Crosby B.C., Bryson J.M. - Leadership for the Common Good (2005)(en)

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 299

a court decision that reshapes the way an arena functions—for example, by mandating the redrawing of electoral district boundaries or nullifying an election. Moreover policy entrepreneurs may seek to reshape the courts, as in trying to affect the appointment or election of judges.

Courts, however, face limits in making policy changes. Usually they do not attempt to implement the changes they mandate. Policy entrepreneurs should as well remember that formal court systems are often hierarchical. Change advocates who win at one level can lose on appeal to a higher court; conversely, they can lose in a lower court and win on appeal.

Provision of Guidance and Resources for Implementation

Implementers and judges look to the adopted proposal as well as to the record of policy makers’ discussion of the proposal to discern the policy makers’ intention for how the policy should be carried out. If guidance is inadequate, implementers can be expected to use methods with which they are familiar or spend considerable time trying to figure out what to do. Inadequate guidance also opens the door for opponents to step in with their own ideas for how the proposal should be implemented. Without thorough guidance, evaluators of policy impact might also have difficulty knowing exactly what they should evaluate.

Sometimes, the political climate is such that the only way policy entrepreneurs can win passage of their favored proposal is to keep the implementation plan ambiguous. Or the issue at the heart of the proposal might be so complex that the proposal mainly seeks authorization and funding for helping many stakeholder groups develop implementation strategies, as in the case of the African American Men Project. Here a helpful tactic is to create a commission or other group assigned to work out the implementation plan.

Meanwhile, policies that are adopted in the absence of adequate resources are little more than symbolic window dressing. Symbolic policies may be important in paving the way for future, adequately funded policies; nevertheless, to have real impact, a policy ultimately must be accompanied by needed resources for implementation.

300 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Support of Those Who Can Affect Implementation Success

Wise policy entrepreneurs involve likely implementers of their proposal in shaping it in the first place. The concerns and capabilities of implementers still need to be considered as the proposal is modified in this phase, so that implementers remain supportive. For example, if sustainable development advocates seek to convince policy makers to pass tax incentives for reducing manufacturers’ waste products, they may need to keep information flowing from people in affected businesses (especially the designers of manufacturing processes), as the policy makers debate waste reduction requirements and implementation schedules. During implementation, the policy makers themselves are likely to stay involved, either as overseers or interveners; as a result policy entrepreneurs seek to win the support of as many of the policy makers as possible, not just enough to pass the proposal.

Widely Shared Excitement About the Policy and Implementation

Once a proposal is adopted, celebratory events and messages can help sustain the momentum of change and build a bridge to the implementation phase. If a new law is passed, a president or governor may hold a signing ceremony with great fanfare. The winning advocacy coalition may hold a celebratory rally and communicate messages of triumph and great expectation through the press. They may call on citizens or organizations to join in implementing the new policy. Opponents find themselves fighting a rearguard action as the burden of proof shifts from the initiators to the opposers of the change (Wilson, 1967). Thus, the supporters of the AAMP organized major community events to announce the Hennepin County board’s approval of the 2002 report and appointment of the African American Men Commission. County commissioners, other officials, and community leaders were highly visible participants. Videotapes of these events and follow-up activities were used at subsequent community gatherings to demonstrate the project’s momentum and support from top officials, community leaders, and citizens.

Ideally, a renorming process begins. Assuming the new policy addresses a real public problem and is technically, administratively, politically, legally, and ethically acceptable, more and more people begin

302 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

they are promoting. If the preceding phase has gone well, they begin this one with a well-crafted policy proposal supported by a broad coalition and attractive to relevant policy makers. They need an array of political leadership skills in order to press their proposal at the right time, guide it past procedural barriers, win over or thwart opponents, and sustain and further expand their coalition.

We group guidelines for this phase in three categories:

1.Building support

2.Providing implementation guidance and support

3.Gleaning success from failure

Building Support

Keep track of key stakeholders, especially the policy makers, throughout this phase. Organize an effective lobbying and media campaign. Use tactics such as agenda control, strategic voting, and bargaining as needed. Seek a powerful bandwagon effect.

Policy Makers Deserve Attention

Continue to pay attention to the goals, concerns, interests, beliefs, and egos of all key stakeholders, but especially of the policy makers themselves. In a government arena, party affiliation and past political alignment are important stakeholder characteristics. In government arenas, key stakeholders are likely to include top-level elected or appointed executives; legislators; directors, managers, and frontline employees and volunteers in important implementing organizations (whether government agency, business, or nonprofit); technical, professional, and interest-group opinion leaders; representatives of key constituent groups; and funding sources. In this phase, it is especially important to understand the policy makers well enough to know what type of inducement will prompt them to vote in favor of the proposal.

Assess Support and Opposition

Use the stakeholder-support-versus-opposition grid (Exercise 9.2) to assess changes in the proposal as it goes through the formal review and adoption process.

