Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:04:29.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Confrontation of Groupthink in US Natural Resource Agencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

James J. Kennedy
James J. Kennedy
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Natural Resource Policy and Administration, Department of Forest Resources, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322–5215, USA; formerly Visiting Professor at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the apparent strength of proud, successful, cohesive agencies are often found characteristics that inhibit their ability to adapt successfully in an environment of change. Organizations can be so successful that they feel invulnerable to public petition. They can stereotype, and dismiss as uninformed ‘outsiders’ or biased trouble-makers, any others who criticize them. Janis (1967) has described such organizational tendencies as groupthink behaviour—where proud and successful, professional organizations such as the USDA-Forest Service (USFS), consider themselves superior to the public, and where any external criticism is filtered, rationalized, and stereotyped to minimize the need for organizational introspection and change.

This article looks at how groupthink tendencies were a normal, understandable part of USFS behaviour in the 1950–60s—and how these tendencies inhibited its adaptation to a post-industrial American society that was increasingly concerned with forest recreational and amenity values. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1970) was the first of several laws that directly confronted the utilitarian, developmental values and the groupthink tendencies in federal natural resource agencies. Responding to NEPA (1970) and other legislative and policy changes of that era, the USFS has latterly become a much more sexually and professionally diverse agency, that is more open to public input than formerly. This volte-face has reduced the probability of groupthink operating in the agency, and consequently improved the latter's prospects of a useful and equitable future.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , Summer 1988 , pp. 123 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barney, D.R. (1972). The Last Stand—Ralph Nadar's Study Group Report on the National Forests. Grossman, New York, NY, USA: xxi + 185 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Behan, R.W. (1981). RPA/NFMA—time to punt. Journal of Forestry, 79(12), pp. 802–5.Google Scholar
Bultena, G.L. & Hendee, J.C. (1972). Foresters on forest policy. Journal of Forestry, 70(6), pp. 337–42.Google Scholar
Clarke, J.N. & McCool, D. (1985). Staking Out the Terrain—Power Differentials Among Natural Resource Management Agencies. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, USA: vii + 189 pp.Google Scholar
Colfer, C.J.P. & Colfer, A.M. (1978). Inside Bushler Bay: lifeways in counterpoint. Rural Sociology, 43(2), pp. 204–20.Google Scholar
Cortner, H.J. & Schweitzer, D.L. (1981). Institutional limits to national public planning for forest resources: The resources planning act. Natural Resources Journal, 21(2), pp. 203–22.Google Scholar
Cross, G.M. (1987). Continuing education in natural resources: Needs and opportunities. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 52, pp. 691–6. (Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C., USA: 294 pp.)Google Scholar
Culhane, P. J. (1981). Public Lands Politics. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA: xv + 398 pp.Google Scholar
Cutler, M.R. (1982). What kind of wildlifers will be needed in the 1980s? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 10(1), pp. 75–9.Google Scholar
Dana, S.T. & Fairfax, S.K. (1980). Forest and Range Policy. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA: xviii + 458 pp.Google Scholar
Duerr, W.A. (1986). Forestry's upheaval—are advances in western civilizations redefining the profession? Journal of Forestry, 84(1), pp. 20–6.Google Scholar
Frankel, C. (1969). Social values and professional values. Journal of Education for Social Work, 5(3), pp. 29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frome, M. (1962). Whose Woods Are These: The Story of the National Forests. Doubleday, Garden City, NJ, USA: xvi + 258 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Frome, M. (1974). Battle for the Wilderness. Praeger, New York, NY, USA: xii + 246 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Gold, K.A. (1982). Managing for success: A comparison of the private and public sectors. Public Administration Review, 42(6), pp. 568–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulick, L.H. (1951). American Forest Policy. Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York, NY, USA: xii + 252 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hays, S. (1959). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: xv + 248 pp.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A.D. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty—Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: vii + 162 pp.Google Scholar
