|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 6/99
Role Theory, Foreign Policy Advisors, and U.S. Foreign Policymaking *
Department of Government & International Studies
University of Southern Carolina
International Studies Association
40th Annual Convention
Washington, D.C.
February 16–20, 1999
Role theory, which offers a perspective that bridges social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, has generated interest among social scientists from many backgrounds, as well as confusion over its meaning and application. The role perspective arose coincidentally in several disciplines in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Its central concern has been with patterns of human conduct; with expectations, identities, and social positions; and with context and social structure as well as with individual response. The role perspective consists of a particular viewpoint regarding those factors presumed to be influential in governing human behavior, and it rests on a theatrical analogy:
When actors portray a character in a play, their performance is determined by the script, the director’s instructions, the performances of fellow actors, and reactions of the audience as well as by the acting talents of the players. Apart from differences between actors in the interpretation of their parts, the performance of each actor is programmed by all of these external factors; consequently, there are significant similarities in the performances of actors taking the same part, no matter who the actors are (Biddle & Thomas 1979: 4).
One can take this analogy into real life, using some of the terms of role theory. Individuals in society occupy positions, and their role performance in these positions is determined by social norms, demands, and rules; by the role performances of others in their respective positions; by those who observe and react to the performance; and by the individual’s particular capabilities and personality. The social “script” may be as constraining as that of a play, but it frequently allows more options; the “director” is often present in real life as a supervisor, parent, teacher, or coach; the “audience” in life consists of all those who observe the position member’s behavior; the position member’s “performance” in life, as in the play, is attributable to one’s familiarity with the “part,” one’s personality and personal history in general, and more significantly, to the “script” which others define in so many ways. In essence, the role perspective assumes, as does the theater, that performance results from the social prescriptions and behavior of others, and that individual variations in performance, to the extent that they do occur, are expressed within the framework created by these factors (Biddle & Thomas 1979: 4).
Since role theory encompasses such a wide array of work, there is no cohesive body of thought or research comprising role theory, but rather many different strains loosely grouped together under the rubric of role theory. This represents more a general orientation or approach than a theory (Sarbin & Allen 1968: 488-89). Though certain elements within role theory have been applied to the study of foreign policy, relatively few have done so explicitly, and there is room for further application.
With this in mind, the main purpose of the paper is to review the literature on role theory and analyze to what extent it is useful for understanding and explaining foreign policy phenomena. Areas of greatest relevance include presidential foreign policy advisers’ role images/concepts, adviser group dynamics, and the implications of these for the foreign policy decision-making process. Certain strains in role theory can be useful for this endeavor in terms of filling gaps in the literature as well as synthesizing with current research. By utilizing these role theories from the fields of sociology and psychology, more bridges can be built between these disciplines and political science, contributing to research in the area of political psychology as applied to U.S. foreign policy.
To provide a general background and context in which to view role theory and its various elements, the paper first provides a review of the general literature on role theory throughout the social sciences. This will demonstrate the wide variety of perspectives that exist within role theory, and will set the scene for the subsequent confusion, applications of fuzzy concepts, and the relative dearth of role theory research in the study of U.S. foreign policy. In addition, several role theory concepts deemed most fruitful for further research in U.S. foreign policy are discussed. Second, role theory literature as applied to the study of U.S. foreign policy is reviewed, specifically as applied to foreign policy advisory roles and dynamics. Third, by conducting such a review, difficulties are discussed as well as potentially significant avenues of research utilizing role theory—particularly six role theory concepts—in the study of U.S. foreign policy. This may contribute to overcoming some of the gaps in the literature and allow synthesis to occur, allowing a richer explanation of advisers’ role concept/expectations and adviser group dynamics, including the implications of these for U.S. foreign policy decision-making. Finally, the implications of the value of role theory for the larger study of foreign policy are addressed.
Review of Role Theory Literature
Various sources have defined a role as “a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation” (Sarbin 1954: 225); “a particular set of norms that is organized about a function” (Bates & Harvey 1975: 106); “a comprehensive pattern for behavior and attitude” (Turner 1979: 124); and “behavior referring to normative expectations associated with a position in a social system” (Allen & van de Vliert 1984a: 3). These definitions overlap, but each adds one or more conditions not given in the others, leading to confusion over how to conceptualize or study events that do not meet these conditions.
In attempting to integrate the various elements and conceptualizations in role theory, Bruce Biddle (1986: 67) writes that “role theory is a science concerned with the study of behaviors that are characteristic of persons within contexts and with various processes that presumably produce, explain, or are affected by those behaviors.” Role theory explains role by presuming that persons are members of social positions and hold expectations for their own behaviors and those of other persons. In earlier research, Biddle noted the term “role” had come to mean a “behavioral repertoire characteristic of a person or a position; a set of standards, descriptions, norms, or concepts held for the behaviors of a person or social position; or (less often) a position itself” (Biddle 1979: 4). The concept of role, therefore, provides a convenient “linkage between individual behavior and social structure” (Biddle & Thomas 1966: 7).
