Stabssjefene og stabsorganiseringen i Reagan-administrasjonen

Abstract

THE CHIEF OF STAFFS AND THE STAFF STRUCTURING IN THE REAGAN- ADMINISTRATION. In this paper I am going to put the focus on the chief of staffs and the different staffing models used in the Reagan-administration. During the Reagan presidency four different chief of staff served in the administration. In this paper the emphasis is going to be on the two first. James Baker and Donald Regan. I have found this limitation necessary partly because the whole length of the administration would be to extensive for the limitations this paper sets. Partly because Baker and Regan respectively where the two chief of staffs that served longest in the administration. And in their own way they were going to put their own mark on the administration. It is generally agreed that the American president roughly has three main different models for staff structure. The first is called a formalistic model or a hierarchic staff structure under a strong chief of staff. The second is called a competitive model and the last is called the collegial model. Under different chiefs of staffs the Reagan administration used all three models. The first period of the administration bears the characteristics of a collegial model. Three to four central participants in reality divided the traditional responsibilities of a chief of staff. No single individual or participant dominated operations in the white house. We can characterise that the power in this period to a certain extent ebbed and flowed between the central participants. At the beginning of the second period we can see an rather original movement in the administration. Finance minister Donald Regan, and chief of staff Baker meet in secret and decide to change jobs. The president is told almost in hindsight. The change in chief of staff were going to have fundamental impact on the administration. Where staff structure previously had been characterised of a more collective model the staff structure goes throe a major restructuring. The new chief goes on to centralise the staff structure under a more hierarchical chain of command. More and more levels of power is centralised in the hands of one man, the chief of staff. The purpose of this paper is then to try to present both a theoretical and the empirical framework to be able to come near the question what staff structure served the administration best. The principal way of doing this has been to present two different hypotheses, and identify some criteria's for measuring this question against.