the professional staffer is largely an urban Protestant from a relatively privileged background. Place of origin. Ninety-two per cent2 of the group studied have spent their entire lives in an urban area and only 4 per cent were raised in rural farm or non-farm areas. This is in constrast to 26 per cent of the population who, as late as 1950, lived in non-urban areas. Thus, while rural areas tend to place a disproportionate share of their numbers in governmental decision-making positions, particu- larly at the state level, they do not appear to be repre- sented on the professional staffs of our state political parties in proportion to their numbers.3 This datum leads one to suggest the hypothesis that rural groups view their political objectives as being quite specialized rather than broadly programmatic in nature. This would lead them to work in farm organizations which specialize in agricultural policy questions or in direct politico-governmental decision-making positions where they 2Two respondents in the ”moved“ category were raised in urban areas entirely. See Table 1. 3See Donald R. Matthews, The Social Background of Political Decision-Makers (“Short Studies in Political Science"; New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1954), able 7. T)" . i‘ > ‘7 ‘ '- " 'é’.’ - 'f . I _ ? 4“", ‘w-’-¢ ', , V , ' 'ofis‘ 3;. . L". ‘fsr 39.” M puff; ‘39—" ~ C I . '5. a ‘4. k - -- -. ':-- efflf ,‘ -911— ,, . ,. - o 3.003 i. 8.00.: 0: 3.005 :n Haven. .o.: 0 n no.“ 0 N .m.~ 0 a a peso Am.e- 0 an Ao.na 0 w Aa.sa v n mum me. n n-.nn 0 cu .n.~: 0 a- An.e~ 0 a mum mans madame an.m 0 a no.oa 0 e Am.m 0 n omseose An.em 0 am An.a~ 0 an A-.as 0 an m swam sadasa. .n no.ooav an no.oo-0 o: no.ooav an Hosea m a; 8.: a m R. N a a a.“ v N . . 3033a o.mo Aa.na V on .n. am 0 mm na.He 0 Ha swaths: m.em An.o~ 0 ma no. 0 0 s an.~m 0 Ha camsam museum Haunts: .N no.ooav ea no.ooav o: no.ooav em Hence -u- “a.nm 0 ma no.o~ V m 3 .Nn 0 Ha masses --- An.sa 0 mm no.0m 0 mm 3 .S 0 mm can: now .H commao>¢ Hmuoe namedansmom mumaooaoa .o«»m«ampomamn0 mmm Hoseassz Homsomaom mumps human m.m0aaoa< mo monumaacaomaoso vasomoooaodoomua.a mqmaoo one ooHHme 0.0 AH.5 0 n Am.u 0 n A~.0 0 N moamm m.nH A0.m 0 0 An.oH V a AN.0 0 N HooHaoHo 3.0H AH.an 0 0N Am.0n 0 3H A0.an 0 NH Honssouoooasom .HoHaowoeoz AmnuH. o.oH Am.NN 0 0H AH.HN 0 m Ao.mN 0 m HoooHouoaoam moHuogsooo m.aosemm .0 AommH. m.a Am.oo 0 as Ao.n0 0 0N A0.ao 0 MN nooosoosm omoHHoo Hoooa AoomH0 a.Hs Ao.oOH0 ma Ao.oOH0 o: Ao.00Hv mm nooosoosm Hoosou st2 Honey A o v o A o 0 o A o 0 o Hoosoo swag can» soon An.a 0 H A 0 0 0 A0.N V H Hoonom :mH: meow A0.uH v nH An.aH 0 N A0.NH 0 0 oooaoosm Hoonom :mHm Am.eH 0 HH Am.aH 0 a Am.HH 0 s omoHHoo oeom Aa.Nn 0 an Ao.nm 0 NN Ao.om 0 5H ooamoo o.aoHozoom Am.oH 0 w A0.0H 0 : A0.HH 0 : ocawoo m.acummz Aa.N 0 N A o 0 o Am.n 0 N oposooooo Hews HGQOHHGOH‘HE . m. sowmac>< . Hmuoa mamoHHnsgom mpmnooacn oHamHaopomamno 0mm HQGOHOGZ coanaafloonnfl mqmamm .0 use 0 .: noduuHaouooamzo mam pom «xaox 3020 "spec no aconsome AosmHv o.wN Ao.ea 0 an mmea 0 NN An.0a v 0N oooosooam Hoonoo swAs Hoooa Ao.ooH0 ma Ao.ooH0 an Ao.ooH. an Hoooa Ae.oH 0 NH An.oN v m AN.HH . s Hoosoo :wH: nos» soon A0.m 0 m An.u 0 n. A0.HH 0 M Hoonon gmH: osom As.mn 0 mN An.mn 0 “H AN.mn v H ooosoosm Hooeoo sun: Am.NH 0 «H An.ON 0 m Aa.mH 0 n omoHHoo oaom AoemHv N.n Am.aH 0 «H Am.NH 0 n An. N 0 m ooosooam omoHHou qupoosom co Hosea o.soeaoz .OH AosmHv o.sN An.Nn 0 Ne An.Hm 0 oN Aa.e0 0 NN oooosooaw Hoonoo st: Hoooa Ao.ooH0 ma Ao.ooHV an Ao.ooH. an Hoooa Am.0~ 0 Hm A0.on 0 NH An.0~ 0 a Hooseu smH: some mama Aa.nH 0 oH Am.aH 0 a AN.N . n Hoosoo :mHs oaom Ao.oN . mH AN.NN 0 HH Am.nN 0 m ooosoosm Hoosoo stm Am.0 0 n AN.n 0 N Am.m 0 n omoHHoo oaom AoemHv N.m AN.sN 0 NH Am.NH 0 a A:.Nn 0.HH ososoosm omoHHoo fiOdOflOq—B MO HODQH Q-h089flm om 116 can function as a veto group rather than in the more broadly programmatic political party. It is interesting to note that the distribution between categories of locality is roughly the same for both parties. Contrary to what might be expected, however, over twice as many Democratic staff people were recruited from the small towns than Republicans. Republican staff person- nel were substantially more urbanized with 77.5 per cent coming from localities of over 25,000 as opposed to 58.9 per cent for the Democrats. Religion. The religious composition of party staffs, while heavily Protestant, parallels the basic religious composition of the nation at large. One might have expected to find a greater representation of Jews in the group due to the fact that they are heavily represented in the legal and intellectual professions. That the parties tend not to recruit persons from minority groups to fill staff posi- tions might be inferred, although such cannot be substan- tiated by the data. Social status. It is clear from the data that party professionals are recruited from the upper classes in American society. Sixty per cent of the staffers come from families, the head of which either owned his own business or held a professional or managerial position. In fact, 49 per cent (45 per cent of the Democrats and 51 per cent of the Republicans) of the staff members' fathers had at one time managed their own businesses. If the 8.6 per cent 117 of the group which came from farm families be added to the figure, over 57 per cent of the staffers' fathers either owned or operated their own business enterprises at some period in their lives. Again, it is important to notice that both parties recruit for their professional staffs substantially the same percentage of personnel whose. antecedents stem from the business community. * This high percentage of staff people coming from managerial or entrepeneurial families is significant for the data to be presented in Chapters V and VI. One might expect the “business point of view“ to prevail among a sizeable percentage of the staff. Subsequent data gathered from personal interviews with Michigan staff personnel, however, tends to indicate that the political staffer is prepared to accept the viewpoints of the party or politician for whom he works. Family background does not appear to greatly affect the ability of staff people to adjust to the policy positions of the party to which they are attached. Education. Professional staff people not only come from successful homes, they come from educated homes as well. Over 24 per cent of the fathers and 17 per cent of the mothers were college graduates, as opposed to percent- ages of 5.2 and 3.7 for the population at large as late as 1940. Furthermore, a high school education is twice as frequent among the parents of party staff personnel as it is for the population at large. 118 The staffers themselves manifest this same educational level. A high school diploma is almost twice as common among the party professionals as it is in the population at large based on 1960 figures and the ratio of college degrees held by staffers to that of the national population is 9 to 1. It is interesting to note both the type of institu- tion and the type of curriculum in which the staff person did his college work. Only 4 per cent attended an Ivy League college and only 10 per cent took their degrees from a Big Ten institution. By far the bulk of the group (47.5 per cent) did their college work in lesser known univer- sities with a substantial number (18.4 per cent) choosing a city college. The majority of the professional staff people did their academic work in social science and liberal arts while law was practically non-existent. A ranking of the respondents' college major or final professional degree produces interesting results. This data is summarized in Table 2. The academic background of party staff personnel tends to dramatically reinforce the stereotyped image of the two parties. It will be noticed that close to 50 , per cent of the Democratic respondents majored in a social science or public administration as opposed to 36 per cent of the Republnzans. Conversely, 16 per cent of the Republi- cans did their work in business as opposed to 3.5 per cent 119 TABLE 2.--Academic curriculum pursued by party staff personnel Total Curriculum Democrats Republicans Social Science 12 ( 44.5)' 5 ( 19.3) 17 ( 32.1) Liberal Arts 8 ( 29.6) 6 ( 23.1) 14 ( 26.4) Business 1 ( 3.7) 8 ( 30.7) 9 ( 17.0) Journalism 2 ( 7.4) 6 ( 23.1) 8 ( 15.1) Public Administration 2 ( 7.4) 1 ( 3.8) 3 ( 5.6) Law 1 ( 3.7) O ( O ) 1 (_ 1.9) Science-engineering l ( 3.7) O ( O ) l ( 1.9) Total 27 (100.0) 26 (100.0) 53 (100.0) of the Democrats. It should be noticed that Journalism, a basic source of training for Republican staff people, is negligible among Democrats. In summary, the data suggests that Democratic state party organisations tend to recruit people with primarily social science and liberal arts training (“egg heads”) while Republicans recruit from a broader spectrum of technically trained persons. This finding corroborates the data re- ported in Chapter V that Democratic politicians seek staff people with an ideological affinity for the party whereas Republicans primarily look for expertise in their staff members.“ “See pp. 195-197. 120 Family situation. A final set of socio-economic characteristics should be briefly discussed, namely, the family situation of the respondent. It will be seen that staffers tend to have settled family life situations. That is, by far the greatest percentage are married and have children. The fact that the number of single staff persons is less than that of the population at large seems to indicate that professional party staff work is not viewed merely as a temporary stop-over for single people on their way up the career ladder. Over 54 per cent of the group have families of four or more people to support. The fairly permanent nature of party staff work is corroborated by the fact that 33.3 per cent of the re- spondents have beem employed by state political organiza- tions for five or more years and an additional 29.4ihave worked for at least three years. Conclusion. we have seen that the professional staff people attached to state party organizations are recruited from the upper socio-economic brackets. It is interesting to hypothecate as to the probable causes of this and speculate on the possible impact this development may have upon politics in the united States. First, as to cause, it is fairly obvious that the skills required to operate any sizeable organization in a modern industrial society, whether it be a business corpora- tion, labor union or political party, are both substantial and similar. Thus, all organizations will tend to recruit 121 staff people from the same sources and with similar skills. The staff people attached to labor unions, business corpora- tions, political parties and other organizations have become, for all practical purposes, inter-changeable parts. In this connection it is interesting to compare the socio-economic characteristics of the party staff personnel in this study with the United States Senators studied by Matthews and the businessmen studied by Warner and Abegglen.5 It will be seen from this data, presented in Table 3, that as far as the two variables chosen for comparison (father's occupation and respondent's own education) is concerned, the socio-economic status of the party professionals is almost identical with that of the 8562 business men studied by Warner and just slightly lower than the United States Senators holding office during the 81st Congress. Second, it can be postulated that, given a managerial elite in the United States, it may well be mandatory for political parties to recruit from the same group if it is to engage in successful intercourse with public officials, government agencies and private organizations. The development of a corps of party staff people. drawn from the managerial class may have a definite effect upon the American party system. First, it obviously means 5See Donald R. Matthews, "United States Senators and the Class Structure," Political Behavior, Ed. Heinz Euean, Samuel J. Eldersveld and Morris Janowitz (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956) 187-188 and W. Lloyd Warner and James C. Abegglen, Bi Business in America (New York: Harper and Brothers, 195W , pp. -1 , 20, 35, 48. 122 TABLE 3.--Comparison of socio-economic characteristics of party staff personnel, United States senators and American business leaders (in percentages) Party U.S. Business SES Characteristic Personnel Senators Leaders Educational Level College Graduates 66.2. 87.0 58.0 High School Graduates. 32.4 10.0 35.0 Less than High School 1.4 3.0 19.0 Father's Occupation Professional 22.9 22.0 14.0 Manager-Proprietor 37.1 33.0 49.0 White Collar 15.7 1.0 8.0 WOrker 15.7 3.0 10.0 Farmer 8.6 40.0 9.0 that another of the major centers of power in the United States will be increasingly in the hands of the ”managers.” It is already a fairly common practice for young executives, labor union staff personnel and journalists to move in and out of party staff positions during campaign periods. Second, although the subsequent data of this study produces a picture of the party staffer as manifesting a high degree of role acceptance and docility, and thus a willingness to accept the party viewpoint on most matters, it is very possible that the socio-economic homogeneity of 123 the party staff and their similarity to the management class generally may act ultimately as a consensus producing factor in the American political system. Career Patterns of American Party Staff szsgnnel We have seen something of the socio-economic back- ground of state party staff personnel. It is also important to note the structure of the professional party staff career. Specifically, we wish to explore the nature of the position, the skills and experience for which staff members are re- cruited, the group affiliations of party staff members and the expectations, both immediate and future, of party staff personnel. The party staff job. Party staff members tend to be generalists. That is, they do not engage, regardless of the special skills for which they might have been originally recruited, in a single function or speciality but rather perform a wide variety of tasks for the party. This is clearly reflected in responses given to a question designed to obtain information on the respondents' position or function in the party.6 Respondents were asked to check all of the twelve response categories which they deemed appropriate and to list any additional functions not covered by those categories. Republicans averaged 3.95 and the Democrats 4.09 categories per respondent. In other words, 6See Appendix B, question 17. 124 the 74 respondents indicated that their job involved them in at least four different aspects of party activity. Public relations and office management were the most fre- quently checked categories. These data are displayed in Table 4. ‘ TABLE 4.--Functions of party staff personnel W Per cent of Respondents Engaging In It Function Democrats Republicans Total Public Relations 78.? 60.0 68.4 Political Secretary 39.3 42.5 41.0 Legislative Liaison 30.3 35.0 32.8 Administrative Assistant ‘ 27.2 42.5 35.6 Legal Advisor 0 5.0 2.? Organizational Director 33.3 22.5 27.3 Organizational Field Man 30.3 25.0 27.3 Fund Raising ; 33.3 22.5 27.3 Campaign Management i 39.3 27.5 32.8 Research 3 39.3 30.0 34.2 Office Management 2 57.5 50.0 53.4 Business Management I 18.1. 17.5 17.8 125 It is interesting to compare this data with the information on staff positions obtained from the state chairmen.7 If the comparable positions are grouped into major classes of function (i.e., executive, public relations, field organization, fund raising and campaign management functions)8 and then ranked, there results a remarkable agreement between the party staff respondents and the state chairmen as far as the incidence of types of staff functions is concerned. These rankings are as follows: State Chairmen Party Staff Executive 1 1 Public relations 2 2 Field organization 3 3 Finance 4 4 Campaign management 5 5 A clearer picture of the functions and duties engaged in by party staff members appears when the responses to av question asking them to indicate the functions on which they 7See Table 1, Chapter 2. 8Categories are composed of the following positions: For State Chairmen: Executive - GE, OM; Public Relations - PR, R: Field Organization - F0; Finance - F; Campaign Manage- ment - CM. Not included were WA, YA, C, US. For staff person- nel; Executive - Political Secretary, Administrative Assist- ant, Office Management, Business Management; Public Relations - Public Relations, Research: Field Organization - Organiza- tional Director, Organizational Field Man; Finance - Finance; Campaign Management - Campaign Management. Not included - Legislative Liaison, Legal Advisor. 126 spend the bulk of their time are analysed.9 By using the same five-fold classification and by taking the first re- 10 corded response only, the following results are obtained: Number of Respondents Che kin Function Democrats Republicang Total Executive 9 10 19 Public relations 9 14 23 Field organization 8 5 13 Finance 1 1 2 Campaign management 0 O 0 It is clear that public relations is the basic staff specialty and is the function on which most professional staff members spend their time. Management and executive functions run a close second and even assume first place if ”second” responses are counted. The high incidence of these two functions as opposed to field organization, finance and campaign management re- quires explanation. It can accurately be stated that what emerges from these data is a picture of state party staff functions: that if the staff members attached to individual 9Appendix B, question 18. 0When second responses are added, the totals are as follows: (1) Executive - 33: (2) Public relations - 31; (3) Field organization - 16; (4) Finance - 3: and (5) Cam- paign management - 1. It will be noticed that executive functions replace public relations as the most checked category of function. This, of course, corresponds with the original ranking and indicates that while public rela- tions is the single most important staff job, executive or administrative functions are widely spread among staff members although constituting a secondary function. 127 candidates were counted, the percentage primarily in cam- paign management, field work and finance would probably increase. Second, public relations is involved in all phases of party activity. Thus, as is shown in Chapter VI, every staff member becomes a public relations man at some point in the campaign. Third, public relations, as opposed to field organization and fund raising, is a specialized function that cannot be turned over to volunteer party workers as is often the case with the other three functions. Before concluding this description of the party staff I job, notice should be taken of the qualifications respondents feel are vital to party staff work. Respondents were asked to list in order of importance what, in general, '. . . you consider to be the three most important qualifications for staff work."11 Responses were categorized and weighted according to the following formula: 1. Qualification given first rank was assigned 3 points. 2. Qualification given second rank was assigned 2 points. 3. Qualification given third rank was assigned 1 point. Table 5 presents the results of this data. 1 1Appendix b, question 21. 128 TABLE 5.--Rank order of qualifications staff respondents feel are most important for political staff work Number of Points Qualification ' Democrats Republicans Total Ability to work with people 37 31 68 Dedication and party loyalty 21 29 50 Knowledge of politics and gov't. 15 17 32 Knowledge of public relations 9 23 32 Political experience 14 14' 28 Organizational skill 14 10 24 Motivation; interest in politics 7 14 21 Intelligence 15 4 l9 Attractive personality 10 7 17 Administrative ability 4 10 14 Understanding of party principles 4 9 13 Hard work ' 9 4 l3 Flexibility and adaptability 7 2 9 Contacts and/or familiarity with the state 4 3 7 Broad experience 1 5 6 Good judgment 3 2 5 Idealism; issue goals 3 l 4 Imagination 2 2 4 Self confidence, initiative, aggressiveness 3 l 4 129 TABLE 5--Continued .____________T.____________ Number of Points Qualification Democrats Republicans Total Ability to work under pressure Liberal arts education Good health, energy Ability to take criticism Persuasiveness c: to a: to x» c: «P to a: In a: \d c- a: O 4 0 Good appearance 0 O O 2 Sufficient time 130 It is interesting to compare this data with the results of a similar question asked Michigan staff members in personal interviews and reported in Chapter VI. Inter- personal skills rank high on both scales along with public relations skills. The same phenomenon occurs when all Michigan respondents are removed from the sample. This, however, is not surprising since gregariousness and socia- bility have been found to be directly related to political participation at all 1evele.12 Job tenure. Important to a clear understanding of the party staff structure is the pattern of tenure enjoyed by party staff members. Specifically, do party staff person- nel tend to remain in their positions from election to election, serve for one campaign only, or move in and out of party service? Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate fairly conclusively that staff personnel attached to state party organizations tend to have fairly stable careers. That is, over 64 per cent of the respondents have been in party work for three years or more thus making it highly probable that they will have served in two general elections. Democrats appear to have had more success in holding their staff members than Republi- cans. Thirty-five per cent of the Democratic respondents have served their party six years or more as opposed to 20 per cent of the Republicans. 12See Robert E. Lane, Political Life, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959) pp. 164-165. 131 TABLE 6.--Length of service of party staff personnel -_ W m g —- Number Reaponding Number of 7 Years Democrats Republicans Total 1 6 ( 17.6) 7 ( 17.9) 13 ( 17.8) 2 5 ( 14.7) 8 ( 20.5) 13 ( 17.8) 3 5 ( 14.7) 10 ( 25.6) 15 ( 20.6) 4 3 ( 8.9) 4 ( 10.3) 7 ( 9.6) 5 3 ( 8.9) 2 ( 5.1) 5 ( 6.9) 6-10 , 7 ( 20.5) 4 ( 10.3) 11 ( 15.0) over 10 5 ( 14.7) 4 ( 10.3) 9 ( 12.3) Totals 334 (100.0) 39 (100.0) 73 (100.0) TABLE 7.--Extent to which job tenure of party staff person- nel has been interrupted Democrats Republicans Total Respondent has remained on job uninterruptedly 26 ( 76.4) 32 ( 80.0) 58 ( 78.3) Respondent has had interrupted service 8 ( 23.6) 8 ( 20.0) 16 ( 21.7) Totals 34 (100.0) 40 (100.0) 74 (100.0) 132 It is also important to note that over 78 per cent have remained on their jobs without interruption. Thus, the data indicate that only a minority appear to move in and out of staff jobs. Again, however, it should be cautioned that this is probably reflective of the state party operation only. One would expect to find a sub- stantial number of people working for specific candidates on a campaign by campaign basis. In general, however, the length of tenure of party staff personnel has been greater and the amount of movement in and out of staff positions has been less than anticipated by the researcher. This data, while fragmentary, points to the tentative conclusion that America's political parties are rapidly moving in the direction of the permanent party staff structure analogous (although decentralized) to the staff organization to be found in Great Britain. Peevious eeperience. Party staff people are a fairly selectively recruited group. Their experience, skills and occupational background is largely drawn from public relations and administration. Respondents were asked to Acheck the skills or experience they had when they were first hired to a political staff position and then to indicate for which of those types of skill or experience they were primarily hired. Table 8 displays the types of skills or experience (the respondents perceived themselves as having when they 133 TABLE 8.