[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In the Netherlands, managers are, for theopposite reason, often indolently compromising on setting strategy.InProtestant countries, managers frequently neglect the utility of undignifiedwining and dining for networking.In most new member states, comingfrom a centralist past, there is no strong tradition of building broad consen-sus.More specific are some organisational variations.The management ofgovernment organisations often fails to develop a realistic next-best sce-nario and to keep its staff and line cohesive.Smaller-sized regional and lo-cal governments show much variation, but some, like the German region ofBavaria and the Spanish one of Catalonia, have a reputation of strong lead-ership over their PA in the EU.EuroFeds and other NGOs are frequentlycharacterised by the weak position of their management.The chairmanand board are usually selected, replaced and pressurised by the grassroots.In MNCs and MNGOs with vertical segmentation (divisions, countrythe sender s organisational limits 291 units), the management often has only limited control over PA operations.The management of SMEs has to meet, in addition to its internal limits, theexternal ones of European associations, necessary for remote control.Amateurishly organised lobby groups have clearly more managementdeficits than professional ones.They are more affected by mental limits andby internal dissent and scarcities.Their managers are more doers thanthinkers and more led by reflex than by reflection.They are, in short, highlydependent on good luck and thus often suffer bad luck.The managementof professional groups, in contrast, oversees its EU public affairs more orless as sketched in the multinational model (chapter 5).It has its mental andorganisational limits better under control, thanks to its early warning sys-tem obtained through homework and enabling it to anticipate limits.Itusually has less numerous management deficits, but it still encounters lim-its to its ability to manage EU public affairs successfully.However, these areless the result of its own deficits and more of external circumstances, as dis-cussed below.The Limits of Channel ManagementA channel is a transmission system for sending messages.There are manydifferent types of channels.Figure 7.2 presents a selection of the analyticalvariety.Through the various possible combinations, the number of chan-nels can be infinite.A channel can be one-way, either sending or receiving amessage, or two-way (or more), for interactive communication.There maybe just one channel or a multiple channel system, forming a network.Achannel can be connected either to a receiver or to another channel, or it canhave a dead end.If there are more channels, they can be connected parallelor in series.Channels may go directly or indirectly to some place, similar tothe direct and indirect ways of lobbying a stakeholder (chapter 6).A chan-nel can be open or closed.In the former case, it is free like a public road, andin the latter case it requires a fee to be paid, a ticket to be obtained or a pass-word to be given, as for a toll road, a party or an intranet.The channel canalso be general for any member of the public or specific only to a particulargroup.Some channels are natural like a river, while others are constructedor engineered like pipelines or canals.A channel can be either permanentor temporary, being there irrespective of its use or only for as long as it isused, like a moving vehicle.Some channels are old, established and tested,while others are newly developed and experimental.Channel thinking is highly inspired by the three metaphors of water,sound and electricity.Through cybernetics and systems analysis it has292 the limits of eu public affairs management made its imprint on political science [Deutsch, 1963; Easton, 1965].In ap-plied political science, with PA management in the EU as the selected chap-ter, the key question for every sender is how to get a message, in the desiredform and with the desired contents, delivered only to the desired place and at theright time? Much can go wrong with this objective.During the channelprocess, the form can be affected and the contents changed.The messagemay be delivered to the wrong place and at the wrong time.These four prob-lems of form, content, place and time can occur in combination, resultingin 24 different problem cases.The message can even be lost, disappear andnot be delivered at all.If the transmission is good, it may have been deliv-ered not exclusively but widespread, resulting in rumours going aroundand politicising the interest.All these problems may not be due either to the sender or to the receiverbut be channel-related.Many causes are possible.It may be that the chosenchannel is not correctly connected to the desired place, has limited capacitythat delays delivery, contains a filter that affects the contents of the message,or produces its own noise and echo that make the message widespread.Allthese and more channel properties are, of course, variables.To some degreethey can be manipulated or managed by both the sending lobby group andVARIETY OF CHANNELS FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSMANAGEMENTONE WAY OR TWO/MORE WAYSSINGLE OR MULTIPLE (NETWORK)CONNECTED OR DEAD ENDPARALLEL OR IN SERIESDIRECT OR INDIRECTOPEN OR CLOSEDGENERAL OR SPECIFICNATURAL OR ARTIFICIALPERMANENT OR REVOLVINGESTABLISHED OR NEWLY DEVELOPEDFigure 7.2the limits of channel management 293 every stakeholder.The former wants to get the message delivered as de-sired, while the latter may wish to distort, change, delay, misplace, obstructor politicise the transmission.Both have many options, but any option hasits limits as well.Next we shall discuss three typical cases of channel limits:power, quality and configuration.PowerSome channels are more powerful than others, just as there are turbulentrivers and calm waters.National ministries and EuroFeds, if used as chan-nels of information and influence, tend to be powerful with regard to, forexample, the Commission officials.Ministries have some nuisance value atthe Council level, for example by linking different dossiers in a complexway.EuroFeds are seen as authoritative as long as they aggregate the inter-ests of sectoral groups from different countries, thus saving the Commis-sion officials a lot of hard work.But the same national ministries may be adried-up channel with regard to MEPs or stakeholders from different coun-tries, while EuroFeds have little authority over each other.For communi-cation with the members of an expert committee or a working group, scien-tific reports are usually more powerful vehicles than mass media, but forcommunication with the mass public, their status is almost the reverse.Formaking a political claim public, a press conference in central Brussels is auseful channel, but for the pursuit of inside negotiations it can reverse thecurrent to adverse.The power of a channel depends to some degree on the relationship be-tween the sending and the receiving side.It is strongest if there is a balanceof interests between the two sides, by which the message can indeed be de-livered to the right place, at the right time and with the planned form andcontents.The two sides have to be connected, of course.This can happen inmany different ways, as shown in Figure 7.2.Some ways are certainly morepowerful than others, but they are less so by necessity than by specific cir-cumstances related particularly to the arena and the life of the dossier.Ifthere are many opposing stakeholders, it may be better to use, for example,channels in parallel rather than in series, thus decreasing the chance of fail-ing transmission.In case of such opposition, it may be even better, to com-bine parallel and indirect channels, thus concealing one s identity as thesender
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]