The Structures of National Security Decision Making: Leadership, Institutions, and Politics in the Carter, Reagan, and G. H. W. Bush Years

Abstract

Decision making for U.S. national security is not a static process. Presidents adjust their decision‐making structures from time to time when they perceive that the standard interagency procedures no longer serve their political purposes. This article identifies a distinct pattern in the evolution of national security decision structures over time by examining Carter, Reagan, and G. H. W. Bush decision making on nuclear strategy and arms control. Similarities in each administration's structural changes stem from institutional and political pressures. The differences in the shape of those changes have their origin in the idiosyncratic leadership styles of each president.

Competition, Conflict, and Conformity: Foreign Policy Making in the First Year of the Trump Presidency

“…Presidential scholars have shown that advisory systems evolve over time, as the relationship between president and his advisors change (Link ; Newmann ). Therefore, the possibility exists that Trump may eventually change the way he manages his foreign policy‐making process.…”

“…A president can try to secure good advice by being judicious in selecting personnel and implementing advisory structures that can help him acquire reliable, complete, diverse, and timely information and advice (Rudalevige ). The structures, that is, the organizational configurations that define the relationships between the presidential advisors and the president, are especially important because they can determine the advisory processes (Newmann ).…”

“…Ultimately, each president employs the management model he believes best helps him deal with the challenges of the decision‐making process. These choices are also evidently tempered by a wide assortment of personal traits and proclivities that are exclusive to each individual president such as his need for power and control (Preston ; Mitchell ), sense of efficacy (George ), political experience and knowledge (Neustadt ; Preston ), cognitive style and complexity (George ; Preston ; Hermann et al ), level of tolerance of political conflict (Johnson ; George ), and political strategy (Newmann ; Pika ) as well as the political context at each particular moment in time (Neustadt ; Johnson ; Hermann et al ). Moreover, presidential advisory systems evolve over time.…”

“…Moreover, presidential advisory systems evolve over time. Research on multiple presidential administrations has demonstrated that the relationships between presidents and their advisors change over the course of their presidencies (see Da Vinha ; Link ; Newmann ; Stern and Sundelius ).…”

Structures, Processes, and Communication in the Transformation of the Carter Administration’s Foreign Policy

“…In time, interactions between the organizational actors and the President will lead to a transformation of the decision-making processes. 9 In other words, Presidents will eventually adapt their advisery system in order to try to deal more eff ectively with the challenges presented by the multiple policymaking constraints. Th ese structures and processes will ultimately infl uence communication within an administration and consequently aff ect the rate and magnitude of foreign policy change.…”