--Skills and experience staff personnel perceive themselves as having when first hired Per cent Checking Item Experience or Skill Democrats Republicans Total Political ' Previous party work 47.0 50.0 48.6 Candidate for office ~2.9 O 1.3 Public Relations Research 64.7 25.0 43.2 Newspaper work 38.2 42.5 40.5 Speech writing 20.5 37.5 35.1 Radio-TV work 26.4 27.5 27.0 Advertising 1 O 10.0 5.4 Administrative Administrative experiencei 35.2 57.5 47.2 Business experience 38.2 52.5 45.9 Governmental experience 32.3 37.5 35.1 i Organizational experience‘ 14.7 17.5 16.2 Academic 44.1 12.5 27.0 Legal 0 2.5 1.3 134 accepted party staff employment. It can be seen that most staff members represent themselves as having either public relations or administrative experience and/or skills. It is equally obvious from the preceeding data that most staff members continue performing the same types of functions that they had performed in ”private“ life. What is of particular interest, however, is the manner in which the recruitment pattern, as reflected in the data of Table 8, conforms to the common image of the two parties. Again it will be noted, for instance, that the Democratic respondents check academic and research experience almost three times more frequently than do Republicans. Similarly, Republicans record administrative and business experience at almost an 8 to 5 rate over Democrats. The two parties draw almost equally from the press and the radio-television industry. The lack of lawyers on party professional staffs is worthy of notice. If, as Lasswell has stated, ”. . . the lawyer is today . . . the one indispensable advisor of every responsible policy maker of our society - whether we speak of the head of a government department or agency, of the executive of a corporation or labor union, of the secretary of a trade or other private association, or even of the humble independent enterpriser or professional man . . .“13 one might expect to find a sizable number engaged in.party staff work. This, however, is not the case. 13H. D. Lasswell and M. s. McDougal, ”Legal Education 135 A number of explanations can be advanced for their absence from this phase of party activity. First, legal training is not directly related to the types of skills party organizations need on their staffs. The talents of the public relations expert, newsman or experienced organ- izer are much more in demand. While, as Schlesinger and Matthews point out, the lawyer's skills and general career situation are well suited to his becoming a candidate, i.e., ”political generalist',1u the growing complexity of modern campaigning forces him to employ specialists to do his staff work for him. Second, party staff work does not provide the best source of upward mobility for the lawyer either in the political party itself, in non-political organizations, government or private practice. Political candidacy, on the other hand, provides excellent advertising, and other areas of party work excellent personal contacts. Organieee geoue affiliaEions. Over 73 Per cent of the respondents were associated in some fashion with at least one organized interest group.15 Republicans, however, had a greater incidence of group association than Democrats and Public Policy,“ he Analysis e2 Pelitical Behavior, Ed. H. D. Lasswell, (London: Routledge, Kegan Paul Ltd., 1948), p. 27. . 1“See Joseph A. Schlesinger, “Lawyers and American Politics: A Clarified View,” Midwest Jeurnal e; Politieal Science, I, (May, 1957), 26-39 and Donald . Matthews, 220 92-20, pp. 30-320 15Appendix B, question 28. . 1“ a i .1 Ir 136 with 80 per cent of the former reporting group affiliations as opposed to 64.7 per cent of the latter.16 The partici- pation of staff respondents in organized groups is depicted in Table 9. As a means of obtaining an index of group participa- tion, weights were assigned to each of the percentages listed in Table 9 as follows: 1. Member - one point per percentage point. 2. Salaried employee - two points per percentage point. 3. Officer - three points per percentage point. By employing this index, the group affiliations of the respondents can be ranked as follows: Points Rank Type of Affiliation Democrats Reeublicans Total 1 Religious organ- izations 73.3 102.5 88.9 2 Business, Commercial and Industrial associations 70.3 100.2 86.3 3 Professional associations 52.8 77.5 66.0 4 Labor Unions 32.2 30.0 30.9 Farm organizations 14.5 7.5 10.6 16 These percentages represent those who have been associated with at least one group in some fashion. Not represented in the statistic are the many respondents who listed more than one type of group affiliation. 137 TABLE 9.--Group affiliations of party staff personnel W Percentage Checking Affiliation Type of Affiliation Democrats Republicans Total Professional Associations Member 26.4 32.5 29.7 Officer 8.8 15.0 12.1 Salaried employee 0 0 0 Labor Union Member 23.5 15.0 18.9 Officer 2.9 5.0 4.0 Salaried employee 0 O 0 Farm Organization Member 5-8 7.5 6.7 Officer 2.9 O 1.3 Salaried employee 0 O O Business, Commercial or Industrial Association Member 11.7 15.0 13.5 Officer 17.6 25.0 21.6 Salaried employee 2.9 5.0 4.0 Religious Organization* Member 20.5 20.0 20.2 Officer 17.6 27.5 22.0 Salaried employee .0 O 0 ”One precaution should be stated relative to this category, namely, that there is no way to determine whether or not some respondents equated simple church membership with organizational activity in a religious group. 138 A number of interesting findings stem from these data. First, there is a perfect rank order correlation in the rank order between the Republican, Democratic and total group of respondents. This tends to provide some evidence for the fact that party staffers are recruited for their skills rather than their ideological identifications. If we eliminate religious organizations from the analysis, a; strong case can be made for the logic of this rank order. We have seen that public relations and management functions take up the greatest percentage of the staff member's time and represent the basic skills for which he is hired. Thus, it is evident that the heaviest concentration of group affiliations would fall in the business and professional associations. It should be noted, however, that very few respondents indicated having worked for any of these associations in a staff capacity. Thus, there appears to be little direct recruitment by political parties from organized interest groups. Second, the affiliations of the staff members in these two types of associations reinforces the picture already drawn of the party staff member as having both upward mobility and a fairly high socio-economic status. Third, it is interesting to note the fact that not only is labor union affiliation low on the list, the Republican respondents have a slightly higher index of participation than do Democrats. While recognizing the tentative nature of any conclusions based on the sample 139 utilized in this study, it is nevertheless fairly safe to conclude that Democratic party organizations do not draw as great a percentage of their staff members from labor organizations as might be expected. A somewhat similar conclusion (although reversed in terms of partisanship) can be drawn from the data on farm association affiliation. This finding is somewhat at variance with the position taken generally in the literature of political science that group membership tends to structure the political environ- ment, reinforce party and ideological identfly and act as a channel into political activity in the party generally associated with the group.17 Two explanations can be advanced to account for this phenomenon. First, the fact that the staff members of the private associations do not tend to move directly into party organizations tends to reduce the representation of some groups which might logically be expected to place a large number of their people on party staffs. Second, the low level of Democratic staff affiliation with labor unions and the low Republican affiliation with the major farm organizations may be due to the fact that these groups already provide informal staff services to the party they support electorally.18 175ee Lane, ep. e;§., pp. 189-195 and Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal In luence, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955) pp. 62-64. 18For documentation of this point see Fay Calkins, The 010 and the Demoegatic Party, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1952) p. 132. i ‘ I'll 1'13") {1 140 Influences on Recruitment An analysis of the major influences which resulted in the respondents taking a party staff position reveals that the party itself is its own best recruiting agency. Most staff respondents entered party work as a result of their association with political officials or candidates although friends ranks a close second.19 This data is displayed in Table 10. TABLE lO.--Persons influencing staff members to enter party staff work Type of Influence Percentage of Respondents Checking Influence Democrats Republicans Total Members of immediate family Friends Business or professional associates Fellow workers Political officials and candidates Public school teachers College professors 20.5 20.0 20.2 38.2 45.0 41.8 17.6 30.0 24.3 2.9 ' 7.5 5.4 35.2 60.0 48.6 2.9 0 1.3 20.5 2.5 10.8 19 See Appendix B, question 22. 141 When respondents were asked to indicate the greatest influence on their decision, the rank order displayed in Table 11 resulted. TABLE ll.--Rank order of influences motivating professional staff personnel to accept a political staff job W Ranking Type of Influence Total Democrats Republicans Political officials or candidates 1 1‘ 1 Friends 2 1* 3 Family 3 3* College professors 4 3* 4* Professional or business associates 5 5 he Fellow workers 6 6* School teachers 7 7 6* *Ties It is interesting to note the relatively minor role played by business and professional associates and fellow workers in motivating the respondents to enter party staff work. Again, if it be assumed that group membership tends to structure the political attitudes of those participating, the data appear to be at variance with this assumption. A number of explanations, however, can be put forward to 142 account for the data of Table 9. First, the highly in- fluential role played by political officials and candidates is due, most likely, to the fact that such persons are the actual recruiters of staff and the fact that personal influence tends to emanate from persons of superior status.20 Second, if it be assumed that friendship groups play a role similar to business, professional and work associates in influencing decisions, their greater influence is probably due to the fact that friendship groups are entered into voluntarily and involve their members in fewer cross pressures than do business and work groups. To put it another way, ”. . . value homophily - or mutual attraction on the basis of shared values. . .' is more characteristic of friendship groups than it is of business and/or work groups.21 Third, it is possible that business and profes- sional associates tend to view political participation as an irrelevant career side-track and thus actively discourage such activity. Although family only ranked third among the influences propelling staffers toward party work, most respondents came from families that were fairly active in politics.22 This data is summarized in Table 12. 20Lane, ep. 913., p. 90. 21 22 Katz, ep. cit., p. 59. See Appendix B, questions 12 and 13. 143 TABLE 12.--Politica1 activity of family of party staff personnel Percentage Reporting Type of Activity Democrats Republicans Total Father Held elective office 14.3 7.1 10.7 Political candidate 35.7 42.8 39.2 Party staff person 0 0 0 Volunteer worker 50.0 50.0 50.0 Mother Held elective office 14.2 0 5.5 Political candidate 0 O 0 Party staff person i O 9.0 5.5 Volunteer worker ) 85.7 90.9 88.8 Other'relative Held elective office 11.1 14.3 13.0 Political candidate 44.4 57.1 52.1 Party staff person 11.1 14.3 13.0 Volunteer worker 33.3 14,3 21.7 144 TABLE 12--Continued Percentage Reporting Type of Activity Democrats Republicans Total General level of family's political activism Very active 5.8 20.0 13.5 Moderately active 29.4 35.0 32.4 Slightly active 26.4 32.3 27.0 Inactive 38.2 17.6 25.6 No response 0 2.9 1.3 145 It will be seen that the families of Republican respondents display a greater tendency to be politically active than do the families of Democratic staff members. Although there is no data in the study itself to explain this difference, it nevertheless substantiates the obser- vations of other researchers.23 Staff respondents evidenced mixed motivations for going into party work. Thus, while party work satisfies such idealistic motives as the opportunity to work for the realization of personally held social and economic objectives and as a useful area of endeavor in which to invest ones training and skills, a number were motivated by what appeared to them as an attractive career and an opportunity to obtain good training for other types of work. The basic motivations of the party staffers are diaplayed in Table 13. It is interesting to note that both parties are quite similar in the manner in which they rank the alter- natives, except for items one and two. 23Following Angus Campbell's discussion in ”The Case of the Missing Democrats," New Re ublic, 135 (1956) pp. 12- 15, Lane argues that ”interested and concerned Democrats” are less likely to participate actively in politics than "con- cerned Republicans" because (1) a greater percentage of Democrats in the thirties and forties were young people who, traditionally are characterized by low political activity in the United States; (2) the upwardly mobile - those who would normally be active in organized groups - tend to either switch to the Republican Party or become inactive due to cross pressures between their traditional loyalties and their new status; and (3) many of the Democrats mobilized by the new deal were a part of the politically inert segment of the population and who, while motivated to vote the Democratic ticket, nevertheless retained their basic attitude toward political involvement. See also Lane, 92. cit., pp. 144-145. "" 146 TABLE l3.--Rank order of reasons cited by professional staff members to be important in leading them to accept a political staff job Ranking Reason Cited Total Democrats Republicans Realization of social and economic views 1 (89)* 2 (38) 1 (51) Outlet for training and skills 2 (87) 1 (44) 2 (43) Attractive career I3 (68) 3 (31) 4 (37) Good training for other work 4 (68) 4 (29) 3 (39) Improvement in salary' 5 (36) 5 (22) 5 (l4) Provides useful contacts 6 (23) 6 (13) 7 (10) Opportunity to help political career of friend 7 (19) 7 ( 6) 6 (13) Provides desirable social contacts 8 ( 0) 7 ( 0) 8 ( 0) *Respondents were asked to rank in order of importance the categories listed in Table 13. The ranking was deter- mined by assigning weights to the first three choices as follows: 3 points for an item ranked first, 2 points for an item ranked second, and 1 point for an item ranked third. Paint totals appear in parentheses. See Appendix B, question 2 . 147 Only a minority of the respondents indicated that they planned to remain in party staff work, although if those who displayed uncertainty or a desire to combine party work with an outside career are added to those who plan to remain in their jobs, the number of respondents who have a fairly substantial commitment to party staff work as a career swell to 41.8 per cent of the total.2u This data is displayed in Table 14. TABLE l4.--Number of party staff members who plan to remain in party staff work Response Democrats Republicans Total Remain in party staff work 9 ( 29.0)* 11 ( 30.5) 20 ( 29.8) Has other vocational goals 16 ( 51.6) 23 ( 63.9) 39 ( 58.2) Both 4 ( 12.9) 1 ( 2.8) 5 ( 7.5) Uncertain 2 ( 6.5) l ( 2.8) 3 ( 4.5) Total 31 (100.0) 36 (100.0) 67 (100.0) *Percentage in parentheses It is interesting to compare the motivations of those who definitely have other vocational goals to those who re- tain a substantial commitment to party staff work. If the categories employed in Table 13 are regrouped into party goals, career goals and mobility goals, the two groups rank these goals as follows in Table 15. 2“Appendix B, question 25. 148 TABLE l5.--Employment motivations of party staff personnel: a rank order‘ Ii Respondents with Substantial Commitment to: Party Staff Other Vocational Work Goals Group Rank in Group Rank in Motivation Rank Table 13 Rank Table 13 Party Goals 2 1 Realization of social and economic views 3 l Opportunity to help E political career of 2 friend 7 6 Career Goals 1 2 Attractive career 2 4 Outlet for training andg skills . 3 Improved salary § 4 7 Mobility Goals i 3 3 Useful contacts 3 6 5 Social contacts 1 2 1 Training for other works 8 8 l _f *Group rank obtained by computing the mean of the total of the rankings from Table 13 in each group. The smaller the figure, the higher the average ranking. 149 It will be seen, first of all, that neither group receives mobility goals as the major motivation for entering party staff work. Even when saked specifically to list the ways in which their present employment would serve to help them achieve other vocational goals,25 a greater percentage (50 per cent) listed training, experience, etc., than con- tacts with potential future employers, etc. (35 per cent). Second, those planning to pursue other careers were substantially more motivated by party considerations than were the careerists. Those who plan to remain in party work, logically, rank career goals as their most compelling motivation. In summary, it would appear from these data that the bulk of the respondents do not perceive party work as a major spring-board to upward mobility. The party careerists apparently feel that party employment provides them with the most attractive career open to them. Non-careerists, on the other hand, enter party work for basically ideological reasons but perceive career and salary opportunities to be better elsewhere. Respondents, however, perceived party staff work to provide them with some obstacles to attaining other voca- tional objectives. Of the forty responding to the query26 only 37.5 per cent stated that their present employment in 25Appendix B, question 26. 26Appendix B, question 27. 150 no way would hinder them in those objectives; 37.5 per cent stated that being typed as partisan or overly political is a drawback to employment elsewhere. In addition the develop- ment of personal antagonisms and jealousies (10 per cent), the constant temptation to return to political life (5 per cent), the interruption to one‘s career by engaging in politics (5 per cent) and the dangers of both over special- ization and under specialization were each mentioned. Summary and Conclusions This chapter has attempted to present an analysis of the socio-economic background and career patterns of a nation-wide group of staff people attached to state party organizations. Although sampling difficulties described earlier require that the data be treated with caution, there emerges a picture of the type of person attached to the party state central committees. It is not descriptive, however, of the many persons who provide professional assistance to the parties and their candidates during cam- paign periods only. The major findings of this analysis can be summarized as follows: 1. Party staff members tend to come from families in the upper socio-economic brackets as measured by their father's occupation and the general level of their parents' education. 151 2. Party staff members themselves tend to have achieved a relatively high socio-economic status as measured by their educational level and the prestiege level of the types of experience and/or skills they had acquired at the time they entered party work. 3. Party staff people come from families that are fairly active politically. 4. Staff people of both parties show marked similar- ities in their socio-economic characteristics and career _ patterns although there is a tendency for the party stereo- types to show up in recruitment patterns. That is, more academically and research oriented persons (”egg heads“) appear on Democratic payrolls while Republican staff people tend to have technical or business training and/or experience. 5. Professional party staff work provides fairly stable employment as measured by the respondents' job tenure and family situation. A sizeable percentage indicate a substantial commitment to party staff work as a career although the majority have other vocational goals.27 6. Party staff people tend to be recruited for their managerial skills as measured by their education, skills and experience, official capacity in the party and group affiliations. - 27Twenty per cent of the respondents indicated that party staff work is stable employment, 43.2 per cent indi- cated that it is fairly stable, and 33.7 indicated that it is unstable. See Appendix B, question 29. 152 A number of implications for the American party system can be tentatively drawn from the findings of this chapter. First, although it is not its purpose to probe the degree of influence upon party affairs exerted by party staff people, their essential similarity will not make for party articulation. Rather, it is postulated by this writer 28 this socio-economic similar- that, all things being equal, ity will tend to perpetuate the consensual nature of our two-party system. Second, the essentially managerial character of the persons recruited into party staff positions will tend to insure that the staff will reflect the dominant values of the society - values such as political stability, the primacy of economic success, etc. - which characterize the managerial society. Innovating elements will have to enter the party system from outside the formal party staff struc- ture. In fact, it is postulated that whatever innovation is achieved by professional staff people, by far the great- est contributions will emanate from those staffers assigned to individual candidates rather than from the permanent staffs. It is this periodic injection of “new blood“ into the party staff arteries that will act as an antidote to the tendency for the permanent staff to become increasingly con- servative. 2alt will be argued in Chapter VI, however, that there are important elements in the work situation that tend to break up and/or nullify the tendency of socio-economic homogeneity to produce anything approximating 'cabalism.’ 153 Third, the development of a corps of party managers may hasten the trend toward engineered consensus evident already in American politics and in many other areas of American society. One may expect to find political parties engaging increasingly in ”scientific politics” - the depth interview, the staged politicodrama, the community-directed party fund drive, etc. They bring the ”red feather” and the ”station break" to politics. Finally, the rise of the ”new pro” and his skill in the use of modern communication and organizational techniques will probably accelerate the trend toward the nationalization of American politics. PART III THE PARTY STAFF IN ACTION: FUNCTION, ROLE AND INFLUENCE Political parties are often perceived as conducting political wars on the basis of a grand strategy carefully worked out in the planning councils of the top leadership. While this is not an entirely erroneous conception, a much more realistic picture of party activity is that of a loosely knit organization of candidates, office holders, volunteers and other leadership at various levels making day by day decisions in reaction to the ever changing tides of party fortune. What is the role of the paid professional staff per- son in the party decision-making process. What is the extent of his influence on party decisions? Does he act as one of a number of influences on the leadership or does he have decision-making powers of his own? The basic assumption underlying this study is that the professional staff ". . . by virtue of its special skills, access to specific types of information, and monopoly of certain channels of communication, will be in a position to either control or materially influence the decisions made at or by the 'political' levels of the party. ”1 J 1 See p. 22. 