Executive Summary
Report Objective
The report offers a comprehensive overview of President George Bush Jr.’s organizational structure to determine the important role of centralization of decision-making to help minimize the president’s isolation.
Key Findings
Examination of the four major organizational questions yield the following findings to consider when organizing the executive:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Centralization is of great importance for the president, as it ensures that he/she is involved in the decision-making processes, especially on matters associated with security; thus, avoiding possibilities of isolation (Dziubinski & Yetiv, 2017). Centralization means that the president is at the very center of any decisions that are to be made, which serves as a guarantee of efficiency.
Adoption of a centralized organizational structure gives the president more diverse options with regard to his/her national security policy to help maintain the security structure expected.
In the proposed structure, ‘back channeling’ of potential White House staffers can be avoided based on the fact that the staffers report directly to the president, who operates within the National Security Council (NSC) setting to improve on his/her efficiency.
The National Security Advisor should report directly to the president, as this gives the president greater autonomy over decisions focusing on matters associated with national security. The advisor plays a critical role in determining the nature of decisions that the president is likely to consider when focusing on the country’s security interests (Andrianopoulos, 2016).
The most critical position, in the proposed organizational structure, is that the NSC, which includes the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense as statutory members. The NSC helps in refining all key aspects associated with matters of national security; thus, ensuring the president has a wide range of options to consider (Pfiffner, 2018). To help the president decide on the best option, the NSC engages the president in a discussion of possible impacts associated with each decision.
However, the vice president and secretary of defense conduct their discussions outside the proposed structure considering that they hold strong views on matters associated with the decisions that the president is likely to make focusing on matters of interest in national security. By having these two members outside the proposed structure plays an important role in ensuring that the president is able to deal directly with all emerging issues that arise as a direct outcome of his/her decisions.
Implications of the Findings: A Recommended Organizational Structure
The organizational structure considered as part of this executive summary is more less centralized, as it focuses on the president as the key decision-making position. The NSC, vice president, secretary of defense, and chief of staff report directly to the president. All other department report directly to the NSC, which is involved in discussions and deliberations based on the information provided. The following are key recommendations to enhance usability of this structure:
Adoption of centralization serves as the most effective organizational structure for the president, as it guarantees overall efficiency in the decisions made on emerging issues ().
White house staffers are expected to report to the president within the NSC setting with the intention being that any information that the staffers provide can be discussed and deliberated within the NSC before a decision to achieve best possible outcomes.
The president may need to consider using informal meetings that would be held with other officials, such as the vice president, secretary of state, chief of staff, and secretary of defense among others. The informal meetings will help provide the president with insight on the security status even before he/she is involved in formal meetings, especially in the NSC.
To balance participants, the president-elect may need consider appointing some of his/her critics to some positions, which may include undersecretary of state and undersecretary of defense. The idea is to give the president multiple perspectives on security issues; thus, guaranteeing overall efficiency.
Executive Organizational Structure
MEMO
DATE : March 20, 2019
TO : Professor’s Name Here
FROM : Student’s Name Here
RE : Centralization of Decision Making
Introduction
The objective of this memo is to examine the importance of centralization as one of the key elements that helps minimize isolation of the president. The assessment meets the objective of the memo, as it gives an in-depth overview of the president’s functions, especially focusing on matters associated with decision making.
Assessment of Centralizing Decision-Making in the Executive Office
Centralizing decision-making in the executive office plays an essential role towards ensuring that the president is involved in all decisions made. Mitchell (2005) indicates that the president plays an important role in making decisions regardless of the fact that he/she is likely to receive views and opinions from different quotas over the nature of decisions to make. Centralization means that the president will serve as the key position that helps make essential decisions, especially those that involve matters of national security (Herd, 2016). Consequently, this eliminates the possibility of isolation considering that none of the other individuals in the executive will have the power and authority to make any decisions. The NSC, vice president, and the secretary of defense provide the president with viable options regarding the national security policy thereby improving his/her capacity to make a quantified decision.
Recommendations
The president-elect needs to adopt a centralized organizational structure that puts him/her at the center of the decisions made.
The president-elect needs to use the positions of vice-president and secretary of defense to critique his/her decisions to achieve most effective outcomes.
The president-elect needs to strengthen the position of the NSC with the view being that this position will improve overall efficiency in implementation of the national security policy.
References
Andrianopoulos, G. A. (2016). Kissinger and Brzezinski: the NSC and the struggle for control of US National Security policy . Springer.
Dziubinski, M. G., & Yetiv, S. A. (2017). National security, budgeting, and policy priorities: The role and importance of candidate and President Bush. In America's War on Terror (pp. 43-53). Routledge.
Herd, G. (2016). Security Strategy: Sovereign Democracy and Great Power Aspirations. In The Politics of Security in Modern Russia (pp. 23-44). Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (2005). Centralizing advisory systems: Presidential influence and the US foreign policy decision-making process. Foreign Policy Analysis , 1 (2), 181-206.
Pfiffner, J. P. (2018). Did President Bush mislead the country in his arguments for war with Iraq?. In Intelligence and national security policymaking on Iraq . Manchester University Press.