Early proponents of role concept
Early proponents of the role concept differed in the assumptions they were willing to make about it. George Mead (1934), a sociologist, introduced the concept of “role taking” and focused on its significance in the development of an individual’s self-concept. He wrote that people lay the foundation for a sense of who they are by identifying with significant others, internalizing others’ attitudes as their own, and seeing themselves as others see them. Mead’s research emphasized interaction between individuals via symbolic behaviors (e.g., verbal and nonverbal language) that function as stimuli. While examining problems of interaction, the self, and socialization, Mead employed the concept of “role taking,” along with such related ideas as the “generalized other,” the “self,” the “I” and “me,” and “audience.”
Joseph Moreno (1934) introduced the use of “role playing” as a therapeutic technique to be used for both the learning of new behaviors and to facilitate clients’ ability to understand another’s perspective. With regard to the concept of role, Moreno distinguished three categories: “(a) psychosomatic roles, as the sleeper, the eater, the walker; (b) psychodramatic roles as a mother,a teacher,a christian, etc.; and (c) social roles, them mother, the son, the daughter, the teacher, the Christian, etc.” He also argued that the genesis of roles goes through two stages: role-perception and role enactment (Moreno 1934: 81).
Ralph Linton, the anthropologist, and Robert K. Merton, the sociologist, were more concerned about the relationship between the social structure itself and the ways in which persons fulfilled their socially designated obligations. Linton (1936) distinguished between the static aspects of role behavior—that is, the positions or statuses designated by social systems—and their dynamic aspects—that is, the patterned behaviors, or roles, expected of and enacted by those who occupied them. Linton conceived of persons as enacting one role for each of the many statuses they occupied. Merton (1957) observed that there were actually a set of different roles—that is, a role-set—potentially associated with each status. Together, their contributions produced an awareness of the myriad ways in which the behaviors people enact in interaction with others are influenced by the positions they occupy in society and vary as they interact with different persons.
From the above discussion, the diversity of conceptualizations within role theory are clearly evident even from the works of early proponents. Thus, a general review of role theory literature proves problematic due to widely varying conceptualizations of role theory and its numerous applications to differing contexts. In order to make sense of the literature, the paper utilizes five perspectives in role theory identified by Biddle (1986) in order to structure the review. These five perspectives are: 1) functional role theory; 2) symbolic interactionist role theory; 3) structural role theory; 4) organizational role theory; and 5) cognitive role theory.
Functional role theory
In general, functional role theory has focused on the characteristic behaviors of persons who occupy social positions within a stable social system. “Roles” are conceived as the shared, normative expectations that prescribe and explain these behaviors. Actors in the social system have presumably been taught these norms and may be counted upon to conform to norms for their own conduct and to sanction others for conformity to norms applying to the latter. The functional approach to role theory began with the work of Linton (1936) but was not formalized until the publications of Parsons (1951; Parsons & Shils 1951). A more recent work by Bates & Harvey (1975) views social structures as collections of designated social positions, the shared norms of which govern differentiated behaviors. Some of the norms applying to a given position govern general conduct, but others govern only relationships between a focal position and a specific counter position. Among the latter, “roles” are those that apply to the accomplishment of specific functions.
Symbolic Interactionist role theory
Symbolic interactionists stress the roles of individual actors, the evolution of roles through social interaction, and various cognitive concepts through which social actors understand and interpret their own and tours’ conduct. Roles are thought to reflect norms, attitudes, contextual demands, negotiation, and the evolving definition of the situation as understood by the actors. Interest in the role concept among symbolic interactionists began with Mead (1934) and was further explored by Sarbin (1954). Sarbin asserted that social roles have an existence independent of the individual, but the role is still intimately linked to a particular individual’s way of performing it. He also introduced the concept of the “organismic dimension”, stressing varying degrees of proximity between the role and the self, proposing seven different levels, ranging from a situation where the self and the role are remote from each other to a level where role and self are united in deep trance. The self thus acquires significance from the way the role is understood, performed, and taken over from the other party.
More recent contributors have discussed the development of evaluated role identities (Gordon 1976) as well as how the changing of roles alters one’s goals and self-conceptions (Gordon & Gordon 1982). In addition, Turner examined role learning (1974), the role and the person (1978), and the effect of others’ responses on interpretation of role behavior (Turner & Shosid 1976). Furthermore, Lopata (1991: 8) argues that role theory, especially when applied to sets of relations between a social person and participants in a social circle rather than to expected or even actual behavior of one individual conforming to demands of a position, can revitalize an examination of social life.
Structural role theoryIn structural role theory, little attention is given to norms or other expectations for conduct. Instead, attention is “focused on ‘social structures,’ conceived as stable organizations of sets of persons (called ‘social positions’ or ‘statuses’) who share the same, patterned behaviors (‘roles’) that are directed towards other sets of persons in the structure” (Biddle 1986: 72-3). Such concepts lead to formal discussions of various concerns including social networks, kinships, role sets, exchange relationships, comparison of forms of social systems, and the analysis of economic behaviors. Linton’s (1936) early statement of role concepts influenced anthropologists and others interested in social structure (see Levy 1952; Nadel 1957).
Representing a slight variation within structural role theory, the structural-analytical approach is concerned with analyzing the different roles of a social unit. Attention is not directed at the role performances of different individuals, but rather at a description of roles as social quantities. It is argued that every social group consists of a collection of roles, which must be present to enable the group to exist and develop. It then becomes important to study different leader roles, functional roles, pedagogical roles, sex roles, status roles, and so on. It is simply a question of the division of labor that must exist within a given group for everything to function (Holm 1997: 74).