154 ‘- 155 The purpose of Part II is to analyse the influence of the professional staff upon party decisions by contrast- ing the perceptions of the party leadership concerning the proper role of the staff in decision-making and/or dis- cretionary activities and the perceptions of the professional staff relative to their decision-making role in the party. Chapter V will describe the manner in which the political leadership in Michigan perceives the “ideal” staff role. Chapter VI will describe the perceptions of the profes- sional political staff personnel as to their role. Chapter VII will evaluate a number of propositions put forward in Chapter I concerning the factors producing staff influence in the party. CHAPTER V THE IDEAL STAFF ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP One of the basic variables affecting the manner in which a staff structure in any type of organization will operate is the perception by the group for which the staff works of the proper staff role. That is, the freedom of action, the outer limits of discretionary power, in fact, the very functions that the staff performs will be largely dictated by the perceptions of the leadership as to what constitutes the proper role of the staff within the total organization.1 The purpose of this chapter is to analyse 22 inter- views with Michigan political leaders on the function and role of the party staffs which they supervise and with which they work. These interviews, focusing on the actual operation of the staff and on the way in which each poli- tician actually utilizes his staff assistants in concrete situations, are designed to produce an image of the ideal 7 1The term role can be defined'as the behavior ex- pected or deemed appropriate for an individual in a given 'social situation. As Walter Coutu states, ‘With every social position there are socially prescribed duties or functions to be performed, and rights to be enjoyed...Every role involves a whole system of behaviors more or less ex- pected and enforced by various groups.” "Role Playing vs. Role Taking: An Appeal for Clarification,” American Soc;- ological Review, (April, 1951), 180. 156 157 staff role as reflected in the perfections of the political leadership. Theoret cal Conce tions of the Ide Staf Role Political leaders, of necessity, bring to their working relations with the professional staff members attached to their parties a set of conceptions as to the role staff members should properly play in the life of the party and its organization. From a theoretical standpoint, the many different conceptions held by the political leader- ship can be grouped into three ideal types, designated as ”neutral,” "committed” and “consultant” staff types. Each of these conceptions involves a particular type of commit- ment to the party on the part of the staff members, a difference in the degree of discretionary power granted to the staff, and a different approach toward the direction of the staff onthe part of the leadership. In addition, each conception derives from a perception by the political leadership oftheir own competence. A description of each conceptual type follows. The ”neutrel' staff. One theoretical conception held by the political leadership concerning the proper role that the professional staff should play in the party is that it should function in a manner similar to a neutral civil service. That is, staff members are recruited for their skills and competencies only and exercise these skills totally under the direction of the leadership. Staff 158 personnel are not considered to be decision-makers although they might be brought into decisional situations as advice givers. The "neutral” professional staff member is conceived as bringing a particular type of commitment to his job. He is not recruited for his ideological position (although it is expected that he not harbor ideas antagonistic to those of the party) as he is for the skills he can bring to the work situation. It is expected that he will bring with him a relatively low level of commitment to his personal opinions and that he be relatively open to the issue posi- tions taken by the political leadership. If the ”neutral” staff brings any type of commitment to its work, it should, in the opinion of the politician holding this view, be a commitment to objective criteria such as integrity, loyalty, the canons of scholarship, etc. In fact, the leadership may actively encourage this type of commitment on the part of its staff by shielding them from the ideological winds blow- ing within the party. The ”neutral“ staff is conceived as rightfully having little discretionary power and little leadership in policy formulation. Instead, it provides technical implementation of policy laid down by the leadership. It is assumed by the politician holding this view of the staff role that the staff requires a relatively great amount of direction and that clearance of all policy, or otherwise sensitive matters, is essential. 159 Politicians holding this conception of the staff role perceive themselves as actively carrying on the affairs of the party and as having a high degree of competence. In fact, the neutral staff conception assumes an active leader- ship. It is postulated that the conception of a "neutral“ staff will be concentrated most heavily among the leadership of parties that have strong contending factions within them; that the holding of this conception is both an attempt to maximize electoral strength without unduly straining party unity, and also a protective mechanism on the part of factional leaders since neither faction wishes to see the other increase its power by the development of an autono- mously functioning staff organization.2 It should not be thought that this viewpoint is wholly limited to the leader- ship of factionalized parties, however. Relatively unified parties in which the leadership entertain high self-confi- dence may also hold similar views. The “committed” staff. A second theoretical con- ception held by political leaders as to the proper role of staff is that it should be primarily an extention of the leadership itself. That is, the staff, by virtue of its 2In actual practice, competing party factions will often develop their own staffs. For instance a legislative group may have a staff loyal to it whereas the party organ- ization may have a staff organization loyal to it. Com- munication between these two staff structures may be a factor for increasing party unity, however. 160 commitment to the ideology and issue positions of the party, acts and speaks for the leadership. In one sense, the "committed" staff actually is absorbed into and becomes a part of the political leadership. It is obvious that the type of commitment individual staff members are expected to bring to the job is sub- stantially different in this view from that of the “neutral“ staff. The staff member is recruited not only for his expertise and skill but also because of a demonstrated predeliction for the party. In fact, he may very well have worked up through the ranks. The politician holding to the conception of the ”committed" staff type as the proper staff role may also extend his conception a step further and expect that the staff will be related to the leadership by "charismatic” ties. The relationship between the staff member and his skill is also different from that of the "neutral” type. Unlike the latter, the expectation is greater that the "committed” staff exercise its skills within the framework of party policy. The political views of the leadership have, in a sense, independent validity and the staff is expected to be as loyal to the party position as it is to objective criteria such as the canons of scholarship. Because the staff is ideologically committed to the leadership it is assumed that it has the capacity for greater discretionary power than would be true of the "neutral” staff type. In party decision-making they are 161 perceived as associates rather than merely implementing technicians. Policy decisions are viewed as collective decisions involving both the professional staff and the leadership. Thus, in implementing policy the staff can make many secondary decisions without the necessity of clearing them with the leadership. Also unlike the ”neutral” staff, the "committed" staff is perceived as requiring little sustained direction. This view of the proper staff role is also based on a relatively high level of self-confidence on the part of the political leadership, although staff is seen as materi- ally enhancing this competence. Staff and leadership are viewed as associates, having somewhat different statuses but, where the formulation of party policy is concerned, fulfilling similar roles. It is postulated that this conception of the proper staff role will most likely be found in parties that are ideologically homogeneous. The committed staff would be too great a disunifying influence in the factionalized party for it to be seriously entertained by the leadership.3 Rather, the notion of the committed staff will tend to be found in parties enjoying a high degree of consensus. In such parties, total energy can be expended in maximizing party strength rather than in holding together diverse elements. In this connection it is postulated that as a 3Although various factions may develop a staff com- mitted to them, the forces driving the party to unify during election campaigns tends to reduce the level of staff com- mitment to factional leaders. 162 party descends into factionalism there will be a change in the conception of the political leadership as to the prOper role of the staff. The consultant etaff. The third conception in this typology of theoretical staff roles held by the political leadership is that the party staff should assume major responsibility for conducting the affairs of the party. The leadership, operating under this conception, seeks ad- vice of the staff on matters of policy. In other words, staff members become tap-level consultants to the leadership. The type of commitment expected of staff under this conception differs from that of the "neutral" and ”committed" Staffs. Staff personnel are expected to bring their own ideas of “what is best for the party” to the working situa- tion. This commitment may be to their own preconceptions or to other ideological or objective criteria. Under this conception, the staff is granted a rela- tively large amount of discretionary power. Viewed as experts, they are not only depended upon to come up with policy recommendations: once policy is agreed upon, they are granted the power to carry it out. In fact, they may make innovations in policy previously carried out. It is also assumed that the ”consultant" staff, as opposed to the "neutral" type, requires little direction. It initiates and carries out policy subject only to a veto by the leadership. In this respect it is more nearly similar to the ”committed” staff type. Hui- 163 This view of the staff role is based on a low sense of competence on the part of the political leadership. They s"4 and in need of view themselves as essentially “amateur professional guidance. This perception of amateurness stems from the fact that they spend only a small percentage of their time on political matters, from the fact of high turn- over in party elective offices and/or from the fact that the technical problems a party faces in its operations (i.e., a great number of television appearances by its candidates, particularly complex campaign issues, etc.) requires highly technical and specialized expertise. It is postulated that the ”consultant” staff will most likely be found in parties that require a particularly great amount of technical advice and in the party of perpetual minority status. The latter has few members of the leadership holding public office, and thus they are not in a position to develop their own expertise. It is expected that where a party is in a position both to sup- port its leadership directly, or indirectly by placing them in public office, it will tend to develop the competence of its leadership to the point where the need for a ”con- sultant” staff will be obviated. This factor, on the other hand, may well be counteracted by the growing complexity of campaigning in the modern world. “See Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Or anization, trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 415. 164 It is helpful to construct a ”profile" of ideal staff types, based upon previously described attributes, as a means of relating the specific characteristics of each staff type to an overall discretion dimension. This pro- file appears in Figure I. It will be seen that the ”consultant” staff type falls neatly in the left or ”high discretion” zone; the “neutral” staff type tends to fall at the right or ”low discretion” zone in three of five characteristics with one placed moderately right. The committed staff type is pre- dominately right ("low discretion” zone) but with three characteristics in the moderate zone. In conclusion it should be stated that these three conceptualizations are presented as ideal types. It is assumed that actual politicians, while tending to hold to ut that one may expect to find elements from each type admixed in the conceptions of any particular politician. Perceptions by the Politicel Leadership in Michigan of the Ideal Staff Role Attitudes on the part of a leadership group concern- irng the proper role and function of its professional staff are not generally a part of its consciousness. Rather, its atrtitudes are imbedded in the warp and woof of the day to day relationships existing between the two groups. These 165 cs...“ . oosocHhsoouhHon Honesoz coauHsaoo u unmuHsnsoo cosccHusoonuHon 30H x”: no: 3:930ch 1 u no: 3.3.333 . cansaoa _ coauHaaoo Honest: " usmuHsnsoo ccaHsuon usoauHaaoo :me . " usoauHaaoc seq . soHuoaonHe a Hmnpsoz "commence usmuHsnsoo moHpoane ans noes: eaten A :oH noes: nassm . soHuoaonHe Hampsoz wouaHsaoo " asmpHsnsoo soHuononHo 30H as: macaw " :wH: no: 00000 . aonoouH couuHaaoo "Hosescz pnmannsoo nHHHxn pom pom coaHsaoom “ eoaHsaoom . noHanaoeomnsso mo«uoaonHa soHuoaomHn soHuononHQ moHanaouomamso zoq oumaoco: :me snow soHevonHQ sodas dense HaasH no oHHaosa--.N oasta Inn 166 attitudes are to be found in the types of tasks assigned staff members, expectations of proper staff behavior in concrete situations and the types of communication and/or consultation going on between the leadership and the staff. Thus, research into these attitudes must be directed to concrete situations (i.e., tasks assigned, consultation engaged in, clearance required, etc.) if it is to success- fully unveil the real attitudes and perceptions in question. To ask a respondent to verbalize directly about his con- ceptions of the ideal staff role would probably not only find him unprepared, but only elicit, inaccurate, unrealistic or insincere responses. The interview questions, therefore, were largely directed toward concrete situations. The interviewer, for instance, was interested in such matters as under what circumstances changes in a press release icould be made without clearance, to what extent a candidate (consulted with the staff member on a speech the latter was tmriting for him, etc. In addition, a number of questions zarobed concrete situations of a hypothetical character to isolate attitudes on staff discretion more accurately.5 In this attempt to develop a systematic picture of t;he attitudes and perceptions of the political leadership as to the ideal staff role, attention will be focused on time following components as the basis for analysis: 5See Interview Schedule-Political Leaders, Appendix C. 167 l. Perceptions by the political leadership of the staff's proper functions and tasks. 2. Perceptions by the political leadership of desirable personal characteristics to be found in staff members and their general orientation, background and attitudes. 3. Perceptions by the political leadership as to proper staff-leadership relations. 4. Perceptions by the political leadership as to the degree of staff discretion in day to day matters. 5. Perceptions by the political leadership as to their own competence and their role in day to day party operations. Staff Functions and Tasks One source of information on how the political leadership perceives what is properly the role of political staff is to note the types of staff personnel already tattached to the party; their functions and duties; and what types of staff additions the leadership .would like to make. Itn other words, it is helpful to ask the question: What tgype of staff assistance do the politicians want - routine czlerical help or specialized expertise involving a measure Of discretionary power? Respondents in both parties displayed an interest 1:1 having substantial expertise on their staffs. The staff 168 positions already attached to the Democratic and Republican state committees in Michigan are as follows: Democratic Party - one public relationsdirector, one finance director, two field organizers, and clerical staff. In addition, during the 1958 campaign it used a state-wide campaign manager and two administrative aids.6 Republican Party - one public relations director, two finance directors (one for wayne County), one administrative assistant/office manager, two field organizers, three clerical personnel and four county executive secretaries. In addition, during the 1958 campaign, the party employed one United States Senatorial campaign manager, two public relations men (one in wayne County), one research assistant, two gubernatorial campaign assistants and an executive director for wayne County.7 A majority of the respondents stated that they would add additional staff help if “they had their way.” This, however, was more true of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party with nine of twelve Republican respondents indicating that they would add additional staff. or the nine Democrats, only six expressed an interest in making additions to their staffs and three of the six felt that 6Staff members attached to the Governor, Lt. Governor and Democratic legislative caucus are also integrated into the Democratic campaign staff. 7In addition, the staff persons attached to the Republican legislative caucus are integrated into the Republican campaign staff. 169 additional staff, while desirable, was not necessary. Three Democrats and three Republicans stated that they would not add to their staff under any circumstances. This data is summarized in Table 1. It is interesting to note from Table 1 that party leaders were substantially more interested in making staff additions than were office holders. Two factors account for this phenomenon. First, governmental office holders are not only provided with a number of subordinates by state law (administrative assistants, deputies, etc.) they » also receive staff help from members of the administrative agencies, interest groups and study commissions. Party leaders, on the other hand, with their relatively meager funds are almost always undermanned. Second, there appears to be a reluctance on the part of government officials to use staff help for political matters. Statements like, "I don't make many speeches, but when I do I write my own” were more typical of party leaders holding government posts than those holding party positions only. This is no doubt partly ”protective coloring" on the part of the politician in the interview situation who does not want to admit to using public servants for political purposes, partly a greater sensitivity to the problems of public relations than that of party leaders to the extent that they hesitate to delegate such tasks, and partly a reflection of their greater sense of confidence in their own abilities. Public officials are less likely to be ”amateurs" than the party, 170 N m S a «N NH 2 Honda o H o H N o N canonnou 02 N N H o w n m . «codename 0: uses casoz o N o H m o n 23:39.. so: 93 £5 .nsoduaoos uses udsos o a m N NH m m when» amonomq 0» nsoduaucm oxsa case: .Qom .soa .mom .soo Houoa .nom .aoo nonconaum cocoo umsansoo Hopes Hupoa agenda: meamuo muoumoq husmm human Hmsoamoouoan sauna ommohoma on noon on» no nowasoaz ma accused Hmoauaaoq hp nmoaunoomomni.a Manda 171 leadership. As one member of the Michigan Legislature put it, ”I don't use my assistant much for research. After all, I have been in the Legislature for some time and know more about these matters than he does." The types of additions that party leaders would like to make to their professional staffs is also a clue to their perceptions of the ideal staff role. Michigan poli- ticians, for the most part, want more of what they already have, namely, public relations personnel and field organ- izers. It is significant, however, that research assistant ranks with field organizer as the second most commonly per- ceived need. Administrative assistance is also a highly felt need. Table 2 summarizes this data.8 It is interesting to note that only one respondent mentioned professional campaign management as a need. Two explanations can be advanced to account for this phenomenon. First, campaigns generally must be tailored to fit the candidate. Campaigns, by their very nature, require that the relationship between the candidate and his campaign manager be highly personal and require a substantial amount of candidate-campaign manager empathy. Second, American parties being highly fractionated, candidates do not wish to feel too closely bound to an integrated state-wide cam- paign. While they are willing to adhere to the general 8These results parallel the nation-wide data reported in Chapter II. See p. 87. 172 TABLE 2.--Staff additions perceived as needed by Michigan political leaders Number Indicating Need Type of Position Democrats Republicans Total Public Relations 2 6 8 Research 3 4 7 Field Organization 3 h 7 Administration/Office Management 2 3 5 Director of WOmens' Activities 2 0 2 Campaign Management 0 l 1 Finance 1 0 l party platform, and accept a certain amount of integrated financ- ing, scheduling and advertising, there are still too many forces propelling candidates toward independence of action, thus militating against the professional, party-controlled campaign manager. Both of Michigan's major parties, how- ever, have used professionals in this capacity for single campaigns. The Democrats have been relatively successful in developing from among their own staff persons capable of running entire state-wide campaigns. Republicans, on the other hand, have brought into Michigan high-priced experts from other states with indifferent success. 173 The data cited above on the types of staff positions currently attached to Michigan party organizations and the expressed needs of the leadership indicate the type of staff role perceived as proper by the politician. Clearly, they do not want mere low-level clerical skills but, rather, envisage a party staff of highly trained personnel engaged in functions of consequence. As one Republican party official describing his ideal, but mythical administrative assistant, put it, "I want someone who can write a speech for you, take care of ninety per cent of the phone calls, arrange meetings and even dig up candidates to run for county offices." Other typical comments were: You have no idea of the amount of correspondence that. piles up during a campaign. One of my greatest needs was a secretary that could write a decent thank you letter for my signature.” We need a man to develop educational materials. What the party needs are research men that can come up with new ideas - master strategists: but we could never sell the finance committee on that. The most commonly perceived functional needs were in the fields of public relations, research and field organization, all of which entail a substantial measure of independence and discretion.9 91t should be noted that the respondents were asked whether or not there were ”. . .any obstacles in the way of [their] making these [staff] additions.“ Only 2 of the 11 persons responding to this question indicated reluctance on the part of the party peOple to having a professional staff. The most common "obstacle'I cited was that of insufficient funds." Four Republicans, however, stated that the party lacked sufficient leadership and know-how to properly direct and supervise a professional staff. 