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 303

Identify Sponsors and Champions

Identify one or more policy sponsors and policy champions to gain passage in legislative and administrative arenas. In a legislature, one or more members must officially sponsor proposed legislation. In addition to formal sponsorship, someone (preferably a legislator) must champion the proposal and do the educating, networking, bargaining, and negotiating that are undoubtedly necessary to win passage of legislation. Key decision makers and opinion leaders must play similar roles in an administrative arena. Gathering more information about key stakeholders and using stakeholder support- and-opposition grids can help policy entrepreneurs identify sponsors and champions. (Sometimes policy entrepreneurs themselves are able to play these roles; Gary Cunningham was the key champion of the AAMP within Hennepin County government.)

Use Lobbying and Persuasion

Implement a lobbying strategy and persuasion campaign. Important tactics include:

•Reducing decision-maker uncertainty about the policy proposal. Decision makers may not be knowledgeable about the policy area connected to the proposal. Help them view your proposal positively by emphasizing compatibility with their goals, furnishing evidence of the technical quality of the proposal, and giving reassurance that it comes from competent sources. Activate members of the coalition to do behind-the-scenes work as well as public presentation. These people are often prominent, influential, and obviously connected to extensive networks that can be marshaled in support of the proposal. As an example, to obtain foundation support for the 2002 Vital Aging Summit in Minnesota, members of the summit planning committee used their personal connections and credibility with foundation directors to win donations.

•Developing arguments and counterarguments in support of the proposal prior to formal review sessions. Bargaining and negotiation may predominate in this phase, but persuasion still matters. You cannot be a successful bargainer or negotiator without the ability to develop a persuasive argument. Strive to articulate the logic of the proposal in a way that is convincing to key decision makers and

304 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

stakeholders—or at least buys their neutrality—else the decision will go nowhere (Forester, 1999; Simons, 2001). Remember to pay attention to the egos, ideologies, and political allegiances of the policy makers (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Be sure to outline the benefits of proposal adoption to various stakeholder groups and to constituencies that are important to the official decision makers, and indicate that attendant costs are reasonable. As mentioned earlier, you should be able to argue against the opponents’ effort to change the dimensions of an issue. In court, arguments must show how the proposed change accords with, or indeed is required by, judicial principles and previous court decisions.

• Organizing a well-timed demonstration of constituent support.

Demonstrations are especially important in any politically difficult situation. You can call on one or more seasoned pressure groups that are part of your coalition to begin activating members to send e-mails, write letters, show up at policy makers’ offices, join rallies, and attract media coverage. Make certain, however, that pressure does not backfire. If lobbying is so intense that policy makers feel they are being browbeaten or that some key stakeholders are offended, it may actually reduce support for your proposal. For example, in March 1983, the New York AIDS Network timed its demands for well-funded city AIDS services to coincide with an explosive column by Larry Kramer in the New York Native. The Native also published a call for volunteers to be trained for civil disobedience aimed at bringing attention to the failure of city officials to take any significant action against AIDS. Kramer’s column increased the polarization within the gay community—between those who denounced Kramer as an alarmist and those who sided with his claim that AIDS was now a “public health emergency” (Shilts, 1988, p. 245). New York Mayor Ed Koch responded to the calls for city-sponsored AIDS services with a new office and minor gestures of support—a minimal approach that went largely unchallenged by gay community leaders.

Use Agenda Control and Strategic Voting

Seek agenda control and strategic voting that favor the proposal. Agenda control is mainly the province of an arena’s positional leaders, so they must be on board and give the proposal priority. In 1983, as chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Re-

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 305

sources Orrin Hatch used his prerogative at a crucial point in the efforts to pass a bill boosting anti-AIDS funding to send the bill directly to the Senate floor for debate. He decided against the normal practice of holding a committee hearing, because some committee members could be counted on to use the hearing to push their antigay rights agenda (Shilts, 1988). It may also be possible to end-run the agenda-control system. For example, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Phil Burton and their staffers Bill Kraus and Tim Westmoreland worked successfully in the early 1980s to secure substantial federal funding for AIDS prevention and treatment by using congressional supplemental appropriations process to counter the president’s budget recommendations.

In addition to working with policy makers who can shape the decision-making agenda, pay attention to how strategic voting may affect your proposal. For example, the timing of a vote on the proposal may greatly enhance or diminish chances of the proposal’s benefiting from strategic voting.

Get the Timing Right

In general, be sure that bills are introduced when competition from other pressing matters is low. This tactic helps policy makers and the press give your proposal their full attention. (In some situations, however, you may be wise to introduce a bill quietly so that it does not attract much attention.) Lobbying pressure should be exerted at the right time and in the right way; information should be circulated at the most propitious time and in the right format.

