Factors Influencing Chief Executives When Making Appointments
Analyze the factors influencing chief executives when making appointments
The appointment of Justice Earl Warren was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" according to President Eisenhower. Clearly then, appointments made by the Chief Executive are of upmost importance. There are however, a number of different factors, such as ideology, re-election and leadership style that impact on how the Chief Executive makes these appointments. However, with government become more personal, with Special Advisors playing an ever larger role in government, than make people thing political appoints are unimportant. Appointments made by the executive are often effected by the ideology of the Chief Executive in comparison to both those that he is appointing and to their party. The importance of showing a balance in ideology of appoints is shown through the appointment of John Prescott as the Deputy Prime Minister to Blair’s cabinet. While Blair represented New Labour, Prescott was firmly old Labour, thus giving the Blair government a wide appeal. Similarly, the appointment of Terence Flynn, a Republican by Obama shows that a wide range of ideology is an important factor when looking at political appointments. Further to this, in the US, any Supreme Court Judges appointment by the President are likely to share the same ideology of the President, as it is in their interest to stack the Court in their ideological favour to create an easier passage for legislation that they try and pass. However, ideology can be as diverse as possible and yet the Chief Executive can go round their appointments. Clinton often bypassed his cabinet as his term progressed, finding them unhelpful. Blair on the other hand created a Sofa Style government, where only some ministerial appointments were used to reach decisions, rather than having a wide range of ideology. In both the US and the UK, the use of Special advisors is prevalent, showing that the ideology of appointments matters less, as it is the
The appointment of Justice Earl Warren was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" according to President Eisenhower. Clearly then, appointments made by the Chief Executive are of upmost importance. There are however, a number of different factors, such as ideology, re-election and leadership style that impact on how the Chief Executive makes these appointments. However, with government become more personal, with Special Advisors playing an ever larger role in government, than make people thing political appoints are unimportant. Appointments made by the executive are often effected by the ideology of the Chief Executive in comparison to both those that he is appointing and to their party. The importance of showing a balance in ideology of appoints is shown through the appointment of John Prescott as the Deputy Prime Minister to Blair’s cabinet. While Blair represented New Labour, Prescott was firmly old Labour, thus giving the Blair government a wide appeal. Similarly, the appointment of Terence Flynn, a Republican by Obama shows that a wide range of ideology is an important factor when looking at political appointments. Further to this, in the US, any Supreme Court Judges appointment by the President are likely to share the same ideology of the President, as it is in their interest to stack the Court in their ideological favour to create an easier passage for legislation that they try and pass. However, ideology can be as diverse as possible and yet the Chief Executive can go round their appointments. Clinton often bypassed his cabinet as his term progressed, finding them unhelpful. Blair on the other hand created a Sofa Style government, where only some ministerial appointments were used to reach decisions, rather than having a wide range of ideology. In both the US and the UK, the use of Special advisors is prevalent, showing that the ideology of appointments matters less, as it is the