17“ While the majority of the respondents took the posi-‘ tion that the parties need broad-gauged staff assistance, some were distrustful, even downright scornful, of the ”pros." As one public official put it, "A lot of campaign funds are wasted. The 'pros' take a gullible candidate for a ride. They are usually broken-down newspapermen who don't know any more about politics than the candidate."10 Another public official indicated that, while he could use help with his speeches, '. . .it is Just too difficult to find the right man.” Another public official stated that public relations help is relatively unimportant because '. . . nobody believes what you say anyway. It's your record that you run on and who knows more about that than you do.” The Political Staff Member as a Person The general background, political orientation and personality characteristics desired by politicians in their staffers provide additional clues to their perceptions of the ideal staff role. To obtain data on these attitudes, the respondents were asked the following two questions. First, an open-ended question designed to elicit a com- pletely free range of responses was asked, namely, ”What 11 do you look for when you hire a staff person?" A second question specifically designed to probe desired personality 10This same respondent, however, indicated that a gubernatorial candidate needs staffing and that Governor Williams has a ”dedicated campaign staff.” 11Appendix C, question 3. 175 traits was also asked, namely, ”Are there any particular 12 With personality characteristics that you look for?“ each respondent's replies to the first question counted regardless of the number stated, a rank order of responses can be tabulated as follows in Table 3. TABLE 3.--Rank order of traits desired in staff personnel by Michigan political leaders ”w j—T Democratic Republican Total Responses Responses Responses Rank Response No. x ' No. % No. % 1 Special expertise 2 12.5 6 24.0 8 19.5 2 Ability to get along with people - tact, ' diplomacy 3 18.75 4 16.0 7 17.1 3 Intelligence ; 3 18.75 4 16.0 7 17.1 4 Motivation 2 12.5 3 12.0 5 12.0 5 Organizational ability 1 6.25 3 12.0 4 9.6 6 Loyalty l 6.25 2 8.0 3 7.2 7 Issue orientation 2 12.5 1 4.0 3 7.2 8 Political experience 0 0 l 4.0 ‘l 2.4 9 Creativity and - imagination 1 6.25 0 0 l 2.4 10 Good health 0 0 l 4.0 1 2.4 11 Good education 1 6.25 0 0 l 2.4 12 Appendix C, question 3, a. 176 It is helpful to classify the eleven traits held to be desirable in party staffers into three analytic cate- gories: (l) traits conducive to independence of thought and action: (2) traits conducive to commitment to dominant party values; and (3) traits conducive to neither (1) or (2). The traits placed under each category are as follows: Traits conducive to independence 1. Creativity and imagination 2. Special expertise 3. Political experience Traits conducive to commitment 1. Motivation 2. Loyalty 3. Issue orientation 4. Ability to get along with people Neither 1. Intelligence 2. Good health 3. Organizational abilities 4. Good education It is significant to note that 43.8 per cent of the responses fall into the "commitment” category while only 24.5 per cent can be considered to be “conducive to independence." Furthermore, when the "neither" category is taken into account it is clear that traits considered to be most desirable in the political staff are those that tend to produce attitudes of either commitment or neutrality. 177 Apart from expertise (which might have been classi- fied as "neither")13 the most recurring responses were ability to get along with people, strong motivation and loyalty - all traits which tend to produce commitment.1u Creativity, ability to accept responsibility, etc. were almost non-existent responses. When the two parties are compared, it is found that the Democrats tend to see traits leading to commitment as the more desirable whereas Republicans appear to allow for a higher degree of independence. This data can be sum- marized as follows: Democrats Republicang No. 2 No. 2 Traits conducive to independence 3 18.8 7 28.0 Traits conducive to commitment 8 50.0 10 40.0 Traits conducive to neither 5 31.2 8 32.0 This is not surprising in view of the strong ideological nature of the Michigan Democratic Party. 13Although Robert K. Merton sees the intellectual and expert as essentially docile, for purposes of this typology, Specialized expertise was felt to provide the staff member with a substantial amount of independence vis Q via his own Specialty. See ”The Intellectual In A Public Bureaucracy,“ in Soci 1 Theor and Social Structure, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1949), pp. 161-178. 1“As one politician put it, “Politics is an endless chain of human relationships. A staff person should be able to identify the natural leaders and work with them.‘ Another respondent put it more bluntly. "I look for someone I can get along with.” 178 A breakdown of responses to the second question, designed to narrow questioning down to personality charac- teristics only, tends to confirm the preceding data. Close to 64 per cent of the total number of responses to this question by both parties had to do with ”getting along with people." The only other significant response was “depend- ability" which accounted for 18.1 per cent of the responses. A rank order of responses is as follows: Number Ability to work with people 14 Dependability 4 Good judgment 2 Loyalty l ' Initiative 1 Imagination 1 Finally, the respondents were asked whether they found it most valuable to have persons on their staffs who were ”primarily experts in a given area or persons who 'know their way around.”15 The responses to this question displayed the same note of ambivalence occuring throughout the data between substantive expertise and inter-personal skills. Six respondents stated that they wanted the expert, seven that they wanted someone who “knows his way around,“ and four indicated that both were essential. 1 5Appendix C, question 3, b. 179 Political orientation. Michigan's political leader- ship, it has been pointed out, seeks the type of staff expgrtise that logically involves independence and discretion- ary power. On the other hand, personglity ghagacteristics deemed desirable in staffers tend to be either more conducive to commitment to dominant party values or to neutrality. This apparent ambivalence can be explained only by relating both types of requisites to perceptions by the leadership of the political framework within which expertise is be- lieved to rightfully function. That is, if politicians want to have their staff function in highly complex and technical matters, i.e., matters which involve expert, and therefore somewhat autonomous decisions, and at the same time evidence a relatively high level of commitment to the party, it must be postulated that the politicians perceive limitations on the extent to which staffers can apply their expertise to decisions and that they perceive a political framework within which staffers must operate. Political leaders in Michigan basically expect their staff to be in agreement with them on political matters. ”It should be automatic,” a Republican respondent stated. ”One-hundred per cent,“ was the reply of a Democrat.16 The extent of this agreement, however, may vary. In answer to the question, "To what extent would you say that most of the members of your staff should agree with you on political 16Appendix C, questions 16-17. 180 questions,” a range of responses is detectable. Table 4 summarizes this data. TABLE 4.--Political agreement expectations of party leader- ship in Michigan Number of Responses Extent of Staff Agreement Democrats Republicans Total Staff agreement required in specifics 3 3 6 Staff agreement required only after policy is established 0 l 1 Staff agreement required only on broad general policy 4 3 7 Staff agreement not required 1 3 a Total number of responses 8 10 18 There appears to be a discernable Republican tendency to require less political agreement on the part of staff than exists among Democrats. If items 1 and 2 in Table 4 can be classified as indicating ”high required agreement" and items 3 and 4 as indicating "low required agreement“ the parties compare as follows: 181 Democrats Republicans Total N2; .2 N2; 2. £21. a High required agreement 7 87.5 6 60 13 62.3 Low required agreement 1 12.5 4 40 5 27.7 This also accords with the picture of the Democratic Party as being more ideologically oriented than the Republican.17 The necessity for smooth working relationships between staff and leadership was the reason most often cited why agreement is necessary. As one Democrat put it, ”Unless you know that he is in general agreement with you, it's impossible to delegate responsibility.” Other typical comments were: I don't want to get ulcers trying to work with a person who is always disagreeing with me. They have got to be in agreement with me because I am responsible for what they do. It's necessary for you to be on the same wave length. Republicans, as has already been pointed out, were somewhat more willing to tolerate disagreement. A top Republican leader, while also reflecting concern over the fact that authority cannot be placed in unfriendly hands, stated, however, that he ”often changed his mind." Another Republican politician stated, ”Honesty is the most important thing. You can't get people to agree on everything. 17Beapondenta who indicated that they expected a high level of agreement on the part of their staff were asked whether ”. . . there [is] room on your staff for the tech- nically qualified person whose viewpoints are not shared by yourself?” (See Appendix C, question 16, b.) Five of seven respondents answered “no”; two answered ”yes.“ Again, the Democratic respondents manifested relatively high re- quired agreement with four of five indicating that there is no room on a political staff for the deviant. 182 Anyway, I wouldn't want a bunch of rubber-stampers in a campaign.“ The “neutral staff“ concept also tended to crop up in the thinking of a number of Republicans. Fairly typical comments in response to the query on the necessity for agreement were: If they are paid staff it shouldn't make any difference. They have a job to do. It doesn't make any difference if a person is willing to do his job. Once policy is determined it should be obeyed, agree- ment or not. These same party differences in attitude toward the degree of political agreement required of staff also occur at the point of recruitment. Democrats tend to want to recruit people for staff jobs who have not had prior experience in order to train them themselves. Republicans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly prefer the already experienced person.18 In addition, Republicans demonstrated 18In answer to the question, “When you hire a new staff person, do you want one with experience, or do you prefer to train him yourself?” (Appendix 0, question 6) the responses were as follows: Regponse Democratic Republican Totpl Wants one with experience 2 7 9 Wants one with experience, yet pliable 3 4 7 wants to train him himself — 2 0 2 183 a greater willingness than Democrats to accept on their staff an experienced person who had worked for someone they personally do not agree with politically.19 This difference of attitudes shows up in the comments typical of the leaders of each party. As one Democrat put it, "I would rather have inexperience than someone who did not share our philosophy.“ Other typical Democratic comments were: Such a person would not be considered. I would want to know his prejudices. Training them yourself avoids having to battle with preconceived ideas. I don't care who he has worked for; if he shares my philosophy - O.K. Ideology is very important. Typical Republican comments were: We would hire him if he is pliable. We couldn't use a hard nose. Chances are the man would be adaptable. He doesn't formulate policy, but adapts himself to it. . 19Respondents were asked whether or not they would employ an experienced person who had worked on the staff of a United States Senator with whom they would tend to dis- agme politically. (Appendix C, question 6, a.) The re- sponses were as follows: Response Democratic Republican Total Would hire such a person 0 2 2 Would hire such a person but only if pliable 3 2 5 Would not hire such a person 3 3 6 184 I would want to know his attitudes. But a man can run a good campaign without being committed to a particular philosophy. The fact that he is a Republican is sufficient. Members of both parties, however, expressed views which diverged from those of their party. A top Democrat said, “We have people with Southern background on our staff. We would, however, want a staff member to get into the Michigan Democratic Party and get the feel of it before we hired him.“ His Republican counterpart stated, ”We would have to evaluate the person involved. A person who dis- agrees with us could be used as an organizer. But hiring him for the public relations department would be another question.“ A Republican county chairman, when asked whether he would like to get a young junior executive as his executive secretary, replied, ”No. We need to get away from the G. M. label.” It is interesting to relate the political agreement expectations of the Michigan political leadership to the theoretical models described earlier in the chapter. Democratic party attitudes on the extent of political agree- ment required on the part of staff tend to pattern closely after the "committed staff“ concept while Republicans appear to carry ”neutral staff” conceptions in their heads. Democratic politicians want their staff members to have personality traits more conducive to commitment and to be in agreement with them ideologically. In addition, they evidence substantial concern over the types of persons 'l ___—_ 185 recruited into staff jobs, with there existing a fairly substantial body of opinion that staffers should be re- cruited directly out of the party ranks. These attitudes are in line with the hypothesis that the concept of the “committed staff“ would most likely be found in parties that are ideologically homogeneous.20 Republican party leaders, on the other hand, tend to view prior expertise as a fundamental desideratum for staff work and require less political agreement. They want the person who can ”do the job" regardless of his past associ- ations or political beliefs. Apart from expertise, the basic requirements are that he be a Republican and that he be willing to submerge his differences while he is a ”member of the team." These attributes are in accord with the “neutral staff" concept. Again, the postulate con- cerning the relationship between staff type and the politi- cal complexion of the party holds up. It was postulated that the ”neutral staff“ concept would most likely be found in a party that has fairly strong contending factions.21 This is certainly descriptive of the Republican Party in Michigan. 20 21 See pp. 161—162. See p. 159. 186 The Staff Member's Attitude Toward Discretionapy Situations In addition to a party staff person's political orientation and general background, political leaders have Opinions concerning the way in which staff should view their specific functions, duties and day to day problems. If the general orientation of the professional staff person can be considered to form the ”warp" of the politician's conception of the ideal staff role, his attitude toward the day to day operations of the party can be considered to be its "woof.” How does the politician perceive the role the staff member should play in the various tasks assigned to him by the party? What is considered to be proper staff conduct in the carrying out of the day to day activities of the party? Respondents were asked a series of questions de- signed to obtain information on how they utilized their staff in concrete situations, namely, in the writing of speeches, in the drafting of press releases and newsletters, in making office appointments and in handling ocrrespond- ence. 22 The data obtained from this line of questioning serves the dual purpose of providing clues on what the politicians perceive as the prOper staff role and also providing a picture of what the politician perceives the 22See Appendix C, question 11. 187 ictual influence of the staff to be in the party decision- naking process. Spgeches. Political leaders in Michigan take a )roprietary interest in their speeches and view this task is essentially their own responsibility. In answer to the luestion, ”Specifically, could you describe for me how you itilize your staff in the writing of speeches,” 95 per cent indicated that they either write their own or provide their speech writer with fairly complete information on what they vish to say. Only two respondents stated that they have ever used their assistant to conceive and draft a speech 1g,ppgp. The range of responses to this question is summarized in Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5 that the general method if handling speeches is for the politician to provide his speech writer with the basic ideas he wishes to develop and then to delegate to him the task of composing a first draft. The second most common method is for the politician to prepare his own speeches. The various types (or patterns) of relationships existing between politician and staff relative to the preparation of speeches can best be illustrated by de- scriptive statements made by the respondents themselves. Typical of the politician who writes his own speeches is the statement by a Democratic office holder: I usually do my own research and write my own speeches. Once, however, I had to give a speech on unemployment compensation and told my staff to analyse each section of the Bill. 188 N H H H H o o .soeoan eAHuse moaHas use no>Hoomoo nouumum H H o o o H o .sooonm nepHns human .hHso oHnoa necHa noun mocmoH HooHaHHom OH H m o w H n .uuosc sou uHmmp as human :uHs esocH nonusoeHo cocooH HcononHoN m o n o o o n .uusau sou «Hemp as human o» sevens no osHHaso moan socmoH HsoHaHHom m m m H a N H .sooemu :so mmadht QOUNOH Huoduunom esHa oaHa oaHa osHa osHB oeHs uncommon puma HH< ahom HH< vhmm HH< Hence nacho nHmuoB assoHHnsmem uumnoosoa mounds: cocoon an canon Hodonaoonoao on» no conooNAHHas--.n mqm<>kesman and his press officer. It is also due to the high I’Tiority given to press and public relations by the politi- °1an. It is the party ideologist that has the party's ear. \ “Appendix C, questions 10, 10, a. 215 Attitudes of the Politic 1 Le der hi Towggd Thgir Own Cpmpetgnce ‘ It has been postulated earlier than the extent to thxich the party leadership feels itself to be competent "1 11, in turn, influence the type of staff role it perceives as legitimate. Three questions were designed to probe these attitudes: 1. ”When a technical point comes up in a piece of legislation (or a spgech) to whom do you usually go for information“? 2 ‘ 2. 'Do you use any system for chficking the reli- ability of this data or not"? 3 3. ”Do you ever feel at the mercy of your staff?'““ Michigan's political leadership has, in general, a high level of self-confidence, although this is substantially more true of the Democrats than the Republicans. Looking first at question number 3, the data indicates that this general perception of competence is reflected in a sense of °apability of interpreting and judging information and re- 3earch provided them by their staff. Only six (35 per cent) 01‘ seventeen respondents indicated that they often were in ‘3 Iposition of having to accept staff research at face value. The responses to the question are as follows in Table 11. The relatively marked differences between the leadership of \_ 42Appendix C, question 22. 4 3Appendix 0, question 23. 4 Question does not appear in the printed interview schedule but was developed early in the course of the inter- ‘\‘\‘L Viewing. air-n— ‘An‘ 216 TABLE ll.--Extent to which political leadership expressed feeling at the mercy of their staff personnel W Coded Response N umber Responding Democrats Republicans Total _____ Yes Yes - but infrequently No l 5 6 1 - 0 1 5 5 10 'tlmee two parties on the extent to which they feel at the mercy (>1? their staffs can be explained by two factors. First, in Michigan, Democratic party leaders have direct access to governmental information by virtue of the fact that they 3<>zmstrol the major public offices and can obtain information €111?¢3ugh the staffs of administrative agencies and study c<>nmxmissions that report directly to them. Second, Democratic Politicians have a built-in system of checking the 'data they re<=eive from whatever the source. As one Office holder put 1‘3: "I hire (my assistant) to bring back the correct information. If he doesn't, I have eighty-eight legislators, 12 reporters and two hundred lobbyists to set me straight.“ Republicans, on the other hand, while having access to many ‘3? the same sources, are not able to utilize them (particu- '1arly the bureaucracy and study commissions) as efficiently. The remarks of two major candidates from each party illus- trates this difference. In answer to question number 2 217 above, the Democrat stated that, in addition to material prepared by his staff, he received information from many sources, namely, public officials, administrative agencies, study commissions, universities and interest groups. Added to this is the fact that knowledge of the sources of the information plus many years in public office have provided him with a large fund of background for evaluating in- formation presented to him. The Republican, on the other hand, lamented the fact that he had no method of evaluating staff research other than "common sense.” "Some of the stuff was so technical,” he said, "I don't know how to use it. A candi- date just doesn't have time for creative, reflective thought.” This difference between the two parties is more pro- nounced with respect to the extent to which the leadership expressed having a system for evaluating the accuracy and reliability of the data prepared for them by their staffs. This can be clearly seen from Table 12. The respondents articulated four basic approaches to the problem of evaluating staff research. The most commonly reported procedure was that of merely employing their own personal experience and judgment to the research. As one party leader put it, “I read all the time. I don't rely on the staff. In fact, if there is an area I am not familiar with - like the farm problem - I won't accept a paragraph 218 from a staff member on that subject." Another respondent, an office holder, said: As a legislator, I have had to do my own research. There's very lifitle new that comes up that has not come up before. 5 . TABLE 12.--Extent to which Michigan political leaders articu- lated a system for evaluating the reliability of staff research _i____T____‘:_ Number Responding Coded Response Democrats Republicans Total L A Stated that they have such a system 5 4 9 Stated that they do not have such a system 2 7 9 Others rely on staff meetings. A state Official stated, “You thrash things out in staff meetings. There are only a dozen important questions in a year and you get to know the broad outlines of an issue.” Outside sources were cited by two respondents. A Republican said, ”I have no system, but plenty of checks. Newspaper men provide me with facts and candidates are always reporting.” Finally, some rely on knowing the source of the data. A Republican office holder said, “I check the source of the information my assistant gives me.” “5This respondent made it clear that on most matters he had more expert knowledge and background than his assistant. 