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

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 309

as a kind of punishment (Weimer and Vining, 1999). Placing potential implementers in their historical context and noting important trajectories, details, and change points can help you choose preferred implementers and fashion incentives that are positive motivators rather than a punishment (Neustadt and May, 1986).

Support Movement Away from the Status Quo

Meet the conditions for effective implementation of a policy that departs substantially from the status quo. Daniel Mazmanian and Paul Sabatier (1983) argue that major policy changes are likely to be achieved if:

•The enabling legislation or other directive outlines clear and consistent policy objectives or criteria for resolving goal conflicts.

•The legislation incorporates a sound theory of what is needed to achieve the policy objective and gives implementers sufficient authority. Constructing and critiquing a logic model that captures the essence of the theory linking inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes is one way to make sure the theory is sound (Millar, Simeone, and Carnevale, 1999; Poister, 2003). Forward and backward mapping, to be discussed in the next chapter, may be helpful.

•The legislation structures the implementation process to favor success—for example, by assigning the change to a supportive and capable agency, establishing supportive decision rules, and making adequate resources available.

•Key implementers possess the necessary leadership and management skills and are committed to achieving the goals.

•A coalition of key supporters, including important legislators or chief executives, actively supports the implementation process, and the courts are supportive or neutral.

•New priorities or conflicting policies do not emerge, and underlying social conditions do not change so as to weaken the policy’s political support or underlying causal theory.

Bear these conditions in mind throughout the proposal-review-and- adoption phase and carry them with you into the implementation process. If the conditions are not in place at the conclusion of this phase, you will need to strategize accordingly.

ADOPTING POLICY PROPOSALS 311

on to another arena or court, or cycle back through previous phases, emphasize the importance of continuing to fight for change.

Summary

Formal proposal review and adoption moves the policy change process from forums to arenas and sometimes to courts. Even when the focus is on an arena, the courts must be kept in mind, because adopted changes are often challenged in the courts.

In this phase, policy entrepreneurs help official decision makers say yes to the proposed change as comfortably as possible. They use their political leadership skills as they seek to make their proposal unstoppable. To bring policy makers on board, they use such processes as the bandwagon effect, signing up, and exploiting a window of opportunity. They use their understanding of agenda control, strategic voting, issue dimensions, and information control to win passage of their proposal. They bargain and negotiate over details, while attempting to protect key provisions. They compete fiercely with opponents but hold open the possibility of working together in the future. They sustain and expand their coalition and activate coalition members to directly and indirectly lobby the policy makers. They ensure that adopted policies include adequate guidance and resources for implementation in the next phase.

If the proposal fails in an arena, policy entrepreneurs have the option of trying another arena, or pursuing change in the courts. They may also need to circle back to earlier policy change phases.

IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PLANS 313

The purpose of this phase is incorporation of the adopted policy change throughout the relevant system in a way that achieves the vision inspiring the change in the first place. Desired outcomes include:

•Reasonably smooth and rapid introduction of the adopted change in appropriate organizations and networks

•Commitment of key implementers

•Maintenance and change of coalition membership and leadership

•A “debugging” process that identifies and fixes difficulties arising as implementation proceeds

•Assurance that important features of the policy design are maintained during implementation

•A summative evaluation that ensures policy goals are in fact achieved

•Creation of a new regime to govern decision making and behavior

•Establishment or anticipation of review points during which policy maintenance, modification, or termination can be considered

•Strengthening of people and organizations involved in implementation

Introduction of Adopted Changes

Usually the arena that adopts a policy change mandates the implementation, either by issuing a directive to existing networks, organizations, and departments or by creating new organizations, networks, and departments. Policy entrepreneurs usually want to move quickly to make sure the changes are actually begun in the relevant organizational system and the start-up goes smoothly. Typically, a repertoire of strategies and tactics is necessary to bring all relevant parties on board (Bryson, 2004a; 2004b). For example, the Hennepin County Board set up the African American Men Commission, which in turn established seven committees charged with developing implementation plans in specific policy areas: families, housing, education, community civic involvement, and criminal justice; two additional committees—communications and

314 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

fundraising—were expected to develop overall support for the African American Men Project. Meanwhile, the project staff began implementing such initiatives as the Right Turn Project and the Day of Restoration, as well as continuing to track and publicize AAMP’s progress.