Organizational role theory
However insightful the work of functionalists, symbolic interactionists, and structuralists, most empirical research in the role field has come from the two remaining perspectives identified by Biddle: organizational and cognitive role theory. Organizational role theory represents a perspective among researchers interested in the roles of formal organizations. Their efforts have built a version of role theory focused on social systems that are preplanned, task-oriented, and hierarchical. Roles in such organizations are assumed to be associated with identified social positions and to be generated by normative expectations, but norms may vary among individuals and may reflect both the official demands of the organizations and the pressures of informal groups. Given multiple sources for norms, individuals are often subjected to role conflicts in which they must contend with antithetical norms for their behavior. Such role conflicts produce strain and must be resolved if the individual is to be happy and the organization is to prosper (Biddle 1986: 73).
Organizational role theory may be said to have begun with the seminal works of Gross et al (1958) and Kahn et al (1964). More recent research includes articles on role conflict resolution (van de Vliert 1981) and an edited work seeking to extend the theory to the phenomena of role transition (Allen & van de Vliert 1984b). The latter work, in particular, presents theory and application papers focused on problems generated when the actor must cope with changes in social position or expectations of the actor’s position. Such experiences typically cause strain, and the core of the theory concerns variables that affect the actor’s choice of strategies for coping with the situation.
Cognitive role theoryThe remaining bulk of empirical role research has largely been associated with cognitive social psychology. As a rule, this work has focused on relationships between role expectations and behavior. Attention has been given to social conditions that give rise to expectations, to techniques for measuring expectations, and to the impact of expectations on social conduct. Many cognitive role theorists have also concerned themselves with the ways in which a person perceives the expectations of others and with the effects of those perceptions on behavior (Biddle 1986: 74).
Role expectations or prescriptions (used interchangeably) are actions or qualities that are expected from the occupant of the position. Role expectations have two sources: the beliefs the actor holds about what his/her position requires him/her to do, and the beliefs about the actor’s position held by others. More often they are “a conglomeration of the actor’s own (ego’s) role conceptions as well as those of other actor’s (alter’s)” (Jonsson & Westerlund 1982: 125). Unlike most cognitive role theorists, Biddle (1979) assumes that role expectations can appear simultaneously in at least three modes of thought: norms, preferences, and beliefs. These modes of expectation are learned through somewhat different experiences. However, each may (or may not) be shared with others in a given context, each can affect behavior, and all may be involved in generating a role.
Within cognitive role theory, four subfields are identifiable, beginning with Moreno’s (1934) early discussion of “role playing”, which has been found an effective way to produce changes in expectations (Janis & Mann 1977). A second subfield was stimulated by Sherif’s (1936) early work on group norms but was given additional impetus by the subsequent work of others on group norms and the roles of leaders and followers (see Moreland & Levine 1982, Rutte & Wilke 1984, Hollander 1985). A third subfield has focused on theories of anticipatory role expectations originally suggested by Rotter (1954) and Kelly (1955). Emphasis within this tradition has not been upon normative expectations; instead, expectations have been conceived as beliefs about likely conduct, and researchers have examined both subjects’ beliefs about their own behavior and those beliefs that they attribute to other persons (Carver & Scheier 1981; Tschudi & Rommetveit 1982). Finally, a fourth subfield has appeared as research on “role taking,” stimulated by contributions of Mead (1934) and Piaget (1926).
Key concepts in role theory
Several key concepts in role theory are prevalent throughout the literature, and have been mentioned in the above review. In particular, six provide potentially significant paths of research concerning U.S. foreign policy advisers and policymaking. Four concepts of primary interest are “role conflict,” “role expectations,” “role evolution,” and “role change.” Two further concepts warranting consideration are “role ambiguity” and “role overload,” which are briefly mentioned below.
The first concept, “role conflict,” is normally defined as the concurrent appearance of two or more incompatible expectations for the behavior of a person. In such a case, the person will be subjected to conflicting pressures, will suffer stress, will have to “resolve” the problem by adopting some form of coping behavior, and both the person and the system will be disrupted. However, role conflict is only one of several structural conditions that are thought to cause problems in social systems. Others include “role ambiguity” (a condition in which expectations are incomplete or insufficient to guide behavior) and “role overload” (when the person is faced with too many expectations). Each of these conditions may produce stress for the individual (Abramis 1994; Biddle 1986).
Secondly, “role expectations” are a combination of the actor’s own role conceptions and those of other actors. Unless alter’s role conceptions constitute highly authoritative and very specific prescriptions, there is seldom a one-to-one correspondence between ego’s and alter’s role conceptions (Walker 1979: 177). Role ambiguity may thus result from ego’s and alter’s divergent role expectations (Biddle 1979: 195). In addition, Biddle (1986: 81) concludes that the evidence suggests persons often conform to expectations that are held by others, are attributed to others, or are held by the person for his or her conduct.
Thirdly, “role evolution” involves the processes and dynamics by which a role is adjusted and modified. Roles may “develop” to varying degrees and speeds depending on a variety of factors, and such evolution can have significant implications.