219 The above data tends to indicate that although the politicians assign their staff the major research jobs, they view it as ”processing” rather than ”producing" information. That is, staff appear to be perceived as securing data from well accepted sources and submitting it to the political leadership for scrutiny rather than structuring the in- formation themselves. W Taken together, there emerges from the data a com- posite, although at times, conflicting, picture of what Michigan's political leaders perceive the proper staff role to be. Speaking generally, the professional staff member is perceived as bringing a high level of expertise and skill to his work but as exercising these skills within the ideo- logical and decisional framework established by the party leaders. He is not viewed as a mere technician, nor is he viewed as a decision-maker, but rather as contributing to decisions. Top staff members in both parties have become virtually absorbed into the party leadership structure in the sense that they contribute to and profoundly influence decisions up and down the line. Yet their position is per- ceived as subordinate to that of the leadership. There exist marked deviations from this composite image, however. Democrats, while tending to perceive as ideal a greater amount of discretionary power for 220 staff members than do Republicans, delegate less discretion- ary power in actual practice than their counterparts. Republicans theoretically place the staff in a subordinate role but, in practice, lean quite heavily upon them. This, it has been pointed out, stems largely from the differences in conditions producing perceptions by the leadership as to their own competence. CHAPTER VI THE PROFESSIONAL PARTY STAFF VIEWS ITS ROLE Perceptions of what constitutes the proper staff role are not limited to the political leadership. The members of the professional staff also carry an image of what their role should be in the party's affairs - an image that greatly affects their activities. To what extent are the role perceptions of the professional staff and political leadership similar? Are the attitudes of the staff and leadership the same with respect to the amount of dis- cretionary power the staff should rightfully exercise? If not, what is the effect of these differing viewpoints on the degree of staff responsibility and the effectiveness of staff operations? This chapter will describe the manner in which 28 party staffers in Michigan view their role and the extent of the discretionary power they perceive themselves as exercising. The implications of this data for staff responsi- bility will be discussed. I Pepceptions of the Job The way in which a professional staff person defines his job will determine, in large measure, his attitude toward the role he perceives himself playing in an organization. 221 222 The 28 party staff members interviewed in this study, by and large, define their jobs as involving functions of a rela- tively broad scope and a high level of expertise and skill. To the question, ”What does your job consist of - what do you do?”,three general categories of job descriptions emerge: (1) innovation, (2) consultation, and (3) implementation. The ”innovators“ are those who describe themselves as primar- ily responsible for setting in motion new projects or pro- grams. Innovators describe their positions as follows: I was hired to set up an independent operation - to apply business organization principles to politics. The job wasn't defined. I didn't know what they wanted. I was involved in campaign management for and . This involved recruiting campaign heIp, organ- izing meetings, fund raising, business management, helping write press releases, and just general advisor. I coordinate and develOp finance organization in eighty out-state counties; train county workers in the techniques of fund raising. The "consultants" define their function as largely that of providing research, information and advice to the political leadership and/or party workers. Typical of the job descriptions in this category are the following: My job is helping in the development of 's policy attitude on national and international questions. Mine is an educational job - training workers in the precincts, bringing organizational techniques to volunteers and following them up. I serve as a com- munication link between headquarters and the counties. My job is to provide expert advice on public relations moves. The 'implementors' can be divided into two sub-groups. One group, ”executors", while not defining their functions in 223 termns of innovation, nevertheless have responsibility for the (iirection of party activities within the framework of previously established policy. 4A8 chief of staff, I was responsible for the operation <3f the entire staff. I acted for in all matters in.his absence. ‘As executive secretary of county, I coordinate 'the entire operation and am in charge of everything except finance. I administer the mechanics of the '8 office. The is responsible for policy in theory: but in actuality, this is a fiction.. The second sub-group, ”administrators" are largely responsi- ble for implementing policy from a technical or administrative at:andpoint. I am assistant to the county chairman. I function in his behalf. He's the boss but he has a job of his own. He gives orders and I implement them and supervise all Republican programs and public relations in the county. My job was to coordinate '8 campaign with the central public relations staff, write feature articles and handle press relations in the counties. I work on speeches, press releases, researching and answering correspondence, scheduling appointments, and representing at meetings. In the above attempt to categorize the job de- 8c”i'iptions given by the professional staff people interviewed f0? this study, the categories employed cannot be considered to be water-tight compartments. It is clearly evident that Eaeh job contains elements to be found in the other cate- gories. In addition, it should not be assumed that because a respondent described his duties in a certain fashion it necessarily follows that this represents his actual function. 224 This is particularly true of public relations personnel who tended to describe their functions as implementory in nature, but who, as will be subsequently noted, have a substantial cmnsllltational role in the party organization. Not only do the specific job descriptions themselves demonstrate something of the scope of the staff function, most :respondents view themselves as performing duties out- side) their specialty.1 Public relations, for instance, tends to has a universal staff function. That is, the staffer can expect to be called upon to write a press release or work on a 8Peech in his area Of specialization at some point in the Party's activities. Campaign management and administrative duties were also often mentioned as “extra duties.” As one Democratic respondent put it, "I was hired to do organiza- t101181 work but ended up running the Spring campaign.” In addition to perceiving their jobs as involving a "ide scope of activities, close to 60 per cent indicated that it had changed in nature over time. These data are summarized in Table I. \ lInterview Schedule: Political Staff, Appendix D, question 1, a, "Do you have any duties outside your specialty?“ rank ordering of the responses to this question is as follows. ' Rgsponse Number Public relations duties 11 Policy advice 9 Administrative duties 4 Campaign management 3 Field organization duties _; 28 225 TABLE 1.--Perceptions of change in job by Michigan political staff members Number Responding Coded Response Democrats Republicans Total Job lip-graded to greater ' . (14.2)* 1 ( 7.1) 3 (10.7) responsibility 2 Job broadened at same level 5 (35.8) 3 (21.4) 8 (28.4) Job narrowed at same level 3 0 ( 0 ) l ( 7.1) l ( 3.6) Job down-graded to less :- responsibility 3 0 ( O ) 2 (14.2) 2 ( 7.1) Job remained essentially 5 the same ; 5 (35.8) 5 (35.3) 10 (35.8) Number not reporting 2 (14.2) 2 (14.2) 4 (14.2) Total g 14 14 28 *Percentages in parentheses 0f the 24 that answered the question, 45.8 per cent indicated that their job had broadened in some fashion, 12. 5 per cent 1~"1tiicated that it had narrowed and 41.7 per cent saw no change. The above data demonstrate fairly clearly that the Professional party staff members in Michigan tend to perceive their jobs as involving a wide scope of activities and de- fine them in a manner that indicates that they view them- selves as performing functions of substance and consequence for the party: functions which, theoretically at least, imply 226 the need for decision-making powers if they are to be suc- cessfully carried out. Furthermore, a substantial number feel that their responsibilities have been broadened and/or up-graded, an assumption which certainly implies, if it does not specifically denote, the fact that there is a range of activity above the mere routine open to the staff person. It should be noted that, in terms of the definition of the staff function pg; pg, there is relatively little difference between the perceptions of the political leader- ship and the political staff. We nOted in Chapter V, however, that the definition by the leadership of the scope of the staff role tended to contract when their responses moved from a theOretical definition of the tasks they would like to see the staff perform to the discretionary power dele- gated to it in actual practice. This same phenomenon occurs in staff members' responses. Esggntipl skills and traits. The manner in which a professional staff person perceives his job is not limited solely to a description of his duties. It is also neces- sary to probe his perception of the skills and personality characteristics essential to the proper performance of those duties. Two questions were designed to probe these perceptions:2 1. You have had opportunities to work with or view staff people from both political parties. Do there seem to be any group of traits that characterize most of the people you have met who hold jobs as 2Appendix D, questions 6 and 7. 227 political staffers? Do they have any particular traits in common? 2. Are there any particular skills that you consider to be indispensable in doing your job? Relative to the perceptions of respondents as to the personality traits they view each other as possessing, it should be noted that 50 per cent of the twenty staff members queried on this point do not feel that, in actuality, pro- fessional party staff people hold a cluster of traits in common or that they constitute a ”particular breed“ of indi- vidual: 37.5 per cent feel that there are group similarities; and 12.5 per cent state that they do not know. However, when asked to specifically list the traits they believe characterize their colleagues, a certain group of attributes tended to crystalize. These data are summarized in Table 2. A rank ordering of the responses to question number two appears in Table 3. It is interesting to compare Table 3 with the data of Chapter V on the traits considered desirable in staff personnel by the political leadership.3 Although the two sets of tables are not completely comparable, it should be noted that both leadership and staff respondents consider similar traits to be the most essential requisites for suc- cessful staff work. Inter-personal skills, for instance, rank first on both tables. Imagination, a characteristic one might expect to rank higher in the minds of staff people, 3See Table 3, Chapter V. 228 .aos» O» caucuses opHsHeoc o uHoHHo on come no: unsound on mass c.so:uoe seems couscous use: one soH>sova on» mH conceiosa no: use: NH and HH .OH neoaHs a.om cosmomnosc use one» consensus: cease» oso noncommos souaoH omega .mBOpH on» so some on csognos on usoonomnos on» sexes sosoHssousH on» .uonsoanos cosoounsHo> on» mesHoapo sous< .soHnnos councimomo sH comes moss oso mOHumosd on so>Hw nonsomnos Op nsosos ccosooamsHosc asap 0:9 sonoz u N i N oHsusoouomo .oHumHsnasonao .NH 1 H i H uncanooaon .HH 1 N i N soHumHHoooH .oH OH oH OH o nsoHusmo .m m 3H NH N muHHmmoesoa umomoOHn .hHumoHsm .m NH 3 s o asaposoao spoosmc .s m 0H OH o :oHuosHmosH .o nH m n assesses use ossso .n m NH o o oosomHHHossH-ssHHosoooHHoosH .m m oH n u huHmsoq . n MH m n soHnso>osnxo .mno:o>Hmmoswm< .N N 3H N a oHoooo eon: xso: on soHHsse .H oz new no» onsonnom ooosommom Hmpoe ooomonnom cosOOpssHo> nHmooa hasmmiosa OHnoom «have hoses an Hemmousom human mason HosoHnnososn so OHchsouoosmso no ooaHoosom anoseiu.N mqmaoo on commasoo 291 .huamg one a« mumcsoao Hmodaaaom one so candaaoadoa on Haas has» summuoqeoo madmausoss on on panama» can so scan nuances“ one maaaxu amaocnm ma mmaxoma nomads cam mflmsoammcu use can success macaw .H o>aadmom HmonmmHo noun apnea cosmoom an «H .mouuoaaomsa uo mooasom use and um:,cmo uswda w duo mud ma umoaonaoo hasmun a as announces” Hooaoaaom .m M .huaaoSusm hamzoaaoao m than one hands» have» emdoacwc W 0» ohm sponses humps nods: m .huamc manna: xaososmam Hmoaaaaom m m on» no ch>cH cascapaaoaa oeaooaom caseboomca Hecauuaoc _ on» an so am coma macamao can macnaoe mumps zoom .N use on» ooaosuusd hHHmaaoama “no Hoppmoo cognac cu scapdmon m .soHumaaomaa _ ad on Had: mamsodmmchoam apnea ouaaonomos so scaumoasse _ on» .mo«pmoanssaoo go advanced .500 Mo masseuse Hoppmoo con i _ mamuaoo mo haomosos one on can modemsaousa no mean» . .souumaaouma no mocha canaocmm sandbags on access use madame c>uumwom . on access .mHHaxm Heavens cadence can: madness human .H aaaooHemm mono: macs» mo ospua> am as .H cascade to» contents madness snooze doaoaeoooam (llJ) M msodmsaosoo mo unmeasmnu.m ca:Mam 292 .noauosaoa ids wdaeaosaaz aaasdoaadoada co spades assoc eases supersede canoe daseaoosoa Hooaoaaoa .N .moHuabupom cam macamaooo humus ammo uummwdm Has no commemoflo meadow 30» adamhoommH AmbuunHom .H .comcuomaoo uo Ho>oH swan m open on mo>ammaoSp o>aooaom maoomoa Hosauaaom .N .gmaa on on commucnaoo gunmamomca no Hc>cH ammonom o>aooaom mnmoosonmoa humus .maoppme Hmoamsooa no moupmaaousa no \omm Hadxm osom xoma moon mass -tooooa Hooaeaaoo one case: .H .mommcflca mecca cam monotone ho codenamcoac on» ca name m>apom moses oaaeaoeosa Hooaeaaoc .m .mouumsaomma no maomomoa m c>ms pom co has» ems» mamas chanson mnmpm .N .soaamsaomsd Ho mooasom one momcuoaaoo mxo and mm: .pamn once on» too .oaaetoeooa Hooaoaaom .H .uo>aomec:p on .aczom hmmsoauoaomao anemones 0» canvass: emanate macaw .n c>aumwc2 o>aummoz o>dpmwoz ~--.~ '_‘.w~‘--m M. mono: mono: acne: .mHm umoammomoac apnea on» 59 cows ionomoe was handed moamaooc scams monsoon moaumeaou tea ease coast as efioddoso on» scan: 0» batman on» com: unease ad“: cascades” macs» no accuse one “Mic .H .oomoucmeoo macs» manna: no: can» can summon amoungoo» m Mo on on adamaoomoa Hmo iauaaon on» an coeducaom cam soapmaaomma use maaaxm anon» scan: on common on» son: .oaccco Haas oommsauau macs» ho assess any ”mic .H .huama on» no «access can on Hmaosao on on magmaoomoa Hmoduaaon on» ma oc>dooacm can scapmaaouma use «Haaxm anon» scan: on coawco on» son: vacate Haas codenamed macs» mo access was ”Hue .H t 293 . .mxmmp msosomoumm W .oomhoosoo mu ensconced human as» a i as use as .se>«m no mmaoapaaom .mHmnO«mmceoaq as» oduaocnm m on commaumm vanced no name on» no moduonomao human oaoa no mac and: scanmmu you moauamsumomao cuHstme amasaaoo an coasposaum a" on no hm: m some :4 cons» mumps on» .aosumm . mooauuo no W tongue ma homsosmoasn human message“: m mu co comma nomv on» noun: 0» sapwoo on» son: coaunmaosmcasp hHHmeaou no: mam nuance Haas ooaosammd macs» demands: an access assoc .H oaaaomoz more: no assess one lane .H .capmcomancaad # on on magmacomoa ambauaaoa a _ on» an ocpacoaoc ma mHHaxm _ coon» madam: amnoamaouoam _ on» scan: on common on» son: A . common Had: ooaosahmd macs» moans» poz mono: who accuse one "and .H .uumum an couscooam monumeaommd mmamhammm mom saunas mzo _ and em: mammacomoa Hmofiofiaom * on» was» camps mummonOQmoa dareaoeooa use cases zoom .a _ .moasuo mo coco a0\oam msoauqooacm each human moumaoa> maneuoemoa on» swaaadsoaao chose: amasmosuo to nanoseconds meaoaosaaz .m mmuomam sou concow>m Mduosam mucosa scapdmOQOAm (4 (I'll! J cosmausoonun cacwam 294 .oHoow aooaoo opoaapas smog» so .aobozos .aouuao .mamoomommoa mumps mo macaw oo~3amoapoz .n .xoos mumps mouse as owmwmo 0» son» msauo>auoe hHHmsawaao mosauoonpo on» so amoeooamm swan opusd zone masocmomooa woman no macaw oo«n::o«amz .N .amoaooawm human loans“ Hmasoaoomsm oommamoao ousoonoamoa «mono newness: .a .uaoomoo as com on hudoomoo “hope moose non .ao>ozos .noauaooao no>o umoaooawooao umoaodemsm .m .amoaooamm house soaps“ Houmoeoonsu ooachmdo apnoudOQmoa mumps mmwusonz .N .haaomowoaon caaosooo acaoom swan oozono mucoosogmoa «mono no macaw oua:u:o«pmz .H .oooooH .noa on has human an ooaoaoaa oumoaouopo caunsn ac uumoasooo .opaocoa has oaomon comazuoa an oonoaooao no ooaMoc swag m can» cascaoma unsooaocooa manusooooa can mumps zoom .H .Vhrc .0 ”no 0...” ‘A‘OM c... own~ s- _»-0—.—. ._ .— obaudmon hafloaahmm moauah neoo no: mauonuonh: uo>auaooa haaoapamm o>aummoz 1 any compo: 3 .n was a< ANV xousuaom any cosmos mono: “NV medcwaom_ A.‘ Q... M 0‘. .nooom cam onow .oosHm> soaaoo weapon on mopaomeonu o>uoo upon handbammouoan house on» some: on ooawou on» non: ozonoo Had: oomosamad anon» Mo pmouwo one “muo .H .omonasm ho amoaooawo one hadafimmms ho ooawoo swan kahuna o no“: new on son» oanmmo on hpaomowoao: oaaosoooso«ooo umoaoauhsm up comaaouomamso ohm nauseaooouoam magma on» seas: on ooamoo onu son: omogoo Had: ooaosaumd macs» ho amouwo one «H30 .H .modumoamsaeoo no maooa compo one among human on» u Hounmoo mason anemones Ho mpaoezaamma on» Homamoo mammoHomouoan mason on» scans on ooawoo on» com: omomoo Han: oomosausa anon» co edoaxo one «~-o .H .oasums ma o>auamaoo no: oao.no«sz no oosoaanmuoo soon hoooaao mom hoaaom sous: mmamuoosoo oaouaoa hodaoc no mumoaouoao moose cam oosooomo oomoaoa cam emote doaco canoes «than .N .oamoon mumps scam oaoo «mood on» no nomenon Hmausouopso m .quoaooooa on» no wooed on» uooamoa haamoaomn oaopaoa s, «mono an commaona moomoaoa 3 among 98 monsoon? odds: £93 ooumuo oaoomoa hound osom .H .oaum cam mama house some cocoaomd sandmauaouao oHnooq human .H .‘O 0"“..w0 "" O oaaaaooc toot: o>apmMoz .maso aaooooa hoped on» son use“ assoc one moospaupo and mag nuaampao> ma oomowso haemouo taco ohm mos» nos» noon on» no pasooa o no momma on» no some»: on» sodanmuoo mo>Hooaonp oHonOHooohoam on» scan: on oouwoo on» son: econoo Had: osmosauaa anon» mo amouwo one halo .H .oaonx o no hpo«00o on» «o oumoawom no no oaam com amok m.huamn osa mo ousosmoo mo phoneme on» o>mn on casmnocmoa Hooauaaoc on» hp oo>aooaoq ma “macaw o no so haammo ia>aomav Hosoflmmohoan house on» sons: 0» ooamoo on» non: ozonoo Hafiz oomosauau Laos» no amouwo one unto .H meanest toe codooaam L) waaomam mucosa scuuaoonoam oomnupmoonim oaamam 296 .nueaeooo ems usosueaaoo on manomoa omen» on on ounce» oapmsam> pooe oeeooaon onmoomommon one: incense one nomenon: seem .N .nneaeoou one amoauuaeoo on monomoa ounce» amonanma on nnmno ooeeuoo “enmeooooq .H .coanaosooeon zezmen oneso we manmnooooa one nnmum moozuop nenononnoeom .n s.onmn con: opomeaeeo on pooeeo haunodoennsm we genoeoomoa one nnono sooznon ouooo< .N .nenmeoomoa on» space inns neona- omaznoSpo no coup imaaonme oaonnpex o» oonobeuoe you one mumoomogmoe nnmnm .H A.H> noncono no sodooaomoo canon one on menev .nueon on» canvas oeon has unoeuoaooeo Anon» an nenmnoeooe nae: monsoonoo no ooLMoc nwen o unoqoa opmoomonooe nnonm .H .oAOHAonzo Hmoevaeon neonu use mosaooaonu mooxuon anon cooewo Hoouaneoq no ooewoo swan . m aeoaon unconsonooe nnopm .H oeuuamom oeeumwoz o>apmwoz osdummoz aro- up .00: - ..\ Orv..- Hmoeoemao na.n. on oanhwu< homoesoo AN.HV nounoz any antenna AH. xo«:NHom A n —— w. -t .oonou ionaoo Hmeusom no moosneapm on» nae: conned we nnmno on» goes: on oonmoo on» non: omonoo Had: nnouo Homoemoon none on» no nozon one pmaoon on nanoeocmoa Hmodneaoa one no anneano one he .HH .ono s.onmm pa waehmamo .oamu ooh I .shuaomnmoaa confident on axon: manoeoao oeeuase node on» an nomenouooecno on nzoeomdeo Hencemoonoem one goes: on ooamoo on» non: ocoaoo Hen: oososanme neon» no adoaxo one. hm-n .H .oHon on: no neapqooeog on: onmaoae noes: monue>euom ma ommwao on common nnmnm assenomonoen on» moadmoon menoaocooa Hmoaueaoa on» scan: 0» oonmoo on» non: omogoo Had: ooaozanma neon» no anoono one u~-n .H, .oanoa Honoueom on: on name» 1:00 mneon mo uaoow m.husoa on» oo>aooeoa Henceomonoem on» scans on ooawoo on» non: osomoo Haas ooaosanne neon» no onoaxo one he-n .H 297 W .aodumanonsn o no moonsoo :30 one was w ooeueoawo use and non enema i M on» an nanoeoomofl HoonuHHoq .nMan on nnmam on» an cosmos . on» noun: 0» ooewoo on» non: none nodumaeonad wnnuosameo an M ononoo Hen: nnopm Honoamoon nananoomoa on» no oomouoaaoo w song on» no nozon on» cannon on» non» ooueoaoe annooaoeooa W on nanmeooooe HooHneHom on» nnoam one Qanmaooooa nnom .H o>apnoon nonozw no endannm one no .HH n .enema M on» no unoEoHo HoonpeHon _ onn no none 0» :eonnon n .n«. neeonenoaonse on non» asuoeno Honooo m seen confines t ion on nnmuo Hencemmonoeq .oeouocom oonmum . on» noen: on ooeMoc on» moms conga: one aoaooomamsn mooneos< ononoo Hen: nnoum Hononooon no non» nuns nanono>mn ooeon tone on» no nozom on» poemon taco onnoonoamon oonzsnOnnmn , on menoeooooa HmonpeHoc on» no usamnm oesonooouoeoom .H o>uuowoz in--- no naeanno one an .HH .oan anon» aeoneon neonosoooo , o» noanoeomao nmoHOHnnso oemn hon» non» Hoon enamonmon nnnmmoooon neonseoono «moans manoaopmuo among mnemooaon an o>enmnpecn one» non oasono non» . pone aoon musoonoaooe nnmnm .n _ wnaonan eon oonoodem Madonna neoone acnpeoomoem oosnannoouun oeSMnm 298 .oodneon Hosanneoc poems m.nomnno«z no nonpao an nonxo no: on maoewoan nose .ooumon haaoonndoono non om: noauamononn nmmonna< «ouoz .annoeocooa on» one ooeaooaonp noosnon unoaoonmo Hooawoa nooon e0\ono Hoonuneom nwan unoaon monoononoon nnoum .N .Honnnoooo on nnmno anon» cam ooeeooaonu moosuon amoeoonmo Hooduaaon non» onoo anon“ onnoumonoon Qanonooooq .H conmou uoz oaaanooe ooohaon< uoz Hooeoomao Am .HV nodnwaom an. noano: any nonnueom eono: .nnmpm Honoaooononn on» no neon on» no annaoeason no hnpoaano Hmoamoaoooa no mononnnno moao>oo on aaoew song wnanaonu oodrnoounn Mano: an ennnaooc oases“ on noon Hen: annmnoomoa Hooaoanod one An .HH .hneon on» no nooeooon on» non: eneodaeo me on non» Honnooeon wad teaspoon an nudaeooo oeSonn 09 noon Had: nanonooooe Hooaonnod one to .HH .nnono Honodouonoea on» no ooosuduuo on» n0\cno oonononoe no osonn on» nun: endanoca no: oooc nanonooooa Hoonuneoq on» nann: on ooaMoo on» non: econoo Hens nnopo aononooon noun on» no nozoq on» cannon 0» canonoomoa emannaaon on» no mundane one no .HH .hodeon oeooon moon“ anon» com on waneoesonos no nownmnnononamme .nonumanonna anneeonnaa: no ooanaonaoaeo one nooaon oomoomonoon nnonm .N .eonuoa on» no noaanno Honoonon nxo anon» no oooeoeom .on unmdn amnoapomn m an mean neonso Hosannaom anon» phoneme on nunaandononooe anon» on an non» Hoon ouaoononoon nnonm .H 299 .nnoz nnouo oeapoonno non mason aeno one on nonaooanaenoen Hoonooeooon eons oonooaona unconnonuoe nnono poo: .H .eo«>onon nnmuo manaaoeamoo no nonaos hence o oo neonaoa nnmpm oomanoe o» nanonooooa Hooduwaom on» no nozon on» ouanmooon nHeooHo unnoononoon nnopm .H 0““-WM eonoz oennnoom Hoodoomao n _ #:OE Hm abdudmom “Hy XOHQNHGW o>nuaoon Hoodmooao .anmeoumoa Hoonudaon on» no onoueo opms«p«MoH on» namndnonaooso an: unooom on mono» nonns ocsnneao Homoauonuammoe o no , nose .auuaaooo chosen nonconop anon» oononno ems mamnOHooon song enema on» no oonuoeeon coonmno neonnou "a .HHH .oooooso on“ e0\ono enema on» nun: acnpoo annnunooa no oomom o as none .npdadooc onmzop nonoonon agony oomonno hoe onnonmmon loam enema on» no oceaoneou nomemno nemunoo an .HH .Honnoonon omeono none one opoeonn on noxon on» no noon Homommuo and no ono onoeuonoo no>onmn3 manhoanao en eueaeooo oaso and 0p noon Hen: mdnonoomofl Hoonannoo one no .HH onaonae non oonoenam o5 ofie enoone madneoononn (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrIIIIILIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII oomnnamoouun on:m«n 300 m and: .an nananz oooaaneao l noaeoo cam nodpooenseaoo N no oooo oenpoaoa wnnocconn . won» .nnmno Homanooonona _ .any antenna on» nnnnnz eononowoson oopoo» xmv xoanuaom oasonooououooo no ooawoo _ non w Ann nonnon nmnn neosnnoeon n "Hen H. n W . .mo>«uonnouao pmoa .unoeeoaneo Hosanaaon _ . uncenso oenopaso,no nose o .oo icon wnnneonno on moanono l . nose .nnaeaooo chosen nonocnon cno oeoo nun: son» unooonn . anon» oonmnno nos oHonOnooon on neon enema co>aoonon opnoo oeduaoon M tong xenon on» no monumeno» «cannon nnonm ocnznso«uoz .H _ haeoaunon ” Hooaoooao nomemno neounoo “H .HH _ .nnmemo w no\cno ooapnannamooa .nueon acanoaonn .nuenoenoo on» oonopso oaoom nooeoo o>mn _ no oonoo on» an noenoun ounoononmon woos mo ecu>onon . anowno onn an tumoanmo>nns oeaooo on mnnmmwno anon» on no wnn>on no wnnaoon o no amassed no: on .noeoxon .onne nose .nnnedoou camzop nonoonou .oeoom noonoo no oesooaonn An.m.av Anon» oesonmo nos menaceumon nwdn hennmn o phonon onnoo o>apaoon manhwn< long nueon on» no monnmaeou unonmon nnopo onesuQOHnoz .H naamepeon Hoodoooao someone neonnoo an .HH .nOnponnononsmna_nn omomno no nanonooooa anaconda unonos o» Hoosnon Amy was .owmponoo .opnm«n demoduoon me Annonooooa Honoeuouaaoweo pomeomo senescence no. .dnnonoeooe non: ononaneaa nonn: ooenno munoazooo nmopnonan weanmoao no ouoo gecko» nonocnou non noonoon “an waneeo>nu nnopo neon» oononno ems mamnoamoon onauno no monounano nmsonnu nonoz noun enema on» no monnmnnou econ moanuo no oooo amenonme .H oanpaoon Hmonoooao someone nnmunou «a .HH 301 .x tendons .nmmcn .nnooaoo nonnnaoon one “noon 2oz n.em enmv .nmaeonon oannmnnoannao< .noedm .