4 ms·
AG and Director, as political appointees who come and go, have much less say in what and how these agencies operate than career bureaucrats technically under th
by ncmncm 4y ago
AG and Director, as political appointees who come and go, have much less say in what and how these agencies operate than career bureaucrats technically under them. Those have goals only ever glancingly related to nominal policies.
That is not to say that appointees have no influence; they can have a lasting effect through hiring practices and other personnel actions, effects that may outlast administrations. Appointees certainly do not learn of all activities of their underlings, if only because they only have so many hours in the day to read. What they do get to read is filtered for them by those same underlings.
- SllX 4y agoCorrect, people have goals. However leadership sets the agenda, goals, priorities and the direction of the organization. If the leadership is weak, uninterested or unengaged, then yes, middle management can take their stab at steering the ship (and compete with each other to do it). On the other hand, they can also just be fired if they get uppity, and if leadership has someone stepping on their toes or undermining them, well rank has it’s privileges and anyone can be replaced. Make the distinction between a working stiff with law enforcement power and a pencil pushing swamp creature with political power.
- ncmncm 4y agoLeadership can try to set agenda, goals, priorities, and direction. How effective these efforts will be depends entirely on whether and how they match those of the people working there. The appointees have literally no way to know how well their orders are being followed, except as by reported by those who they hope are following them.