Finally, “role change” can be significant due to the implications of adjustments made by actors in assuming new roles. Since actors have previous experiences, backgrounds, and skills, they may likely bring to their roles expectations, however realistic, which can impact other actors and the foreign policymaking process.
Role Theory and the Study of U.S. Foreign Policy
The above review of role theory literature was intended to provide a general background and context in which to view this broad and diverse perspective, as well as its potential usefulness to the study of U.S. foreign policy. The following section goes on to examine role theory research as applied to the field of U.S. foreign policy in terms of advisory roles/dynamics and foreign policymaking. From here, potentially fruitful avenues of research utilizing role theory—specifically the above six concepts—in the study of U.S. foreign policy can then be identified and discussed.
In Bruce Jentleson’s (1990) research, he contends that foreign policy decisions are to be explained in terms of the independent variable of the president’s belief system, as potentially mediated by the intervening variable of the senior advisory process. The core set of beliefs which the president brings to office (analytic, normative and instrumental components) establish the basic “propensities” for his administration’s foreign policy. The extent of the mediating effect of the senior advisory process is postulated to be a function of the degree and nature of unity among the president’s top advisors. Elizabeth Marvick was one of the first scholars to have suggested a formal typology of relationships linking leaders and advisers. She differentiates between “favorites” whose actions gratify affective aims (in some way they make the leader feel good) and “factotums” whose service is primarily instrumental (Marvick 1983).
Writing of his own experience as an adviser, Hedley Donovan (1981) suggests distinctions similar to Marvick’s in his discussion of “organic” and “artificially conceived” adviser types. An “organic” relationship flows out of a deep-rooted personal association or from a successful operational assignment in which the president comes to trust the judgments the adviser brings to his role. “Artificially conceived” advisers, on the other hand, generally serve a particular instrumental function and lack any deep affective ties to the president. Two other leader-adviser relationships are offered by Jerold Post (1993), who distinguishes between “sycophant” and “healthy self-object” relationships in his study of narcissism and political leadership. In this scheme, the sycophant provides support for the faltering self-esteem of the leader; that is, these advisers tell the leader what he wants to hear. By contrast, the “healthy self-object” relationship combines both functions—that is, keeping the leader accurately in touch with reality while at the same time shoring up his self-esteem.
Link and Glad (1994) build directly upon the works of Marvick and Post, delineating five advisory relation types: reality testing, bolstering, reality testing-bolstering (mixed), compensatory, and proxy. They contend that advisory types differ in the ways in which they respond to a president’s political and psychological needs. Reality testers are oriented to cues from the external environment rather than to the president'’ psychological drives and needs. Bolsters serve the function of sustaining the president psychologically in the performance of his role. Reality testing bolsters reconcile the president’s psychological propensities with the requirements of the external environment. Aides in this category may serve as reality testers in routine decisions or “normal time,” but shift to the mixed mode when the president is under great pressure. Those performing the proxy function, by contrast, serve as psychological delegates for the leader, often expressing for a president feelings or showing behavior which for one reason or another he must constrain. The compensatory function occurs when the adviser possesses traits or performs functions for the president in areas in which the president is weak or lacking.
Focusing specifically on the national security adviser (NSA), George (1980) examines the potential role conflict faced by the NSA due to the assumption of important roles—particularly since 1961—in addition to the NSA’s original role of custodian-manager. The acquisition of multiple role makes it likely that the NSA will experience role conflict that will eventually undermine the effectiveness with which he performs his basic custodial functions. “Once he becomes an adviser-advocate to the president as well as the custodian-manager, it will take a most exceptional person to continue to dispassionately oversee the flow of information and advice to the president; for to do so might well reduce his own influence as an adviser” (196-7). Similar conflicts with his custodial responsibilities arise when the NSA assumes the additional roles of policy spokesman and enforcer of policy, watchdog for the president’s power stakes, and operational duties such as diplomatic negotiations and mediation.
Bock and Clarke (1986) examine the NSA and the White House staff—from the Truman through the Reagan administrations—in order to partially fill the gap in the literature concerning the integration of domestic politics with national security policy at the highest level. They conclude that the potential for at least some tension between White House political aides and the NSA is built into their sometimes competitive functional responsibilities. What the aides may consider to be in the president’s best domestic political interests may be deemed by the NSA to be poor national security policy. Much of what tension has existed between White House political aides (and, infrequently, the president) and the NSA relates directly to the security assistant’s public visibility. If such visibility causes the aides, and perhaps the president, to believe that the NSA has become a popular public figure who, in the public’s eye, eclipses the president in national security affairs, intra-White House friction is probable (Bock & Clarke 1986: 271-2).