< anonnom aonn hennoeHnn nonmp ancenooaneunoUne no anoonoos .oaum momma oom .nnoonn o.eoune3 nooo nn onndonanno oononenn on nonon mooonpnonon nn ononasz nouoz n .nnnon one no nanoeooooe Hoonpneon on» an pnwnoo on ooa>co anon» non» unonxo on» on enema on» no uoonno mnnhnnnn m oamn Had: oeonoaooononn enema on» no anon on» no ocnn nauno no npeonoMoaom «>H .pnoonoo nn poo on onnods on Hen: none none poops onm moonono onp condo unosoao Hoonaneoe on» mnaonoaennn nu ennomooonm on Han: nnopo Honoamoonoen on» nonns on oonmoo on» ouncoe on anon Han: npnonow noeon none no some .naooeoanoo .HH no H noHunoononn nonpao non: noonno annononnnoe o oemn annonne non oonoenam eooeoa eon w ---- l l manenae anoone nOnnnoonoem connnunoonun onnwdm 302 In summary, the study found the following to be true: That alternative b of Proposition I most accurately describes the power position of the party staff vis-a-vis the other segments of the party, namely, that due to the fact that professional party staff people are trained to be ”neutrally competent“ they will be manipulable by the political elements of the party. Thug, the stpff dpes not conptitutp pp oli- gpppnic plempnt within the pp; 1. That the degree of staff influence is reduced because: (I, c-l) staff skills and information are ppp perceived by the leadership to be crucial to the success of the party: (I, c-2) the leadership does ppp perceive the informa- tion and skills of the staff to be beyond their own competence: (I, c-3) the channels by which information reaches major decisional points is pp; monopolized by the party professionals: (I, d-l) the size and structure of the staff does pp; maximize opportunities for discretionary power on the part of the staff professionals: ‘ (I, d-2) the staff does ppp dominate the instruments of internal control such as the party press, manuals, in- structions, etc.: (I, e-2) the party staff does ppp (nor is perceived by the leadership) to have the support of segments of the party's rank and file. Furthermore, the party professional staff people are :0: l 35359 IAIby s v .'.3 ‘1 303 not motivated to resist the authority of the leadership be- cause of the following reasons: (I, f-l) the party staff person does ppp perceive the party's goals to be contrary to his personal norms: (I, f-2) the political leadership does ppp require the professional staff person to engage in activities which violate his perception of his role: (I, f-3) such disruptive behavior as “red tape,” etc. is held to a minimum by the direct access that staff have to decision-making centers in the party. Conversely, the political leadership is successful in resisting the power of the party staff because: (II, a) the professional staff pp imbued with the attitudes of ”neutral competence”, and (II, c) because the political leadership has expertise and sources of information of its own. Furthermore, the political leadership has successfully developed "docility" on the part of the professional staff by: (II, e) recruiting personnel that is in sympathy with the ideology of the party: (II, 3) employing the sanctions at its disposal, particularly the power to hire and fire personnel. There also exist within the body of the professional staff certain psychological characteristics which will en- hance their tendency toward docility, namely: (II, b) a sense of identification with the party; 304 (II, 1) a legal-rational attitude which tends to accept unquestionly the legitimate orders of the political leader- ship: (II, j) a code of ethics which militates against organizational sabotage; (II, k) a fairly substantial "investment” in the organization in the sense of seniority, promotion possibilities and/or salary: and (II, 1) a lack (to some extent) of suitable employment alternatives. 0n the other hand, it was found that: (I, e-l) socio-economic homogeneity is not neces- sarily directly related to unanimity or agreement of purpose on the part of the staff and does not necessarily produce increased,power. However, staff people have some influence over policy due to the fact that: (I, e-3) they establish the ”tone” of the party as a result of the fact that they constantly engage in verbaliz- ing its attitudes and opinions for the party leadership. It was also found that: (II, b) the professional staff was not recruited from a social stratum substantially lower than that of the political leadership and thus does not account for the 'docility‘ found to characterize the party staff. Thus, with respect to the original conceptual frame- work of the study, it may be concluded that the professional 305 staff does not constitute an oligarchy within the party struc- ture. This is due, in large part, to the fact that it is not a bureaucratic structure. A Refpppulption cg thp Theppz It was the expectation of the researcher to find the staff organization of a political party to behave according to bureaucratic patterns as outlined by the organization theorists referred to earlier in the chapter. Such behavior, it was postulated, would tend to place the staff in an oli- garchic position within the party. That is, by virtue of the fact that professional staff people have special skills, access to specific types of information and a monopoly of certain channels of communication, it was expected that they would not only be virtually indispensable to the party leader- ship which were conceived of as 'amateurs',26 but be in a position to dominate party decision-making. Furthermore, it was expected that the party staff personnel would be motivated to seek the maximization of their power position within the party as an expression of the aberations of bureaucratic behavior articulated by the theorists discussed above. This, however, was not found to be the case. The party staff not only does not dominate the party's skills, channels of com-- munication, and sources of information, it was also found that they tend to be highly docile and perceive their role as definitely a subordinate to the party leadership. 26Max Weber, The Theory of Socipl ppg Economic Opgpn- 1 ti n, trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons New York: Oxford university Press), p. 415. See also, p. 163. 306 A number of suggestions have been made in the body of this report to account for this behavior. First, the party staff is not bureaucratically organized, i.e., arranged according to a hierarchy of offices. Thus, the traditional models of bureaucratic behavior cannot be applied to party staffs with any degree of reliability. Second, as has been discussed at some length in Chapter VI, since the party staff tends to be broken into cellular units composed of individual specialists attached to individual politicians, candidates or party leaders, each staff person tends to be autonomous - responsible only to the politician for whom he works although maintaining close liaison with other members of the staff.27 Thus, there results a system of direct access between the staff person and his political superior. The staff person, in a certain sense, is co-opted directly into the party leadership as far as decision-making is concerned without actually becoming a formal decision-maker. This direct access between the staffer and the party decisional centers produces in him those attitudes which Likert expects to achieve through the ”linking-pin“ structure. Not only are ”personalized relationships“ restored, '. . .all who have an interest in the organization and its activities are able to exert at least some influence on the over-all objectives 27It should not be thought that the staff has no con- ception of itself as a group. Staff members consult with one another fairly regularly. However, there is no collective or hierarchic responsibility except within the governor's staff. Each staff person operates pretty much as an indepen- dent agent. "an' m“,- 307 and decisions of the organization as well as be influenced by them."28 Access between the staff member and his politi- cal superior and between the staff members themselves is sufficiently direct that “. . .the objectives and methods of functioning established for the organization are reasonable to all concerned and, (thus) major conflicts in interests have been reduced to a minimum."29 It is necessary, therefore, that the traditional theories of organizational behavior be modified to account for these findings. Such a theory must be prepared to deal with ”organizations” that are not bureaucratized in a formal sense. Such theoretical formulations have been suggested by Simon who defines organization as any ”. . .complex pattern of communications and other relations in a group of human beings"30 and Chester I. Barnard conceives of organization as involving the ”customers" as well as the formal members of the organization.31 However, neither theorist really conceives of an organization composed of relatively autono- mous actors related to each other as much by consensus as by authority. Furthermore, such a theory must be prepared to deal with altogether different behavior patterns stemming from a situation in which the vertical relationships are both direct and constant. _¥ 23Likert, pp. pip” p. 205. 291bid. 3°Simon, pp. cit., p. xvi. 31Chester I. Barnard, The Funppipns of the Egecutive, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 93 . theory flati 3M6! saw 29"”) duck 308 As a first step toward the development of such a theory, the following propositions are suggested: 1. Organization, defined as goal directed, patterned relationships between a number of persons in which the pattern provides the participants with the information, assumptions, attitudes and stable expectations required to achieve a goal, can exist on a non-bureaucratic basis where there are a number of relatively autonomous leadership centers each of which has its own staff structure and (a) the number of staff required at each center are not large, and (b) each staff member has functions distinct from the other. 2. Such an organizational structure will tend to be characterized by: (a) direct ace?” between individual staff members anatths ssggsieldlenflt’fdrtfilr1§§3533§£133°ggr2§izetype remiss-immensesmeers soars. “armrest: .. the MMWMPBR fiféfiffnrggggfgship centers, (c) nal.for our already mmmgqgcfgfifoml leadership in decision- making on the basis of ;p£ppppl,equality. 3. Such an organizational structure will tend to generate a behavioral pattern on the part of the staff quite distinct from that of a formal bureaucratic organization, namely, a high degree of docility and/or role acceptance on the part of staff persons. This is due to the face that personalized relationships have been restored and all levels participate in decision-making. c.’ a: I??? 309 It is suggested that further exploration of this type of organization might serve to provide an understanding of a form of organization highly functional for our already overly-bureaucratized society. APPENDIXES 310 311 APPENDIX A uestionnaire: Political Par Sta fs Please list the salaried psoitions on your staff and indicate the terms of their appointment by checking the appropriate column or columns. Year- Campaign Full- Part- around position time time position only (Please list additional personnel on the back of this page) 2. Does any one of the above named individuals act as your chief assistant or in any way coordinate or supervise the work of the other members of the staff? (Please specify) Do you retain a public relations firm or advertising agency on a year-around basis or only for campaigns? On a year-around basis During the campaign period only Neither Do you feel that the size of your staff is adequate for the needs of your party? Yes No If answer to question 4 is ”no,” please answer question 5. What do you consider to be your one or two most pressing staff needs? Party State 10. 312 APPENDIX B Questionnaire Political Party Staff Member Residence (city & state) Date Sex: Male Female Political Party: Republican Democrat Marital Status 5. Number of children Religious Preference In what state were you born? Please check the type of locality in which you were raised: _____Major U.S. city (500,000 population or over) _____Large city (100,000 - 500,000 population) .____pMiddle sized city (25,000 - 100,000 population) Small city (2,500 - 25,000 population) Small town (2,500 population or under) Farm Please provide the following information about your father's occupation. Title or name of job Type of business or industry Does (or did) he work for himself or someone else? Indicate the highest level of education attained by each of your parents. Father Mother College graduate Attended college 11. 12. 313 Father Mother High school graduate Attended high school Elementary school graduate Other (specify: Father Mother Please indicate the details of your educational back- ground: School Location Degree Date Major High school College Graduate Work ____. _____ Other Please indicate whether your parents or other relatives have ever engaged in the kinds of political activity listed below by checking the appropriate blanks. (Specify Father Mother Relative B 1 t onshi Candidate for elective office Held elec- tive office Worked as salaried party staff person Volunteer political worker 130 1“. 15. 16. 17. 314 As a whole, how active politically would you say that your parents and other close relatives have been? _____Very active _____Moderately active ._____Slightly active __Inactive When did you first accept employment as a salaried member of a political staff? Have you worked uninterruptedly in this or a similar capacity since that date? Yes No Please list all of your occupations (political and other) since you first started to work professionally for~a political party or elected official. Occupation Approximate ppriod of employment What is your present position or function? (Please check all appropriate categories) ,_____Public relations work _____Political (or patronage) secretary ,_____Legislative liaison ._____Administrative assistant ______Legal Advisor ,_____Organizational director _____Organizational field man _____Fund raising _____Campaign management Research —____Office management 18. 19. 20. 21. 315 Business management Other (specify) Please indicate on which of the above checked functions you spend the bulk of your time. Which of the following experience or skills did you have when you were first hired to a political staff position? Previous party work Administrative experience Business experience Governmental experience Newspaper work Speech writing Research Academic experience Legal career Organizational experience (labor union, Farm Bureau, etc.) Legislative representation for groups or associations Radio and/or TV experience Other-(specify) For which of the types of experience or skills listed in number 19 were you primarily hired? Please list in order of importance what, in general, you consider to be the three most important qualifications , for political staff work. 22. 23. 24. 316 On the whole, which of the following were particularly influential in your decision to go into political staff work? (Check all that apply) Members of immediate family Friends Professional or business associates Fellow workers Political officials or candidates Teachers (elementary or high school) College professors Other (specify) Of those checked above, which one would you say was the most influential in helping you to make your decision? Please rank in order of importance (1,2,3, etc.) those among the following reasons which were important in leading you to accept a political staff job. Political work seemed like an attractive career. I thought that political work provided good training for other kinds of work afterwards. Political work involved an improvement in my salary. Political work gave me a chance to help the political career of a friend (or family member). I felt that political work offered an oppor- tunity to work for the realization of my personal social and economic views. I hoped that political work would lead to useful business or professional contacts. Political work seemed to provide the best out- let for my training and skills. Political work provided opportunities to make desirable social contacts. Other (specify) 317 25. Is it your intention to remain in political party staff work or do you have other long-range vocational goals? Remain in political staff work Have other long-range vocational goals If on have other voc tional o ls, which of the following 33st describe them: Elective political office Appointive political office Private professional practice (law, public relations, etc.) Administrative work in industry Administrative work in government Administrative work in a professional association Administrative work in a labor union or trade association Private business activity Academic or teaching career Other (specify) Do you intend to work part-time at a salaried political staff position while engaged in the activities checked above? Yes No 26. In what way do you believe your present employment will help you to achieve these goals? 27. In what ways do you believe your present employment may hinder you in achieving these goals? 28. 29. 30. 310 320 33. 318 Of which of the following associations have you ever been a member, officer or salaried employee? Member Officer Salpripd employep Professional association Labor Union Farm organization Industrial association Business or commercial association Religious organization Do you consider political staff work to be: _____Stable employment _____Fairly stable employment _____Unstable employment Are you a full-time or a part-time employee? Full-time Part-time Do you work on a year-around basis or only during campaigns? _____Year-around basis Campaign periods only Approximately how many full-time people does your staff employ on a year-around basis? Approximately how many additional full-time people does your staff employ during the campaign period? 319 34. On which of the following bases are you paid? ‘ Monthly Yearly salary __per diem 35. Please check the salary for your pOsition on an annual basis. __$5,000 and under __ 5,000 - 7,000 __ 7,000 - 10,000 ____10,000 - 15,000 _____over $15,000 1. 2. 320 APPENDIX C Inteyview Schedule: Political Leadpps First of all, I wonder whether you would tell me how many people you have on your staff and what their posi- tions and functions are. If you had your way, would you want to hire more staff or not? 'a. What type of additions would you like to make to your staff? b. Why these additions? c. Are there or are there not any obstacles standing in the way of your making these additions? What do you look for when you hire a staff person? (Probe: Qualifications, skills, background a. Are there any particular personality characteristics that you look for? (Probe: aggressiveness, creative- ness, etc.) b. Do you find it most valuable to have men on your staff who are primarily experts in a given area or men who "know their way around?” On the basis of your experience, what would you list as the one or two most important qualifications for political staff work? How do you go about finding staff people? (Probe: universities, business, other organizations) a. To what extent do you rely on personal recommendations? (Probe: whose?) When you hire a new staff person, do you want one with experience - or do you prefer to train him yourself? (Probe: does Respondent want to mold staff person after his own image?) 10. 11. 321 a. Use hypothetical cases: Javitts staff member; Goldwater, Humphrey, R. Russell What areas of knowledge or types of skill do you feel are absolutely essential to the efficient functioning of your staff? a. To what extent do you attempt to recruit staff people to fill in the gaps in your background, training or experience? Do you or do you not discuss important decisions with your staff? a. What kinds of things are you inclined to discuss with them? (Probe: issues, strategy and tactics, routine administrative matters) b. Is the advice you seek usually of a general or specific nature? Do you feel that there are matters that should not be discussed with your staff or not? a. What kind of matters should not be discussed with the staff? Is there any one member of your staff with whom you discuss things more than the others? a. Why? (Probe: similarity of views, competence, good rapport) We have been talking about how your staff operates in a general way. Now I would like to talk with you about some of the more specific details of its operation. a. Specifically, could you describe for me how you utilize your staff in the writing of speeches? (1) Do you give your assistant an outline, note on the subjects to be covered, or what? (2) To what extent do you consult with him on what should be covered? (3) To what extent do you rewrite a speech that has been prepared for you? 12. b. O. 322 (4) Do you ever get outside help for speeches? How do you handle news letters and press releases? (1) To what extent do you turn the task of daily or weekly press releases over to your staff? (2) Does your assistant clear subjects and content with you? a) Are there circumstances under which clearance is not required? b) What about during campaigns, are the rules different? What about correspondence, do you have an assistant that answers routine mail? (1) What do you consider to be 'routine'? (2) To what extent do you read over the letters that are prepared for your signature? (3) Are there any kinds of correpondence that you feel you must handle yourself or not? (4) Have you ever had a letter “bounce”? In the matter of office appointments, what kinds of decisions do you leave in the hands of your staff? (1) What kind of staff person makes these decisions? Now I would like to discuss these same problems by setting up some hypothetical situations. a. b. In making appointments, you have Mr. X on your calen- dar but Mr. Y comes in to see you. Does your appoint- ment secretary have the right to change the original appointment without consulting you if she thinks it is important enough? (1) W0uld you approve of your assistant insisting on seeing Mr. Y first to acsertain the nature of the matter he wishes to discuss with you or not? In writing ress releases, you have one release planned but a new situation demands a revision in your original statement. Should your public rela- tions man contact you or go ahead and revise the statement on his own? 13. 14. 15. 323 (1) If something comes up that your press man thinks would make a good release; if he cannot clear it with you should he bury it or release it anyway? ' c. In arranging a s eaki en a ement, a specific meet- ing is arranged but circumstances require a change in plans. Does your assistant have the right to change your itinerary without consulting you or not? Do people ever complain that they have difficulty in seeing you - that your appointment secretary or adminis- trative assistant is too strict in scheduling your appointments? (Probe: what does R think of these complaints?) Some people claim that staff people make decisions that should only be made by duly constituted officials. Do you think that this is true or not? a. To what extent do you feel that this is a problem that any elected governmental or party official has to face? b. Has this been a problem in your organization? Great Limited No problem c. How do you, in your mind, distinguish between those decisions that are properly staff, properly official or neither? Do you ever find yourself in disagreement with members of your staff on a proposed course of action or not? a. How frequently does this occur b. On what types of matters is this most likely to occur? 