Commitment of Key Implementers

Without the commitment of key implementers, change is likely to wither on the vine. It may be given lip service but displaced by other priorities and needs. Of course, implementers who were part of the advocacy coalition that supported adoption of the change are likely to be supportive. Many, however, will not have participated in the coalition, and policy entrepreneurs and policy makers must give them incentives to allocate time, energy, and other organizational resources to implementation. In one of our four examples, implementation of the Day of Restoration developed by the AAMP required support from judges and staff in the county courts. An important incentive for these people was the prospect of saving a significant amount of time and money by clearing up traffic tickets and other violations, encouraging restorative justice, and reducing future crime.

Maintenance and Change of

Coalition Membership and Leadership

In the implementation and evaluation phase, policy entrepreneurs must prepare for a shift in the composition of the advocacy coalition that supported the adopted policy change in earlier phases. Some members of the coalition may be ready to move on to another pressing social need or problem, or their job may change. Carol Johnson, an African American and superintendent of Minneapolis schools, was a strong supporter of the Dream Assessment Initiative envisioned by the AAMP, but when she accepted a new job in another city her successor was a man who had not been part of the project advocacy coalition and was not as interested in the initiative as she had been.

Some members of the advocacy coalition may want to be directly involved in implementation; others are better suited to being

IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PLANS 315

political guardians or monitors of the change. Leader succession may become an issue, since this phase calls for a new, more insti- tution-building, style of leadership than in previous phases. A handoff to new leaders may also be important in this phase simply to ensure that the change is not perpetually associated with a group of founding fathers or founding mothers and thus easily dissipated once they are no longer involved. For example, Jan Hively has been a key implementer of the Vital Aging Network and specific projects like the Vital Aging Summits in 2002 and 2004, the Leadership Advocacy Certificate Program in Vital Aging, and the Vital Force project. She announced, however, that she would step down as VAN coordinator after an initial start-up period. The coordinating work is now done by two consultants, one of whom has had a longstanding involvement with VAN; Hively, meanwhile, continues to serve on the VAN leadership group and is a driving force and key fundraiser for several of its projects.

Debugging Process

Difficulties are almost inevitable as change is introduced into an existing or new organization or department. Policy entrepreneurs should recall the well-known administrative adage of Murphy’s Law: anything that can go wrong will go wrong. They should also recall the quip that Murphy was an optimist! The earlier phases of the change process should have been designed to help ensure that the proposal as adopted does not contain major flaws, but many difficulties emerge only after implementation begins. Policy entrepreneurs should ensure that a sound formative evaluation process is under way from the outset so as to help implementers identify obstacles and steer over, around, under, or through them to achieve policy goals (Bryson and Cullen, 1984; Patton, 1997). For example, the organizers of the Advocacy Leadership Certificate Program had considerable experience designing and teaching programs for adult learners. At the same time, the group had never tried offering a nine-month certificate program focusing on aging, personal renewal, community systems, and policy change to a group ranging in age from their thirties to nineties. Thus each session was formally and informally evaluated to adapt future sessions of the initial program to learner needs and plan the next year’s program. The

316 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

organizers also built in an evaluation of the program as a whole, to learn from the initial program and convince future participants and funders that the program was worthwhile.

Design Maintenance

The adopted policy may have been designed to address particular needs in a constructive way, but as situations change implementation can become a moving target. Policy entrepreneurs must remain alert to the possibility that design changes presented as helpful actually subvert policy aims.

Creation of a New Regime

Implementation of major changes requires creation of a new regime to govern decision making and behavior. Earlier we noted that the regime concept is taken from the field of international relations; it clearly applies to the development of effective sharedpower arrangements in many, if not most, policy fields. To develop the shared set of implicit or explicit expectations that regimes embody, policy entrepreneurs should emphasize several features of regime construction, among them designing and using forums, arenas, and courts and developing supportive coalitions and practices in such a way that implementation outcomes—though not directly controlled—still effectively address the public problem of concern and satisfy key stakeholders. The new regime may also feature a widely shared “vision of success” that outlines what the world will look like if the desired changes are fully implemented.