In addition to analyzing the role that national security advisers have played in the policymaking process, Mulcahy and Kendrick (1991) evaluate the utility of those roles for assisting the president in making his responsible decisions. They write that the NSA’s role has evolved since its inception, coming to rival and eclipse the State Department for dominance in foreign policymaking. Mulcahy and Kendrick develop an typology to describe different roles that have been played by NSAs in the past and that constitute the repertory of roles available to future assistants. These include the “administrator”, who has both low implementation and low policymaking responsibilities; the “coordinator”, who facilitates policymaking but is not an initiator of policy; the “counselor”, who functions in a largely personal relationship to the president, evaluating rather than simply presenting policy alternatives; and the “agent”, who combines the duties of a coordinator (directing a planning process) with those of a counselor (serving as a personal presidential adviser and advocate). As agent, the NSA dominates the process for formulating national security policy—making many decisions himself, advocating others—and acts as the primary presidential spokesman for foreign affairs. Mulcahy and Kendrick emphasize that the choice of a particular role from among those available is strictly determined by presidential preference. Similarly, an assistant’s success “will depend on adopting or adapting to whatever role best facilitates presidential preferences in managing national security. The personal resources that an NSA brings to his position will largely determine his success in fulfilling the president’s policymaking and managerial expectations” (263-4).
Kevin Mulcahy (1986) examines the ultimately unsuccessful efforts of recent secretaries of state to claim a privileged position as the presidential adviser on foreign policy. He focuses on Cyrus Vance and Alexander Haig, noting that Vance believed himself to be the rightful spokesman for American foreign policy but unfortunately ran afoul of an ambitious NSA (Brzezinski). Mulcahy also notes that Haig similarly entertained a conception of his office—he attempted to make himself the “vicar” of foreign policy—that no longer corresponded to the realities of national security policymaking. Mulcahy contends that “both should have realized that their persistent problems testified to the impossibility of their claims. Competition between the nation’s diplomatic chief and the president’s chief White House adviser for national security affairs had become endemic to the process of foreign policymaking” (280-1).
According to Korb (1991), the secretary of defense has had two main roles in the national security decision-making process: principal military adviser to the president and manager of the world’s largest bureaucracy. Yet in carrying out these functions, the secretary of defense has rivals both inside the department of defense (DOD)—the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who possess military expertise as well as the legal right of direct access to the president and concurrent membership on the national security council (NSC)—and outside the DOD—the NSA and the secretary of state. Korb contends that the manner in which secretaries of defense have carried out their main responsibilities depends on the following factors: their own background and experience; their tenure in office; the expectations of and their relationship with the presidents they have served; and the quality of the other key appointees (282-3). Korb argues that one needs to also look at the roles that defense secretaries have attempted to play within the DOD and the national security structure. If this role selection is congruent with their environment and backgrounds, their effectiveness will be enhanced. He develops a typology of defense secretaries in terms of their internal (active vs. passive) and external (generalist vs. functionalist) roles. In terms of their internal management styles, an active secretary of defense provides strong aggressive leadership in running the DOD, while a passive secretary allows the military services to run the department while he merely maintains the appearance of civilian control (283-4). In terms of having a substantial impact on governmentwide national security policy (external role), those who take an activist role in national security policy formulation can be classified as “generalists”, while those who are unable or unwilling to plan such a role can be classified as “functionalists” (288).
Cohen and Rosati (1998), who examine the role of the chief of staff in foreign policy, argue that there has occurred a “recent emergence of a new player in the foreign policy process—that of the White House chief of staff”. They state the parameters for the chief of staff’s responsibilities appear to have changed and broadened, beginning with Alexander Haig (during the last two years under Richard Nixon) and Hamilton Jordan (Jimmy Carter’s first chief of staff). Cohen and Rosati contend that the emergence of the chief of staff in foreign policy is the result of both an institutional response to ‘systemic’ change in the political and foreign policy environment—increasing global interdependence and decline of the imperial presidency—as well as a function of 'idiopathic' factors that exist within particular presidencies. In terms of the latter, the more open a president is to his chief of staff’s involvement in the foreign policy process, the more likely that this will indeed occur. In addition, the less dominant the role played by the national security adviser in foreign policy, the greater the likelihood that the chief of staff will play a role in foreign policymaking.
Potential Applications of Role Theory to the Study of Foreign Policy
The foregoing review of role theory literature—in general and as applied to the study of U.S. foreign policy—permits a discussion of some potentially significant avenues of research for role theory as applied to the study of U.S. foreign policy. This can contribute to overcoming some of the gaps in the literature and allow synthesis to occur. The following section, therefore, examines potentially fruitful avenues of research utilizing role theory—specifically the six concepts of role conflict, role expectations, role evolution, role change, role ambiguity, and role overload—in the study of foreign policy. Areas of greatest relevance include presidential foreign policy advisers’ role images/concepts, adviser group dynamics, and the implications of these for the foreign policy decision-making process.
One apparent gap in the literature concerns the spelling out of various role-sets (the set of different roles associated with a position) of individual foreign policy advisers beyond a basic typology of “active vs. passive.” George (1980) and Mulcahy & Kendrick (1991), for instance, have made strides in this direction regarding the various roles of the NSA, but little has been written to elucidate the possible roles of the secretaries of state and defense—two key advisers in the foreign policymaking process. Such research might further elucidate the role conceptions and conflicts of these advisers, shedding light on the nature of adviser group dynamics, which holds possible implications for the foreign policymaking process.