0. When this occurs, what do you usually do? (Probe: seek outside advice, make up own mind, follow advice of staff) 16. 17. 18. 19. 324 To what extent would you say that most of the members of your staff should agree with you on political questions? a. On what kinds of questions do you expect that your staff should be in agreement with you? (Probe: issues, strategy and tactics, administrative questions) b. IF RESPONDENT GAVE EVIDENCE OF REQUIRING HIGH AGREE- MENT: Is there room on your staff for the technically qualified person whose viewpoints are not shared by yourself but who submerges these views out of loyalty to you or not? (1) In what types of positions could such a person work? Have you ever had a person on your staff whose views were essentially opposed to yours or not? a. What position did he hold? b. How long did he work on the staff? c. What was the general nature of the disagreement? (Probe: ideological, strategy, administrative) 5. Would you evaluate the situation as satisfactory, tolerable or unsatisfactory? Under what circumstances do you feel that staff members are likely to take too much authority on themselves? a. Has this ever been a problem in your organization or not? (Probe: circumstances) b. Are there any types of positions that tend to generate this problem more than others? (Probe: publia relations, men, administrative personnel, or what? Are there members of your staff, who by the very nature of their location or type of work have greater discretion in making decisions than others? a. What staff members are these? b. Have you ever felt that efforts should be made to tighten up your control over these people or not? 20. 21. 22. 230 24. 25. 325 Have there or have there not been any circumstances when you have wished that your staff had presented you with more information than they did, or raised problems that had not been called to your attention? a. Under what circumstances has this occurred? b. How much of this was owing to inadvertence - deliberate? c. How do you handle cases when you feel that this was inadvertent - deliberate? Have you ever had to dismiss a staff person? a. What were the circumstances surrounding his dismissal or the reason for his dismissal? b. IF RESPONDENT SAYS, ”NO.” In general what do you consider the grounds for dismissing a member of your staff? When a technical point comes up in a piece of legislation (or in a speech), to whom do you usually go for informa- tion? Assign staff member Outside expert Administrative agency a. How frequently does this occur? Do you use any system for checking the reliability or validity of this information or not? (Probe: what kind of system; does he take expert's word for it?) In what two or three areas have you wished that you had more knowledge so that you could check up on the advice given you by a staff member? Generally speaking, at what phase of a solution of a problem do you utilize your staff? (Use examples - assign staff to dig up preliminary data; discuss with staff after you have made up your mind, etc.? 26. 27. 28. 29. 326 Do you have any staff members that you feel would be very difficult to replace? (Probe: why?) a. Are there certain periods when replacement is a more difficult problem than at other periods? (Probe: during campaigns, legislative sessions, budget periods, etc. ‘ b. Is there any sense in which staff members become more difficult to control during these periods or not? ‘ In general, what proportion of your time do you spend supervising your staff? a. What types of problems require your supervision? b. How do you supervise your staff? (Probe: periodic staff meetings, frequent memos, day by day personal contact) ~ 0. Do you assign any one person the task of overseeing the work of your staff or do you work with each one individually? (Probe: any kind of chain of command?) d. To what extent do you expect your staff to "work on their own”? (1) In what areas can they do this? (Probe: public relations, office appointments or what?) e. Do you require any type of periodic report either written or oral? British political parties have what amounts to a civil service for their staff members. (Explanation: recruit them at the bottom; run schools for them: promote them up the ladder slowly.) Query: Do you think that this would be a good system for American parties to adopt? (Probe: does respondent view political staffers as neutral, interchangeable rts, free from factional interests, etc.?)8 Do you think that political science departments in our colleges and universities should seek to train people with special skills for party staff positions? 32? a. Would you prefer a man with this type of training over the person with ”practical” experience? b. What type of training should be included in such a program? During the remaining minutes I would like to take up with you some questions that political scientists and public officials have discussed for years. 30. Do you feel that your decisions should reflect primarily the thinking of your constituents or your own convictions? a. What is your reaction to the need for party discipline when the party position differs with that of your views or those of your constituents? 31. Do you feel that consulting with legislative representa- tives or lobbyists is helpful or not helpful to you? a. In what way helpful? 32. Are there any circumstances underwhich you feel it necessary to accept the advice of experts rather than listening to your constituents or party? a. On balance, do you feel that this in any way represents a violation of the American system of representative government? 33. How often do you feel that our state and federal adminis- trative agencies run things independently of legislative or political control? (Does this constitute a danger to American democracy?) 34. In your opinion, to what extent do you feel that the public is capable of making a rational decision relative to a major public issue? Now I would like to get a little bit of information on your background. 1. Estimate age or decade 2. In what state were you born? 5. 328 In what type of locality were you raised? Major U.S. city Small city Large city Small town Medium sized city Farm What was your father's occupation? Self employed? What was the highest level your father and mother reached in school? Father Mother WOuld you mind giving me the details of your education? School Locption Degree Date High School College Graduate work What was your occupation before going into politics? Major 1. 2. 3. '329 APPENDIX D Interview Schedule: Pplitipp; Staff What does your job consist of - what do you do? a. Do you have any duties outside your specialty? Yes No Are you presently engaged in essentially the same activities as when you first took on your job or not? Yes No If no, how has your job changed in function since you first took it over? (Probe: Has he remade the job himself?) In general, have things turned out pretty much as you expected when you took the job or not? Turned out pretty well as expected Turned out quite differently (Probe: In what ways?) How long have you been in political staff work? Number of years Do you enjoy your work? Yes No Does it have any particular satisfactions? Enables one to meet nice people Keeps one in touch with important events Is intellectually stimulating Well paid Provides outlet for training and skills (Specify) 5. 330 . Provides opportunities to get other job offers High prestige position Opportunities for travel Enables individual to be creative Provides individual with freedom to work on his own and organize own time Pleasant co-workers Other Does it have any particular draw-backs or dissatisfactions connected with it? In a. b. 0. Long hours Low pay .____;Too close supervision _____Person must swallow the “party line" _____Unpleasant associates .____yPeople in politics are crude or immoral ‘_____Little sense of accomplishment provided Takes person out of the main stream of his profession 'Difficult to move to another position unstable future Other general, what are your chances of advancement? good poor To what kind of job? How long will you have to wait for advancement? What are your chances for a salary increase? good _____poor 331 d. Compared with similar occupations, do you feel that you are being adequately paid for the services you render? Yes No (1) What would you consider to be the proper remuneration for your job? (2) Most of us at times think of making a professional move. Can you tell me what circumstances or inducements would make you seriously think of changing jobs? 6. You have had opportunities to work with or view staff people from both political parties. Do there seem to be any group of traits that characterize most of the people you have met who hold jobs as political staffers. Do they have any particular traits in common? Yes No .____pAbility to meet and work with people _____Aggressiveness, extroversion .____;Extreme loyalty ___Intellectuality and intelligence Drive and ambition Imagination Smooth operators Friendly, pleasant personalities Cautious Other 7. Are there any particular skills that you consider to be indispensable in doing your job? Ability to work with people Ability to handle details Ability to.write press releases and speeches 332 _____Ability to speak publicly _____pAbility to do research _____lmagination _____Other a. Did you learn these things through on-the-job experience or were you trained before taking a political staff job? ‘____pOn-the-job experience p____Previous training (What type: ) 8. Who tells you what to do - defines your problems for you? (Find out who his boss is) 9. Do you work under close supervision or are you allowed a good deal of freedom to organize your own work? Good deal of freedom Close supervision (Under whose supervision?) Depends a. In what ways are you supervised? Fr enc Day by day contact Staff meetings Chain of command Written reports Other 10. Are there any particular types of tasks on which you can work quite independent of supervision? Writing press releases and news letters Writing speeches 333 Research Campaign coordination - setting speaking engage- ments, etc. _____Setting up conventions and meetings __Office management _____Organizational field work _____Correspondence _____Setting up appointments _____Other a. What are the areas within your specialty in which you are given the freest hand? 11. As you well know, every job has its difficult aspects. Can you give me some idea of the main problems you run into in carrying out your assignments? Lack of sufficient time Lack of sufficient facilities and materials Unclear directions Difficulty in getting to consult with superior Difficulty in getting to consult with co-workers Difficult staff relations Difficulty in obtaining cooperation of volunteer workers Lack of sufficient information on which to make decisions Other 12. W0uld you say your work largely preceeds the making of decisions by the politician or is it largely that of implementing the decisions already arrived at. Preceeds decisions of politician Implements decisions already arrived at Other 334 a. Propp: Uhder what circumstances are you most likely to influence a decision? When political leader lacks information and/or background on a specific matter When political leader is unavailable or out of office When politician is engaged in extreme periods of activity Other 13. When you have a good idea - one that will help the party - to whom do you go with it? (Probe: Is this the key to decisional point?) a. What do you do if it gets pigeon-holed? Drop the matter Take it up with other staff members Take it up with other political leaders in party Take it up with outside agendies or individuals - pressure group, newspaper man, etc. (Specify) Raise it again with the political leader Other 14. Does your boss ever ask your advice on major policy questions or not? Yes NO Depends a. Concerning what matters is this most likely to occur? 335 b. To what extent does he follow your suggestions? Follows them quite closely Uses segments Drastically reworks them Tends to reject them Other c. Set up hypothetical situations -- press releases; speeches: speaking engagements, etc. (Probe: what kind of advice given?) 15. To what extent does your boss have the knowledge and background to evaluate the information or advice you give him? Good deal Limited Depends on area or subject None 16. How is your boss at grasping technical details? Good Fair Poor ’ Depends a. Has he a degree of expertise in the matters you are concerned with? Yes No Depends 17. 18. 19. 336 b. To what extent does he say, ”You set this up as you think best?” Frequently Never Depends Are there, in your opinion, any circumstances under which information should be withheld from your boss (or an appointment not made)? Yes No Depends a. Have you ever done this? (Probe for circumstances) WOuld you say that you are in basic political agreement with your boss or not? Yes .____;No a. In what areas do you differ? Issues (Specify) Office management Strategy and tactics (Specify) Other Do you ever find yourself in the middle of a factional dispute in the party? Yes No a. If yes, what were the circumstances? b. C. d. 33? In matters such as this, where the whole party is involved, do you feel_that your first loyalty is with your bossor that faction of the party you feel is right? With the boss With the faction he feels is right Depends Are there any circumstances under which you would break with your boss? Yes No When political leader adopts a policy position opposed to respondents Diametrically Moderately When political leader refuses to communicate ideas to you When political leader refuses to make instructions clear When political leader refuses to make use of your ideas Over-work Other Can you do your job without getting involved in matters involving your personal convictions -- what place do you feel that individual convictions should play in a job like yours? Have no real place - job is to implement the convictions of the boss Are the basis for making suggestions only Are the only basis for effective party staff work Other 20. 21. 22. 338 How would a shake-up in the power structure of the party affect your job? _____W0uld lose job Would result in less discretion Would result in a reduction in amount of advice one would give Would require that one “lay low” for awhile Would make no difference Would you say that you are in basic political agreement with the other staff members? a. b. Yes No If no, what are the areas of disagreement? Issues (Specify) Approach to public statements Approach to campaign techniques Approach to grass roots organization Party leadership Finances Candidates Other What are the things that happen that lead you to these conclusions? (Probe both areas of agreement and disagreement) (For legislative staff): To what extent do you engage in the following activities? a. b. 0. Brief legislator on issues and bills before the House Prepare speeches for the floor or statements for committee Draft legislation 23. d. e. 339 Talk to lobbyists as member's representative Draft letters for member's signature I would like to ask you some questions concerning the way various assignments are handled in your office. a. b. When you are assigned to write a s ech are you usually given an outline, notes on 85¢ subjects to be covered or what? Topic only Outline Note on the subjects to be covered Nothing Other (1) To what extent do you consult with your boss on what should be covered? Hold conference on speech to kick around ideas Discuss touchy points only Hardly any consultation.until speech is written No consultation (2) To what extent does he rewrite what you have written? Frequently Infrequently Never In the matter of newsletters and press peleasep - to what extent is t e as 0 da y or wee y re- leases turned over to you? Completely Respondent asks whether there should be a newsletter or release Waits for instructions d. e. 340 (1) Do you have to clear subjects and content with your boss? Yes NO Depends a) Are there circumstances under which clearance is not required? When release or newsletter does not cover controversial or sensitive subject When boss is out campaigning or otherwise too busy to discuss matter Other What about ppyypppppppppp, do you answer a good deal of the boss s mail Yes No (1) What types of letters do you have complete responsibility for? (2) What types of correspondence do you have to clear with the boss? (3) To what extent does your boss read over the letters you have prepared for him? (4) Do the same general rules apply to memos to other politicians, officials, party officials, etc.? In the matter of intments, what decisions are you free to make? In the area of pppcinpp opganizatipp are you free to - (1) Set up local meetings on your own? Yes No Depends (2) Recruit local workers on your own? Yes No Depends 341 (3) Spend money on local projects on your own? Yes No Depends (4) Get people to run in the campaign? Yes No Depends 24. Let's look at some hypothetical examples. b. In making ppppyntments, Mr. X is on the calendar but Mr. Y comes in and you think he should see your boss. Do you or the appointment secretary have the right to change the original appointment without consulting the boss? Yes No Depends (1) What would the procedure be - would you talk to Mr. Y first to ascertain the nature of his business with your boss or what? In writing pypss releases - you have one release planned but a new situation demands a revision of your original statement. Are you expected to con- tact your boss or can you go ahead and revise the statement? Must contact boss Can go ahead and revise the statement Should present alternatives Depends (1) If something comes up that you think would make a good release, if you cannot clear it with your boss do you bury it, release it, or what? Bury it Release it Postpone it Other 342 c. In arranging a speaking engagement - a specific meeting is arranged but circumstances require its cancellation. Do you have the authority to change your boss's itinerary without consulting him? Yes No Depends 25. Do you feel that you are given enough freedom and discre- tion for you to adequately do your job or do you some- times feel that you do not have sufficient discretion to do your job well? Adequate discretion Inadequate discretion Depends a. In what areas do you feel it would help the operation if you had more discretion? 26. Are there certain circumstances underwhich you have more discretion than at other times? a. Are there certain matters on which you are given wider discretion than others? 27. Do you think that certain types of staff jobs lend them- selves to greater discretion than others? (Probe: location, nature of work, etc.) 28. To what extent are there people on the staff that take too many things on themselves -- make decisions without consulting the boss? a. What types of decisions do they make that you feel should be cleared with the boss? 29. Do you think that there are any matters which the political leaders should not discuss with the staff? Yes No What? 30. 31. 343 Is there any particular member of the staff that seems to have more influence with the boss than others? a. Why? . Due to particular rapport with the boss Pleasing personality Common socio-economic background Due to person's particular competencies or skills Job puts him in close contact with the boss Job is particularly crucial to the success of the party Job is at the top of the staff hierarchy Other To what extent do you consult with other staff members? _____Of ten __Infrequent ly _____;Depends a. What types of consultation take place? _____Staff meetings _____Informal discussions _____Regular memos and reports Other b. Do you ever talk over a proposal you plan to present to the political leaders with other staff members before you present it? Yes No Frequently Infrequently Never 344 a) Under what circumstances is this done? (Example) b) Do you ever plan how a new proposal is to be presented? Yes No Depends 32. Do staff members get together for social engagements? Yes No _____Often Infrequently Never a. What about the boss, is he usually included? Yes No Often Infrequently Never b. Does he attend? Yes No ____Often ____Infrequent 1y Never 33. In almost any group there are going to be people who stay pretty much to themselves. Do you have some of these people on your staff? (Is this because they do not wish to mingle or because they are excluded, or why?) Do not wish to mingle Excluded Other 34. 35. 345 a. Does this make a difference in the operation of the staff? Yes No _____Depends What contacts do you have with rank and file members of the party? Primarily as an outgrowth of the job Social contacts Volunteer party work in which R participates outside job Part of faction of the party Professional or business Other To what extent do you maintain contacts with professional people outside the party - social scientists, journalists or other people in a profession similar to yours? Other staff people Academicians Government employees Professional people Journalists Other a. What is the nature of these contacts? Professional Social Consultative Other 36. 37. 38. 346 To what extent does your boss consult with persons out- side the staff? a. b. Frequently Infrequently Never Depends For what purposes? _____To discuss issues (Specify) To discuss political strategy Types of statements to make Advertising media Gimmicks ‘ Organizational problems, Does this create any problems for the staff? Yes No \ undercuts advice function of staff - re- duces acceptance of staff ideas Reduces staff discretion Short circuits communication system Other Going back briefly to the matter of consultation between staff, how do you feel about the degree of consultation among staff members? (Probe: is it sufficient; is there a felt need to obtain unanimity; do staff members want to set the boss straight?) Some people say that staff specialists make decisions that should only be made by elected officials. Do you think that this is true? No 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 347 a. Has this ever been a problem in your office? Yes No Would you say that legislative staff aids, staff aids to elected executive officials, and party staff persons have much the same kind of job or are there major dif- ferences? (Probe: How do they perceive their job -- to what extent are their perspectives similar, communicate with each other, hold attitudes in common?) Much the same type of job Major differences Do you feel that a politician's decisions should reflect primarily the thinking of his constituents or his own convictions? Do you feel that legislators consulting with legislative representatives or lobbyists in any way represents a violation of the American system of representative government? How often do you feel that our state and federal adminis- trative agencies run things independently of legislative or political control? In your opinion, to what extent do you feel that the public is capable of making a rational decision relative to a major public issue? Do you feel that the amount of discretion you take in your job in any way violates the manner in which the official party leadership is representative of the rank and file party member. 