Engage Reviewers

Engage formal review bodies in a structured review session focusing on strengths, weaknesses, and modifications of the process. This is much the same as what we described in Chapter Nine. Again, be prepared to accept all modifications that actually improve the technical, administrative, political, legal, and ethical acceptability of the proposal. Remember, elected politicians favor proposals that help their constituents, avoid highly controversial issues, enhance their reputation and prospects for reelection, and achieve their concept of good public policy. Further, politicians are likely to vote in a direction consistent with the balance of opinion among their key constituents (Kingdon, 1995).

306 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

Use the formal review process to gain additional endorsement of the proposed change prior to the formal adoption process. This evidence of support can assure policy makers that they are on safe ground if they vote for the proposed change.

A review body might be a subcommittee, whose recommendations carry considerable weight with the full policy-making body. The ideal review body consists of five to nine members and has a history of constructive interaction and open communication. Lacking such a history, it may require training in effective group communication, problem solving, and conflict management.

Keep a Watchful Eye on Opponents

Much of the policy adoption process involves individuals and interest groups who want the proposed policy to fail. These opponents often hammer on the details of the proposed change, especially if passage appears likely. They know that policy intentions can be made to fail during implementation through tampering with the details during adoption. Be aware that even small changes can have a big impact, and be prepared to counter selective information, distortion, and even lies.

Try to avoid unwelcome surprises. The work in previous phases should construct an effective early warning system that eliminates unwelcome news during this phase. The systematic review process in the proposal-formulation phase and in this phase is especially helpful in uncovering troublesome concerns in advance.

Bargain and Negotiate for Support

Be prepared to bargain and negotiate over proposal features, or other issues, in exchange for political support. Bargaining and negotiation are the modus operandi in legislative bodies. The bargaining is intended to win over or placate opponents and those who are indifferent. Even a proposal that seems to have no opposition (say, one aimed at eliminating child abuse) may provoke argument over methodology, resources, and the locus of responsibility for implementation.

Finding or inventing options and inducements that can promote agreement, without sacrificing key proposal components, is a prime political leadership activity (Susskind, McKearnan, and

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 307

Thomas-Larmer, 1999; Thompson, 2001). The price of the last vote necessary for proposal adoption may be the highest, since the voter may know that without his or her support the entire proposal will be defeated (Riker, 1962). On the other hand, if a bandwagon effect occurs, relatively cost-free support may be gained as latecomers seek to avoid exclusion from the benefits of proposal adoption. No matter what, do not bargain away essentials in order to win support.

Create a Powerful Bandwagon Effect

As bargaining and negotiation continue, participants may realize that enough agreement is emerging to ensure ultimate passage. More and more of them may become convinced of the proposal’s feasibility and aware of widespread stakeholder support and key decision makers’ favorable attitude toward the proposal. At this point, a future different from the present gains credibility and certainty, and the bandwagon effect takes hold. Participants often “alter their behavior and responses. They will either pick preferences that have a higher probability of happening or fashion new preferences that fit their image of the future” (Benveniste, 1989, p. 130).

Announce the Proposal Publicly

Make a public announcement of the reworked proposal, at least within the affected system. The announcement may occur before or after formal adoption of the proposal. A public announcement prior to adoption may be a trial balloon to determine whether a sufficiently large supportive coalition has been formed. Or it may be designed to soften up decision makers at the same time that it solidifies or expands the coalition, perhaps triggering a powerful bandwagon effect. A preadoption announcement, however, could also allow an opposing coalition to form. A postadoption announcement informs stakeholders how things have changed and prepares them for implementation.

Use a Two-Pronged Media Strategy

First, keep the issue alive in the pertinent media so as to demonstrate to policy makers that the public is paying attention. Some of the policy makers themselves may make this task easier as they begin making newsworthy statements about the proposal. Other

308 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

tactics include public rallies and press conferences to attract media attention to subcommittee hearings, procedural votes, threatened vetoes, and the final vote.

Second, communicate what is happening to your proposal as it advances through the legislative meat grinder. Maintain good press contacts so you can immediately let the public know when your proposal is being advanced, or gutted, in the legislative process.

Strike While the Iron Is Hot

When the time is right, press for formal adoption of the proposal. The time is right when the coalition is as large as it can be; the proposal is politically acceptable, technically and administratively workable, and ethically and legally defensible; and a decision point is at hand.

Decide Whether to Ask the Courts to Intervene

If your proposal is faring badly because the arena’s structure or process violates laws or constitutional principles, consider asking the appropriate court to force needed change in the offending rule and methods. You may also decide to test your proposal in court if the constitution or judicial precedents offer grounds for doing so.

Providing Implementation Guidance and Support

Be sure enough resources are committed, incentives are right, and the process is well designed. Keep in mind that your ultimate goal is construction of a new policy regime.

Seek Adequate Resources

Obtain necessary resource commitments, if at all possible, prior to the formal adoption session. Gain commitment from formal decision makers and key implementers for key personnel, additional staff, training costs, conversion costs, stipends, technical assistance, contingency funds, and the like.

Align Incentives

Remember that incentives must run in the proper direction for implementation. If implementers see that they can benefit from implementation, they are more likely to facilitate it than if they see it