George (1980) argues that the NSA’s role overload has led to role conflict, but role conflict is also faced by the secretaries of state, defense, commerce, and treasury, who have the additional cabinet roles of overseeing departments. More systematic research into the role conflicts (multiple roles) faced by these advisers might shed light on how advisers resolve role conflict (possible strategies) and the consequences for adviser group dynamics and the foreign policymaking process. In addition, researching the sources of conflicting roles for each adviser may call for a multi-level analysis—societal, governmental, global—which adds more sophistication to the understanding of advisers’ role conceptions and adviser group dynamics. Thus, attempts to identify sources of role conflict experienced by foreign policy advisers can engender research at multiple levels of analysis, with important implications for the foreign policy decision-making process.
Another partial gap in the literature is the lack of focus on the evolution of roles of advisers during the course of an administration. Relevant questions to be pursued include the extent to which tenure impacts the role of an adviser, and the degree to which changes in advisory personnel affect the role of an adviser. The central task would be that of identifying factors which, to a greater or lesser degree, influence the evolution of an adviser’s role (if the role evolves at all), and the direction in which the role evolves. In doing so patterns may evolve, and comparison/contrasts can then be made across administrations, leading to potentially generalizable conclusions. By identifying the factors relevant to role evolution, greater understanding is permitted of an adviser’s role concept as well as the stability and fluidity of both an adviser’s role concept and adviser group dynamics. Such research would appear to hold important implications for the foreign policymaking process.
In addition, with the prevalence of intermestic issues, several advisory roles are deserving of greater scholarly attention. Though some research is beginning to focus on the foreign policy role of the chief of staff (Cohen & Rosati 1998), more study is needed on the varying roles of this position, including role overload, role ambiguity, and role evolution. Role overload can lead to conflicts with other advisers vying for influence, particularly the NSA and the secretary of state, with significant implications for the latter advisers’ role expectations, performance, and adviser group dynamics. Role ambiguity can lead to a condition in which expectations of the chief of staff are incomplete or insufficient to guide behavior due to the additional foreign policy role of the chief of staff. This may result in heightened tensions among the top advisers due to a lack of guidance by the president. Attention to role evolution can shed light on whether the role of the chief of staff is going through a more temporary or more permanent kind of change, having implications for future holders of the office as well as for other adviser roles/dynamics. All the above also involve important implications for the foreign policy decision-making process, especially considering the central role played in general by the president’s chief of staff. Furthermore, all the above role concepts—role overload, role ambiguity, role evolution—are also applicable to the study of the relatively new position of the national economic adviser (NEA).
In considering the role of the NEA, one research question concerns the extent to which the NEA shows signs of role conflict with other top economic advisers due to role overload, similar to the case of the NSA vis-à-vis the secretary of state. The NEA does have functions paralleling the NSA, prompting this line of inquiry. Such research could elucidate the role expectations of the NEA and help explain the NEA’s role performance. All this holds significant implications for role expectations and performance of rival advisers as well as adviser group dynamics. In addition, a gap appears in the literature concerning the degree and sources of evolution in the role of the NEA since its creation in 1993. Typically, a new position undergoes some adjustments in the early stages, and research pertaining to role evolution of the NEA can indicate the direction of such role evolution, shedding light on the dynamic nature of the NEA’s role, with the accompanying implications for future NEAs, adviser group dynamics, and the foreign policymaking process.
Another apparent gap in the research concerns role expectations of cabinet-level secretarial leadership in the foreign policymaking process. Several presidents in recent times have entered office with expectations for such secretarial leadership, but eventually centralized the foreign policymaking process. In these instances, the relevant research questions involve the effects on the secretaries’ role conception, and the extent to which the secretaries’ role expectations were initially manifested (role performance). In addition, research would analyze the extent to which role expectations and role performance were adjusted once the policymaking process had been centralized. Such research can indicate patterns in the advisers’ roles and the role dynamic at work during such circumstances. Furthermore, the examination would pursue the implications of the above for adviser group dynamics as well as the foreign policymaking process.
A further application of role theory to the study of U.S. foreign policy involves the concept of role change. This concept is relevant in circumstances where an adviser has held a position in a previous administration. One question to pursue is the degree to which a pattern or link exists between an adviser’s present role conception/performance and his/her role conception/performance in a previous government position. A related line of inquiry is whether there are certain conditions or circumstances which inhibit, modify, or enable such a pattern. For example, does a previous governmental role assist a new adviser in learning and adapting to his/her new role, being more attuned to role cues and more effective at role conflict resolution? If so, why? Such findings can contribute to explaining—and possibly predicting—an adviser’s role concept/performance in an administration, with implications for adviser group dynamics and the foreign policymaking process. The above line of questioning also translates to situations in which advisers switch roles within an administration during the course of the administration.
Additional research which could fill a partial gap in the literature concerns role learning on the part of an adviser, or how he/she adapts to his or her role. Integral to such research are the role cues from other advisers in terms of what form the cues take, and how the cues are “communicated”. Understanding the forms and dynamics of such cues among actors can provide insight into an actor’s role conception/performance, as well as possible patterns among role cues. An obvious example in the past have been cues put forth by the NSA toward the secretary of state concerning who will have primary influence over the foreign policy process. However, what about cues—and possibly recurring patterns of cues—between other advisers and/or sets of advisers? To what extent do these cues provide guidelines for role behavior, and what are their style and substance? Such research can contribute to a better understanding of adviser group dynamics, including rivalry/alliance processes for influence in foreign policymaking.