348 X ><><><>< ><><><><><><><>< x onouonH anonnaae onmoH onmnooo canteen onosoeon unennoonnoo coonoaoo mannonndmo moonoxn< onounen osonoen mp m2 0 «w <3 m mm m Oh no no me (11; ll onoaaaoom nnoam mansoneon one meannodon eoaoam oaoam onnoam nnnmn Hoaeouunsoe one ouonm noonennnom no nanpumonsoo one m XHszmm< 349 nsoe 3oz coaxo: 3oz noonoh 3oz omnnonson 3oz moosoz unmounoz ononnoz descend: «announced: onomonna: noonnonn onnoosnoonoo: ascents: onaon onononnoq exonpnon cannon oon 350 u‘ a 353$ unoaeo> no»: >4 ><><><>< omxoe oommonnoe x x x muonmn nunom mnaeonmo nunom onoHoH oconm x munm>anmnnon x nomono ><><><>< X X oeononno oano x x . ononon nanoz n cannonoo naaoz o «w <3 m mm m on so to mu vampm enonaneoe nnonm mansoeeoe one onaanooon eoaoem .uelulnluuuxuuauuuun. llllcl) )lilli‘ )lll connaunoouim wdononn< 351 .nos moonn.ono onoenoaon onensn moonaonH .Honnoonon ononuoeoa onannn 3 mm thHdOdHOm 6G“ mh0900hdfi Oogflfih I am uncannoon nnono oanmnnnunoonnn m: onoudnomeo neonn a on nnono on mz nomenon ooHnno u no Honnooeon Hmonnoao o nommnos nwuonsmo a no moaun>npom npmon na mandamdoonm anoo o.nosos nn onmuaodoonm <3 o>npnooxo ono ononooeno obaunooxo .noanaono onouo o» nonopmnooo o>apmnn Honnomnon nonoooon m noannsoo mocnaonH .o>«»nooxo Hononow 1 mo «ononponooenn< coda Oppose moanmH namen> x .05 .nonmnanaoz :za «Anson onuma< wn«30b3 x nuanooonz x cannon; poo: x nonwnnnnua 352 m: mz 0 4% <3 m mm m om =0 :0 mo onoaaaaoe nnoam mangoenoe one mananodon ooaoam mundane ononnaaH onmoH muweooo onenoen oeosoeon uncanoonnoo coonoHoo mannonneoo moononnn anomaen oaononn oaoam (( onnoum hunom anaconannoe nno ouonm canoaooaoo no nodndoonsoo oonnuunooucm Knononn< one 353 N ><><><><>< nee» 3oz cannon 3oz noonoh 3oz onanonsom 3oz mooaoz snoonnoz snowmen unsound: «announced: ououonnn: nomnnonn ouuoosnooooo: onoeneo: onaoz mnoeonnon exonunon omenon axon 354 >< :x >: >4 onseotn> anon—non, noon moxoe oomoonnoe sponse nunom onaaoemo nanom enoeee ooonn manobenmnnon nomoeo maonmeno oano sponse nanoz onneonoo nneoz . ma m2 0 «H 43 m mm m cm to :0 l 8 ononaaooe nnoem onazonnoe on» annanodon ooaoam connnunoonim unononnn oumam 355 ononndoon nnmno oanoanapnooann nnmnm on Honnoonon Hmonnoao monpd>auoo nunoh nn opodeoaoonm oonnnanpoo o.noaor nu mundamaoonm Honnomnon noncomon m: m: «H <3 nos ooonn one onoHumHon onennn sooneonH .Honnoonon onoauoaon cannon a me meounoeaoo ono unopoondo oononnn a m meowenowno onoen u on nowonms oonnno I no nomenon nwnonsoo : no ooaeononooo o>nunoowo ens onouoonno osnnnooxo .nosnnmno oumao on ounmnodooo obnnohn umdnqsoo moonaone .o>nnnooxo Hononom a mo «meAMmMMmMMMd oonm opeonn oononoe unmade x .o.n .nonwnanooz _ «dozen onaoen x wnaaohz x x neonooonm oannwnna noon nonmnanomz 356 APPENDIX F Indicps of Compptitivenpss Political Scientists have devised a number of different indices designed to show the degree of inter-party competi- tiveness in the states.1 The validity of any one of these indices depends, however, upon the use to which it is put and the type of political phenomena being studied. The central problem facing this writer is that of devising an index of inter-party competition that reflects not only the actual competitive situation in any given state but also something of the perceptipn of coppppitivpnpss held by the professional politicians who allocate resources and build party staffs. The index, therefore, must reflect three assumptions concerning the manner in which the cur- rent party leaders will perceive the competitive situation in their state. These assumptions are: l. The party leadership will seek to assess its chances of winning any given election in a rational manner. That is, they will seek to allocate resources, build up the type of staff, etc. which will enable them to maximize their chances 18cc Austin Ranney and Wilmoore Kendall, ”The American Party Systems,” The American Politic 1 Science Review, XLVIII (June l9g4), 477— 85; Joseph ch esinger, A wo-Dimen- sional Sc one for Classifying the States According to Degree of Inter-Party Competition,“ Ibid., XLIX , (December,l955), 1120-1128: V. 0. Key, Jr., American State Politics: An Introduction (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1956), p. 99; and JuIIus Turner, ”Primary Elections as the Alternative to Party Competition in 'Safe' Districts,” _ppyppl_p§_§p;;p;pp,"xv (Nays‘l953). 197-210. “-fl. ~—. a“ . .4". -- JV. '8. =7. 4-r- . ., g." - 357 of winning in terms of their perception of those chances. 2. In assessing their chances of winning, the party leadership will be most highly influenced by the eggzege competitive situation. 3. The perception by the party leadership of their current competitive situation will be colored by their “memory“ -- the historical competitive structure of their state. To employ an index used solely to measure party competition over a span of twenty or more years (Schlesinger; Ranney and Kendall systems) is hardly reflective of the per- ception of the party leadership of the current competitive situation. As Standing and Robinson state, “Candidates and electors are more likely to consider recent than ancient history in assessing the outcome of the next electoral situation.2 On the other hand, indices that take into account merely the immediate situation (Turner; Standing and Robinson) overlook the psychological effect of “memory“. To overcome these difficulties, an index has been devised for this study that takes into account both the con- temporary and historical competitive situation. Assuming that the major motivation for developing a party staff is the perception by the party leadership of their chances of winning the gubernatorial contest, that office is used as 2William 1:. Standing and James A. Robinson, “Inter- party Competition and Primary Contesting: The Case of Indiana," The Agegieeg Peliticel Science Review, LII (December, 1958). 1068. 353 the basis for determining inter-party competition. This index can be described as follows: First, the states were classified as ”competitive“, “cyclically competitive”, or "one-party"3 over the period 1900-1958 on the basis of the Schlesinger Two-Dimensional - scheme.“ This was called the state's ”historical rating”. A second step involved the determination of the state's ”contemporary rating“. To determine this an adaptation of the Standing-Robinson formula was employed.5 This formula is as follows: 1. The last five elections constitute the contem- porary period.6 2. The states in which the minority party won two of the five elections were designed as competitive for the period. 3. States in which the minority party won one election in the period were designated as marginally com- petitive for the period. 3Each classification was further subdivided into categories marked “marginal“ when the classification was too difficult to accurately determine. ' l"Schlesinger, ep. cit. Data was taken from his ”The Structure of Competition for Office in the American States,‘. Behavior 1 Scien e, V (July, 1960), 197-210. SStanding, 92. 943., pp. 1068-1069. 6A1though the use of an arbitrary number of elections involves a different span of time from state to state, it was assumed that psychologically, party strategists are more inclined to think in terms of recent elections than in terms of a span of years. Also, in almost every instance, no election occurred before 1942, making the time span for most states the late World war II or post-war period to the present. 359 h. All other states were designated as non-competitive for the period unless the winning margin in the last election was less than the median vote fluctuation for the period 1900-1958. In such instances the state was classified as marginally competitive.7 Third, a “final rating“ was established for each state by combining the historical and contemporary ratings as follows: 1. States which had oneéparty (or non-competitive) ratings for both historical and contemporary periods were designated as “historically non-competitive“. 2. States which had competitive ratings for both historical and contemporary periods were designated as “historically competitive”. 3. All states whose historical and contemporary ratings differed were placed under a classification marked “transitional“ and further sub-divided as follows: a. Currently non-competitive. b. Currently competitive 0. Currently marginally competitive Following is a summary of the ratings for each state. 7This data taken from Joseph A. Schlesinger ;'Fluctua- tions in the Vote for Governor” (unpublished tables. 360 State Party Competitiveness Ratings for Governor Contemporary Historical Final State Rating Rating Rating Alabama O-D 0-1) : .0-D Arizona C-B C-D C Arkansas O-D O-D 0-D California M-R O-R T:MC-R Colorado C-D C-D C Connecticut C-D C-R ’ C Delaware H-R O-R T:hC-B Florida O-D O-D 0-D Georgia O-D O-D O-D Idaho' H-R C-R Tzflc-R Illinois C-R C-R C Indiana C-R C-B C Iowa C-R Cy-R C Kansas C-R O-R T:C Kentucky h-D O-D T:HC-D Louisiana O-D O-D O-D Maine H-R Cy-R T:MC-R Maryland C-D 0-1) T:C Massachusetts C-D MC-R C Michigan M-D C-R MC-D Minnesota C-D MC-R C Mississippi O-D O-D O-D 361 Contemporary Historical Final State Rating Rating Rating Missouri M-D C-D T:MC-D Montana M-R C-D T:MC-R Nebraska M-R Cy-R T:MC-R Nevada C-D C-D C New Hampshire M-R* O-R T:MC-R New Jersey C-R C-D C New Mexico C-R C-D C New York M-R C-D T:MC-R Nerth Carolina .O-D O-D O-D North Dakota M-R* O-R T:MC-R Ohio H-D C-D T:MC-D Oklahoma O-D O-D O-D Oregon M-R* O-R T:MC-R Pennsylvania C-B O-R T:C-R Rhode Island M-D Cy-D T-MC-D South Carolina O-D O-D O-D South Dakota M-R O-R T:MC-R Tennessee O-D O-D O-D Texas O-D ' O-D O-D Utah C-B C-D C Vermont M-R* O-R T:MC-R Virginia O-D O-D O-D Washington C-R C-R C 362 Contemporary Historical Final State. Rating Rating Rating West Virginia M-D C-D T:MC-D Wisconsin M-R O-R T:MC-R wyoming C-D C-D C Alaska Hawaii “State whose winning margin in last election was less than median vote fluctuation of the period 1900-1958. Note: Abbreviations are as follows: 0 a One-party C a Competitive M = Marginally competitive Cy a Cyclically competitive MC 2 Marginally competitive T = Transitional R = Republican Party dominant D = Democratic Party dominant 363 For purposes of this study, therefore, the states can be classified as to their inter-party competitive structure as follows: Hietegieellz Nen-Competitive fog Goveggo: Democratic Dominant: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missis- sippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia Republican Dominant: None Hietozieally Competitive for gevernez Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, Hashington, wyoming Ezeesitienal Currently non-competitive for governor Democratic Dominant: None Republican Dominant: None Currently competitive for governor Democratic Dominant: Kansas, Maryland Republican Dominant: Pennsylvania Currently marginally competitive Democratic Dominant: Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, West Virginia Republican Dominant: California, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, vermont, Wisconsin m o mdmaunH a ma amoaHHHH Ha : useauoommoo : o anomamm mopmum m>auuumnaoo no. mm.H Aw.Hv wH Anm.mv mH Hence 364 n aacamah> Ha waxes . commences msHHOhmo mason maosmaxo asaHoamo zupoz «madam-mu“: mamamasoq mammooo mcamoam mmmsmxa< meaan< O lNfl'OOOOO INN IOI “CHOOI mopmum o>Huuponaoonmoz amouansnom oapmmooaon moumpm homomohuda owmmo>< owmmo>< hummnuoxa mohoom moaumuwammonwomonm wsaumm m>auauonaoo o» wmacmooo< commmpp< momoom scammNHHmmonmouopm a XHszmm< 365 nw.a Rom.ov man “ow.nv 3H Hmuoa a m a «ma 0 00-40 IMO H aaaamaa> nae; nmmHmH moosm ofiso “macaw": downscaz axospmox unmmaaon caumhooaoa .¢ moumum o>audpomeoo hHHmmepm: "ammoaudmmmaa mn.n Ann.nv 0H nom.nc mam Hmuoa OH 0 0 me o n muam>Hhmmmom camaham: mommmm coumum o>auuponaoo haumompso "HmmOapammmms mN.N wH.: Anm.mv aw Ana.n. ma Hmuoe (3020:me I N o H # wH 0 OH O o mmasohz nonw:H:wm3 so»: coaxoz 3oz hookah 3oz mum>oz muomonmuz uupoussommmm: oon 366 n¢.H mn.a Ann.nv Amm.nv Hmuoa nacho us. mm.a Ana.ac «as nn~.ac man H0908 “0‘ r“ N H H rm :PO\O¢OON-fl'l\nmw .3 “MO-3 610-303 unaccomaz umoamo> muoxmn spzom momoho maoxma sumo: show :02 madamnamm :02 mxmmmnmz oncomoz ends: onch camzmaon mamnoudfimo usmmaaoo smeaapsnom oomomouudo enmho>< ommmc>< huhmncose smoaansoem educmooaon momoom moapmwaaccoammouomm mmumpm no.2: ascené 538% BIBLIOGRAPHY H Barnard, Chester I. Tye Functions of the E ecutive. Cam- bridge, Mass.: ”_rvard University ress, 1959. Bendix, Reinhard. Higher Civil Servants In American Society. Boulder: Univers ty of olorado ess, 9 . Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, 195 . Bone, Hugh A. Party Commiptees and Netiopel Pelities. Seattle, Wash.: University of Wes ington Press, 5 . Calkins, Fay. The C. I, O. and the Democratic Pepty. Chicago: The University of C icago Press, 952. David, Paul T., Goldman, Ralph M., and Bain, Richard. The Pelipics of Natienal Nominating Cenvent§ons. Washing- ton, D.C.: T e Brookings Inst tution, 9 O. Duverger, Maurice. Political Parties. Translated by Barbara and Robert North. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951. Gist, Noel P. and Halbert, L. A. Urban Societ . 4th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowel 'Company, 1 56. Gordon, Robert A. Business Leadership in the Lepge Corpera- pion. Washington, D.C.: T e Brookings Institution, 19 5 . Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward 8., and McEachern, Alexander. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies in the School Spperintendency Role. New ork: Jo S. iley and Sons, 195 . Hansen, Harvey, (ed.) The World Alminac, 1269. New York: New York World Telegram, l O. Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Per 0 l Infl ence. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, T93%. Kelley, Stanley J. Jr. Professional Public Relapions and Pe§itical Power. Baltimore: T e Johns Hopkins Press, 9 . 367 368 Key, V. 0., Jr. Amegican State Politics: 5p Iptroduction. New York: A1 red A. Knopf, 95 . . South rn P litics in State and Nati n. New York: Afred A. Knopf, 1959. Lane, Robert E. Politice; Life. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1959. Lasswell, Harold D., Lerner, Daniel, and Rothwell, C. Easton. Tag Comparative Study of Elites. Stanford, California: St ord Univers ty ess, 952. - Lerner, Daniel. The Nazi Elite. Stanford, California: Stanford university PFEss, 1951. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Agperian Socielism: The Coopepeyive Cemmonwelath Federation in Saskatchewan. Berk ey, Calif.: University of Ca ifornia Press, 1950. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Trow, Martin A., and Coleman, James S. Union Democracy: The Internal Pelities o: the Inter- petiona Typogggphical Unien. encoe, 1 .: T e Free Press, 19 . Mannheim, Karl. Man and Society in an Age cg Reconetrpction. New York: arcourt, Brace and Co., 19 . March, James G., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Matthews, Donald R. The Soci 1 Back ound of Political De isi n-Make a. 3Short Studies in Politics! Science.‘ .New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 195#. Merton, Robert K. Social Theor and Soci 1 Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The PFee PFess, I959. Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociolo ical St d. w o: the Oligarcfiicai Tendencies a; Eodern Democracy. ranslated y Eden and edar au . G encoe, nois: The Free Press, 1949. Morlan, Robert. Political Prairie Fire: Th' N n-Partisan Leagpe, 1213-1922. Mififieapolis, Minn.: university 0 Minnesota Press, 1955. Muncie, Lisbeth. The Junkers in Qerman Administpation. Providence: Brown University Press, 19 . Roethlisberger, F. J. Mans ement and Meral . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PFess, T950. 369 iRoethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, William J. Management epd the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university Press, 1950. . Selznick, Philip. The Organizational Weapep: A Study pf Bolshevik Strategy egg actics. New York: The McGraw- Hil Boo Co., 19 2. . TVA and the G ass Roots. Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1949. Simmel, Georg. The S ciolo of Ge r Si e1. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1950. Simon, Herbert A. Admini tr tive Behavio . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947. Snedecor, George W. Statistic 1 Methods. 4th ed. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1946. Taussig, F. W. and Joslyn, C. S. Amepican Bueiness Leaders. New York: The Macmillan COmpany, 932. Truman, David B. The Goveyppeptal Pyecese. New York: Alfred A. Knop , 1950. Warner, W. Lloyd and Abegglen, James C. Big Businees in Amepiea. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Ecenomic Oyganization. Translated y A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Wilenski, Harold L. Intellectuals In Lope; Unions: Orgep- izational Pyeseures on Profeesional Roles. lencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 195 . ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS Argyris, Chris. ”The Individual and Organization: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment,“ Admini tr tive So an e Querteply, I (June, 1957), 3-23. . “Understanding Human Behavior in Organizations: One Viewpoint,“ in Mason Haire, (ed.) Modern 0 - iz tion Theo , New York: John Wiley and Sons, 959. Bendix, Reinhard. ”Bureaucracy: The Problems and Its Setting£“ Am ic Sociol ical R vi w, XII (October, 9 1947) 93- O7. 370 Bendix, Reinhard. ”Socialism and the Theory of Bureaucracy,“ Canadian J urnal f Economics and P lit cal Science, XVI (November, 19%0), 501-514. Benson, Lawrence E. ”Mail Surveys Can Be Valuable,“ Public Opinion Qpapteply, X (Summer, 1946), 234-241. Bidwell, Charles E. “Some Effects of Administrative Behavior: A Study in Role Theory,“ Administrative Seiepee Quayterly, I (September, 195?), 161-1 1. 'Bierstedt, R. ”An Analysis of Social Power," Am ic S ci lo ical Review, XV (December, 1950), 735-738 Blau, Peter M. ”Cooperation and Competition in a Bureau- cracy,” Am rican So iolo ical R vi w, 111 (December, 1938). 530-53 . Brecht, Arnold. ”Bureaucratic Sabotage,” The Annal , CCCXI (January, 1957). 48-55- . ”How Bureaucracies Develop and Function,“ The Appels, CCXCII (March, 1954), 1-10. Bryson, Lyman. “Notes on a Theory of Advice, in Merton, Robert K., Gray, Ailsa P., Horkey, Barbara and Selvin, Hanan C. (eds.) R ader in B a cra , Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952, 202-21%. Burns, James Macgregor. “Republicans, Democrats, Who's Who?" N w York Times Ma azine, January 2, 1955. Bushnell, Charles J. ”Invisible Government and Democracy in the United States,” Ame ican S ci lo ica Review, 111 (December, 1938), 813-825. _‘ Calhoun, Don. "The Illusion of Rationality,” in Taylor, ' Richard W. (ed.) Life, Lepgpege, Law. Yellow Springs, Ohio: The Antioch Press, 9 . _ Campbell, Angus. "The Case of the Missing Democrats," New Republic CXXXV (July 2, 1956), 12-15. Cassinelli, C. W. ”The Law of Oligarchy,” The Apeyican ' Poli;i al Science Review, XLVII (September, 953). 773- 3%. ' Contu, Walter. ”Role Playing vs. Role Taking: An Appeal For Clarification,” American Sociol ical Revi w, XVI (April, 1951), 180-187. 371 Dalton, Melville. ”Conflicts Between Staff and Line Managerial Officers," American.Sociological Review, XV (June, 1950), 342-351. . ”Informal Factors in Career Achievement,” Th AmeEican Jouypel of Soeielogy, LVI (March, 1951) 07 5. . ”Managing the Managers,‘ Hu Or anization, XIV (F811, 1955), “'10- . "unofficial union-Management Relations, Americep Sociolo ical Review, XV (October, 1950), 611- 19. Dorsey, John. ”A Communication Model for Administration,” Aeministrative Science Quarterly, 1 (December, 1957), 30 -32 . Ferber, Robert. ”The Problem of Bias in Mail Returns: A Solution,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XII (Winter, 1948), 669-6760 Festinger, Leon, Schacter, Stanley and Back, Kurt. ”The Operation of Group Standards,” in Lazersfeld, Paul F. and Rosenberg, Morris (eds.) The pepguage of Social Researeh. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955. Goldhammer, H. and Shils, E. E. “Types of Power and Status,” T e Am rican Journal of So iolo , XLIV (September, 1959), 171-182.. Gross, Bertram. “The Coming Revolution in Economic Thought," in Taylor, Richard W. Life L a e Law. Yellow Springs, Ohio: The Antioch Press, 1937. Hetzler, S. ”variations in Role Playing Patterns Among Different Echelons cf Bureaucratic Leaders,“ American So iolo ical Review, XX (December, 1955), 700-708. Laski, Harold J. ”The Limitations of the Expert,“ Hagper's Ma azine, CLX (December, 1930). 102-106. Lasswell, Harold D. ”The Garrison State and Specialists on Violence,” The American Journal of Sociolo , XLV (January, 1941), 435-588._ Lasswell, Harold D. and McDougal, M. S. FLegal Education and Public Policy,” in Lasswell, Harold D. The Analysis of Political Behavior. London: Routledge, (Regan PBUI, Ltdc, 19 o Likert, Rensis. "A Motivational Approach to a Modified Theory of Organization,” in Haire, Mason, (ed.) Modern Or an- ization Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 95 . 372 Lipset, Semour Martin. "The Political Process In Trade unions: A Theoretical Statement," in Berger, Morroe, Abel, Theodore, and Page, Charles H. (eds.) Freedom ‘ and Social Control in Modern Societ . New York: Van Nostrand, 1954. Marx, Fritz-Morstein. “The Lawyer's Role in Public Adminis- tration,” Yale Law Journal, (April, 1946), 498-526. Matthews, Donald R. “united States Senators and the Class Structure,” in Eulau, Heinz, Eldersveld, Samuel, and Janowitz, Morris, (eds.) Political Behaviey. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 195 . Merton, Robert K. ”Bureaucratic Structure and Personality," in Merton, Robert K., Gray Ailsa R., Hockey, Barbara, and Selvin, Hanan C. (eds. Re der in B e u re . Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952, 381-37?. Moore, H. T. “The Comparative Influence of Majority and Expert Opinion ' American Jo al of Ps cholo , XXXII (January, 1921), irzof'“ .3211-.. "" ' " Neumann, Franz. ”Approaches to the Study of Political Power,“ Political Science Quarterly, LXV (June, 1950), 161-180. Odegard, Peter H. “Toward A Responsible Bureaucracy,“ The Annal , CCXCII (March, 1954), 18-29. Parsons, Talcott. “Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations - I," Adminietretive Seience Quarterly, 1 (June, 1956165—85. Ranney, Austin and Kendall, Wilmoore. “The American Party Systems,“ The Aperican Politieel Scienee Review, XLVIII (June, 195 , 7- . Reissman, Leonard. ”A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureaucracy," Secial Forces, XXVII (March, 1949), 305-310. Reitzler, Kurt. "On the Psychology of the Modern Revolution,“ Social Reseaych, X (September, 1943), 320-336. Riecken, Henry W. and Homans, George C. ”Psychological Aspects of Social Structure,” in Lindzey, Gardner, (ed.) Handbook of Social Psycholegy. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954. Roethlisberger, F. J. “The Road Back to Sanity,” in Waldo, Dwight, (ed.) Ideas epe Issues in Public Adminietre- tien. New York: cGraw-Hi Book Company, 19 3. 373 Salisbury, Philip. '18 Elements of Danger in Making Mail Sgrveys,“ Sales Management, XLIV (February, 1938), 2 ff. Schlesinger, Joseph A. 'A Two-Dimensional Scheme for Classifying the States According to Degree of Inter- Party Competition,“ The Ameri P it c 1 Science Review, XLIX (December, 1953), 1120-1128. . ”Lawyers and American Politics: A Clarified View,“ Migwest Journal of Political Selence, I (May, 1957), 2 -390 . ”The Structure of Competition for Office in the American States,” Behavio a1 Sci nce, V (July, 1960), 197-2100 ‘ Selznick, Philip. ”An Approach to the Theory of Bureaucracy," Amepican Sociologicel Review, VIII (February, 1943), 7-5 - . “Foundations of the Theory of Organization,” American Sociolo ical Review, XIII (February, 1948), 25-35- Standing, William H. and Robinson, James A. ”Inter-Party Competition and Primary Contesting: The Case of Indiana,” Th American Political Science Review, L11 (December, 1958), 1088-1077. Tannenbaum, R. and Massarik, F. "Participation by Subordinates in the Managerial Decision Making Process,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XVI August, 1950 , 0 - l o Tannenbaum, R. "Managerial Decision-Making," The Jeurnal of Business, (January, 1950), 33-37. Toops, Herbert A. “Questionnaires,“ in Monroe, walter 8., (ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research, rev. ed. New York: T e Macmillan Company, 1950. Turner, Julius. ”Primary Elections as the Alternative to Party Competition in 'Safe' Districts,“ Journal of Politics, xv (May, 1953). 197-210. """"""""' Weber, Max. ”Bureaucracy,” in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, From Max Weber: Essa s in So 101 . New York: Oxford finiversity Press, 1958. 374 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS U. S. Department of Commerce. “Projections of Educational Attainment in the United States," CUFTéxt Po ulat on Reperts, Population Chapacterispies, (1959) Series P20, No. 91. U. S. Department of Commerce. "Marital Status and Family Status, March 1959.” Current Po ul n R ts, ngulation Characteristics, (1989) §eries Pgo, No. 96. 2.22 22.22. 22:22.2 W- 33:" 2.2212222222223323 ‘ tat-‘2‘““i’t‘3’éjw‘ "‘ ” P-J‘ .F ‘§‘7" NOVZO: 35: 54.417 //8.J.6 4(5)! 3“")