The New York Times fronts a story on Joe Biden’s role in the administration’s decision-making process:
Top aides say it has become customary for Mr. Obama to solicit Mr. Biden’s opinion at the end of meetings. But his views by no means always carry the day. At one January meeting to discuss the budget, Mr. Biden railed that the government was in no fiscal shape to pursue a health care overhaul this year — to the dismay of many present and others who heard about it.
The vice president later backed off, but Mr. Obama — who disagreed strongly with the view — has come to see Mr. Biden as a useful contrarian in the course of decision-making.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said that “when there’s group-think going on, the vice president tends to push the envelope in the other direction.”
…
“There’s, I think, an institutional barrier sometimes to truth-telling in front of the president,” Mr. Obama said. “Joe is very good about sometimes articulating what’s on other people’s minds, or things that they’ve said in private conversations that people have been less willing to say in public. Joe, in that sense, can help stir the pot.” [all emphases added]
No matter what your politics are (and I find this personally to be a growing, evolving set of beliefs), there is no denying the value of divergent opinions from a respected source. I took the unusual step of emphasizing certain words in the above passage from the Times to show what is really being discussed. More than just a profile of one politician, the article is a treatise on quality in decision-making.
And only time will tell if they are actually effective in creating an decision making process that works.
Indeed. It’s definitely a step in the right direction, but decisions made in crisis have a tendency to be less than optimal. I’m cautiously optimistic.
Pingback: Week in Public Organizations, 6Apr2009 « PublicOrgTheory