In the theatrical analogy for role theory, significant similarities exist in the performances of actors taking the same part, no matter who the actors are. Thus, research could assess to what degree advisers’ role performances in the same role since post-World War II have been convergent or divergent, and why. For this endeavor, a multi-level analysis would seemingly be required due to the complexity of such a task. Convergence would lend support to the influence of role on an individual, while divergence would contravene such a conclusion for a potential variety of reasons. Either conclusion would warrant further investigation into the underlying forces and dynamics, as well as the overall implications for the usefulness of role theory for understanding and explaining U.S. foreign policy phenomena.
In terms of the drawbacks of the usefulness of role theory in studying U.S. foreign policy, the primary weakness appears to be individual characteristics (personality), which may at times be more consequential than the role he or she assumes. This points to a weakness of role theory, in that individual characteristics may have greater explanatory ability for the behavior of an adviser. However, the role still is significant, in that it presents opportunities as well as constraints on the actor. Therefore, a synthesis is called for between personality literature and role theory concerning foreign policy advisers. Such research would grant a more complete and sophisticated portrait of the adviser and adviser group dynamics, from which conclusions could be drawn, as well as further integration with societal, governmental, and global levels of analysis of the adviser and the foreign policymaking process.
Conclusion
Given such diverse perspectives within role theory, it is not surprising that role concepts have been applied to so many research topics. Such breadth demonstrates why disagreement has appeared on boundaries and assumptions of the field. Confusion and malintegration persist in role theory since authors continue to differ over definitions for the role concept, over assumptions they make about roles, and over explanations for role phenomena. One of the major reasons the domain of role theory is so difficult to define is that it takes on different identities depending in large part on the discipline of the writer. (Davis 1986: 582-3; Stryker & Stratham 1985: 311). The field of role has unfortunately come to be known as “role theory,” implying that there is actually more theory than in fact is the case. Indeed, there is no one grand “theory”. The term “theory”, when talking about role theory, is somewhat misleading. The perspective is more of an analytical framework or research orientation than a theory.
From the above discussion—as well as the review of role theory literature and foreign policy—role theory does indeed appear to be quite useful for understanding and explaining foreign policy advisers and their role images/concepts. Such usefulness also extends to understanding and explaining adviser group dynamics as well as the foreign policy decision making process. However, such understanding is inadequate without also addressing other bodies of research such as presidential leadership/management style, presidential characteristics, advisers’ characteristics, and the domestic/international environment. Furthermore, there are difficulties that need to realized and addressed in applying role theory to foreign policymakers. Role concepts are applied in varying fashions with differing meanings. The lack of consensus on the meaning of role and role theory in general throughout the social sciences means that applications to foreign policy will tend to be relatively infrequent, implicit, tangential, and sometimes inconsistent. In addition, role theory represents but one cog in the wheel of the study of foreign policymaking, but an indispensable one. Though role theory encompasses a wide array of thought, certain elements are quite applicable to the study of foreign policy, thereby indicating the need and opportunity for applications to various foreign policy phenomena.
References
Abramis, D. J. 1994. “Work Role Ambiguity, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance: Meta— Analyses and Review.” Psychological Reports 75: 1411-1433.
Allen, V. L., and E. van de Vliert. 1984a. “A Role Theoretical Perspective on Transitional Processes.”In Role Transitions: Explorations and Explanations , edited by V. L. Allen and E. van de Vliert, pp. 3-18. NY: Plenum.
Allen, V. L., and E. van de Vliert, editors. 1984b. Role Transitions: Explorations and Explanations NY: Plenum.
Bates, F. L., and C. C. Harvey. 1975. The Structure of Social Systems . New York: Wiley.
Biddle, Bruce J. 1979. Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors . NY: Academic Press.
Biddle, Bruce J. 1986. “Recent Developments in Role Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology 12: 67-92.
Biddle, Bruce J., and Edwin J. Thomas, editors. 1966. Role Theory: Concept and Research . NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Biddle, Bruce J., and Edwin J. Thomas, editors. 1979. Role Theory: Concepts and Research . Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co.
Bock, Joseph G., and Duncan L. Clarke. 1986. “The National Security Assistant and the White House Staff: National Security Decision-Making and Domestic Political Considerations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 16: 258-279.
Carver, C. S., and M. F. Scheier. 1981. Attention and Self-Regulation .NY: Springer-Verlag.
Cohen, David, and Jerel Rosati. 1998. “The Emerging Foreign Policy Role for the White House Chief of Staff.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MT.
Davis, Liane V. 1986. “Role Theory and Social Work Treatment.” In Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches , 4th edition, edited by Francis J. Turner, pp. 581-600. NY: Free Press.
Donovan, Hedley. 1981. “Advising a President.” In The Virginia Papers on the Presidency , vol. 6, edited by Kenneth Thompson. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Gordon, C. 1976. “Development of Evaluated Role Identities.” Annual Review of Sociology 2: 405-33.
Gordon, C., and P. Gordon. 1982. “Changing Roles, Goals, and Self-Conceptions: Process and Results in a Program for Women’s Employment.” In Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, edited by W. Ickes and E. S. Knowles, pp. 243-283. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Hollander, E. P. 1985. “Leadership and Power.” In Handbook of Social Psychology , vol. 2, 3rd edition, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, pp. 485-537. NY: Random House.