A programmatic example is the Right Turn Project, which is bringing together community partners and public agencies to create a whole new regime for assisting young African American men who want to make a “right turn” toward a productive future. On a larger scale, the WBCSD seeks to implement new policy regimes to significantly reduce pollution and alleviate poverty around the world. Council staff and volunteers organize and promote such forums as multi-stakeholder dialogues; they participate in U.N.-sponsored forums such as the Earth Summits, produce reports, operate a large Website, and organize educational programs. They pressure national policy makers but also emphasize the possibilities for policy

IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PLANS 317

change in narrower arenas, such as a corporate board of directors. They highlight and encourage partnerships, notably a joint effort of Cisco Systems and the United Nations in a project called NetAid, which uses the Internet to combat poverty among the world’s poorest people (Holliday, Schmidheiny, and Watts, 2002). They develop informal courts by supporting the Global Reporting Initiative, which helps companies produce sustainable development reports that can be used by various stakeholder groups to hold them accountable for goals such as environmental protection and poverty alleviation.

Summative Evaluation

Summative evaluations should occur after a policy change has been fully implemented and enough time has elapsed to know how well it is remedying the public problem or social need and to identify new problems or needs it might be generating. This evaluation focuses both on the immediate outputs and long-term outcomes and on tangible and intangible consequences of the policy change—on behaviors, products, and services as well as symbolic interpretations. Both are important in determining whether a policy change has been worth the expenditure of time and effort (Wholey, Hatry, and Newcomer, 1994). Summative evaluations are politically sensitive and constitute a link between this phase and the next. They may also be expensive and time-consuming, but without them it is hard to know whether a new policy regime is truly worthwhile.

Establishment or Anticipation of Review Points

Policy entrepreneurs should look ahead to the next phase and establish or anticipate points when stakeholders can consider whether an implemented policy should be maintained, significantly modified, or terminated. The policy change cycle is a series of loops, not a straight line. Politics, problems, and desired solutions often change things (Kingdon, 1995). There is no once-and-for-all solution, only temporary victories. Policy entrepreneurs must be alert to sources of possible challenge to an implemented solution, and they should work for maintenance of still-desirable policies; replacement with better ones, when possible or necessary; and

318 LEADERSHIP FOR THE COMMON GOOD

termination of completely outmoded ones. In the case of the Vital Aging Network, future Vital Aging Summits might offer a good venue for reviewing policy implementation. The Earth Summits offer a similar opportunity for the WBCSD. The African American Men Commission might agree to engage in a thorough reassessment of its direction on the fifth and tenth anniversaries of the commission’s creation.

Strengthening of People and Organizations

When the implementation process goes well, the people and organizations deemed responsible are seen as far-sighted, effective, and committed to the common good. They are likely to be trusted with additional responsibility in the future. The individuals involved are likely to experience heightened self-esteem and self-confidence (Bandura, 1997). The organizations involved are likely to enhance their capacity for future action. In addition to building a reserve of trust, they acquire an expanded repertoire of knowledge, tools, and techniques that can be applied to future changes.

Forward Mapping and Backward Mapping

Policy entrepreneurs may use two contrasting approaches, forward mapping and backward mapping (Elmore, 1982), to plan implementation. Each is a kind of logic model (Millar, Simeone, and Carnevale, 2001; Poister, 2003) or oval map (see Resource B). Forward mapping follows the rational planning model described in Chapter One. This approach “begins at the top of the process, with as clear a statement as possible of the policymaker’s intent, and proceeds through a sequence of increasingly more specific steps to define what is expected of implementers at each level. At the bottom of the process, one states, again with as much precision as possible, what a satisfactory outcome would be, measured in terms of the original statement of intent” (Elmore, 1982, p. 19).

The major difficulty with forward mapping is its “implicit and unquestioned assumption that policymakers control the organizational, political, and technological processes that affect implementation” (Elmore, 1982, p. 20; italics in original). Forward mapping thus can be problematic in a shared-power, no-one-in-charge world, where leaders