Janis, I.L. (1967). Victims of Groupthink. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: vii + 276 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kaufman, H. (1960). The Forest Ranger. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA: xvii + 259 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.J. (1985 a). Conceiving forest management as providing for current and future social value. Forest Ecology and Management, 13(4), pp. 121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J.J. (1985 b). Integrating Professional Diversity into Mainstream Forest Service Organizational Culture. Paper Presented at Forest Service (Reg. 4) Management Conference, Boise, Idaho, USA, 5–7 11 1985: 8 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.J. (1986). Early career development of Forest Service fisheries managers. Fisheries, 11(4), pp. 8–13.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J.J. & Mincolla, J.A. (1982). Career Evolution of Young 400-series U.S. Forest Service Professionals (Career Development Project Report 1). Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA: 86 pp.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.J. & Mincolla, J.A. (1985). Early career development of fisheries and wildlife biologists in two Forest Service regions. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 50, pp. 425–35. (Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, USA.)Google Scholar
Leman, C.K. (1981). The Forest Ranger Revisited: Administrative Behavior in the U.S. Forest Service in the 1980s. Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, New York, NY, USA: 12 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
McGeary, M.N. (1960). Gifford Pinchot: Forester-Politician. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA: xii + 186 pp.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, D.A. & Nienabor, J. (1979). Can Organizations Change? Environmental Protection, Citizen Participation and the Corps of Engineers. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, USA: x + 220 pp.Google Scholar
May, B.E. & Davis, B. (1983). Recognition of Fish and Wildlife Habitat as an Important Resource on National Forests. Idaho Biologists' Workshop, Challis National Forest, Challis, Idaho, USA: 22 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Miller, M.C. & Gale, R.P. (1986). Professional styles of federal forest and marine fisheries resource managers. Journal of Fisheries Management, 6(2), pp. 141–8.Google Scholar
Mohai, P. (1987). Rational decision-making in the planning process: Some empirical evidence from RARE II. Environmental Law, 17(3), pp. 507–56.Google Scholar
NEPA (1970). National Environment Policy Act (P.L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852) 42nd Congressional Records, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Pinchot, G. (1910). The Fight for Conservation. Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, NY, USA: xi + 152 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Pinchot, G. (1928). The Power Monopoly — Its Make-up and Its Menace. Milford. Pennsylvania, USA: xii + 256 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Reich, C. (1962). Bureaucracy and the Forests. Center for Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California, USA: 12 pp.Google Scholar
Schiff, A.L. (1962). Fire and Water: Scientific Heresy in the Forest Service. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: ix + 218 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, M.A. (1984). New Dimensions in the Policy and Legal Aspects of Forest Land Management. Paper Delivered at Society of American Foresters Annual Conference, Quebec City, Canada, 9 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Speer, A. (1981). Inside the Third Reich. Collier Books, New York, NY, USA: xx + 248 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Steen, H.K. (1976). The U.S. Forest Service—A History. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA: xvi + 356 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.W. (1986). Effectiveness: The hallmark of the natural resource management professional. Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 50, pp. 27–38. (Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, USA.)Google Scholar
Thomson, J.C. Jun., (1968). How could Vietnam happen? An autopsy. Atlantic Monthly (04), pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
Twight, B.W. (1983). Organizational Values and Political Power: The Forest Service versus the Olympic National Park. Pennsylvania State University Press, State College, Pennsylvania, USA: xii + 139 pp.Google Scholar
Twight, B.W. (1985). The Forest Service mission: A case of family fidelity. Women in Forestry, 7(3), pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
USDA-Forest Service (1907). The Use of the National Forests. USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA: 42 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
USDA-Forest Service (1985). Working Together for Multipleuse — Integrated Resource Management. USDA-Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA: 27 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
USDA-Forest Service (1986). Caring for the Land and Serving People (FS-402). USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC, USA: 5 pp.Google Scholar
USDA-Forest Service (1987). SPIRIT of the Forest. USDA-Forest-Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA: 11 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate (1970). A University View of the Forest Service (Bolle report: Senate Doc. No. 115). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 34.Google Scholar