Gross, N., W. S. Mason, and A. W. McEachern. 1958. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies in the School Superintendency Role. NY: Wiley.
Holm, Hils G. 1997. “An Integrated Role Theory for the Psychology of Religion: Concepts and Perspectives.” In The Psychology of Religion: Theoretical Approaches , edited by Bernard Spilka and Daniel N. McIntosh, pp. 73-85. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Janis I. L., and L. Mann. 1977. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Community. NY: Free Press.
Jentleson, Bruce W. 1990. “Discrepant Responses to Falling Dictators: Presidential Belief Systems and the Mediating Effects of the Senior Advisory Process.” Political Psychology 11 (2): 353-384.
Jonsson, Christer, and Ulf Westerlund. 1982. “Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis.” In Cognitive Dynamics and International Politics, edited by Christer Jonsson, pp. 122-157. NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. Snoek, and R. A. Rosenthal. 1964. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity . NY: Wiley.
Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. NY: Norton.
Korb, Lawrence. 1991. “National Security Affairs: A Defense Department Perspective.” In Executive Leadership in Anglo-American Systems, edited by Colin Campbell and Margaret Wyszomirski, pp. 281-294. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
Levy, M. J. 1952. The Structure of Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Link, Michael W., and Betty Glad. 1994. “Exploring the Psychopolitical Dynamics of Advisory Relations: The Carter Administration’s ‘Crisis of Confidence.’” Political Psychology 15 (3): 461-480.
Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man . NY: Appleton-Century.
Lopata, Helena. 1991. “Role Theory.” In Social Roles and Social Institutions: Essays in Honor of Rose Laub Coser, edited by Judith R. Blau and Norman Goodman, pp. 1-12. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Marvick, Elizabeth. 1983. “Favorites in Early Modern Europe: A Recurring Psychopolitical Role.” Journal of Psychohistory 10: 463-489.
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moreland, R. L., and J. M. Levine. 1982. “Socialization in Small Groups: Temporal Changes in Individual-Group Relations.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,edited by L. Berkowitz, pp. 137-192. NY: Academic Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. “The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory.” British Journal of Sociology 8: 106-120.
Moreno, Joseph L. 1934. Who Shall Survive? Washington, D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disorder Publ.
Mulcahy, Kevin. 1986. “The Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser: Foreign Policy Making in the Carter and Reagan Administrations.” Presidential Studies Quarterly (Spring): 280-99.
Mulcahy, Kevin, and Harold Kendrick. 1991. “The National Security Adviser: A Presidential Perspective.” In Executive Leadership in Anglo-American Systems, edited by Colin Campbell and Margaret Wyszomirski, pp. 259-280. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Nadel, S. F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott, and E. A. Shils. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MT: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. 1926. The Language and Thought of the Child. NY: Harcourt, Brace, World.
Post, Jerold. 1993. “Current Concepts of the Narcissistic Personality: Implications for Political Psychology.” Political Psychology 14: 99-121.
Rotter, J. B. 1954. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rutte, C. G., and H. M. Wilke. 1984. “Transition to the Leader’s Role in Small Groups.” In Role Transitions: Explorations and Explanations, edited by V. L. Allen and E. Van de Vliert, pp. 197-209. NY: Plenum.
Sarbin, T. R. 1954. “Role Theory.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. I., edited by BGardner Lindzey, pp. 223-258. Cambridge, MT: Addison-Wesley.
Sarbin, T. R. 1968. “Role: Psychological Aspects.” In International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, vol. 13. NY: MacMillan.
Sarbin, T. R., and Vernon L. Allen. 1968. “Role Theory.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 1, 2nd edition, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, pp. 488-567. Reading, MT: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Sherif, M. 1936. The Psychology of Social Norms. NY: Harper Press.
Stryker, Sheldon, and Anne Statham. 1985. “Symbolic Interaction and Role Theory.” In Handbook of Social Psychology ,vol. 1, 3rd edition, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, pp. 311-378. NY: Random House.
Tschudi, F., and R. Rommetveit. 1982. “Sociality, Intersubjectivity, and Social Processes.” In The Construing Person, edited by J. C. Mancuso and J. R. Adams-Webber, pp. 235-61. NY: Praeger.
Turner, R. H. 1974. “Rule Learning as Role Learning: What an Interactive Theory of Roles Adds to the Theory of Social Norms.” International Journal of Critical Sociology 1: 52-73.
Turner, R. H. 1978. “The Role and the Person.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 1-23.
Turner, R. H. 1979. “Strategy for Developing an Integrated Role Theory.” Humboldt Journal of Sociology and Religion 7: 123-139.
Turner, R. H., and N. Shoshid. 1976. “Ambiguity and Interchangeability in Role Attribution: The Effect of Alter’s Response.” American Sociological Review 41: 993-1006.
van de Vliert, E. 1981. “A Three-step Theory of Role Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Social Psychology 113: 77-83.
Walker, Stephen. 1979. “National Role Conceptions and Systemic Outcomes.” In Psychological Models in International Politics, edited by L. S. Falowski. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Endnotes
*: Prepared for presentation at the 40th annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., February 16–20, 1999. Back.
Email this citation