This imbalance creates a question regarding the main duty of the advisor. Is his highestduty is presenting information and its consequences according to his professional judgment; or is it focusing on suggesting a preferred policy to achieve the decisionmaker's goals. Ideally, there is no conflict between the two duties. After all, the advisorcould assist the decision maker both in analyzing the current and future developmentsand in choosing the best policy to cope with it. This is true, as long the advisor and thedecision maker share the same views. Let us imagine a situation in which the analysis of the professional advisor is inconsistent with the view of the decision maker. By persistingin presenting his analysis, the advisor may run the risk of becoming
persona non grata
inthe close circle of the decision maker. In this case, the advisor would keep his duty in thefield presenting his professional opinion, but will loss his duty in the field of policy. Onthe other hand, if the advisor will adjust his opinion to the views of the decision maker,he might retain impact in the policy field, but will lose his ability to express hisprofessional analysis of the situation.Scholars in both fields -- intelligence and economics -- were quick to acknowledge theseconflicting duties. Two approaches eventually evolved: the traditional doctrine and theactivist doctrine.
The traditional doctrine
. This doctrine claims that the main duty of the high rank professional advisor is to present his professional analysis. This task can be doneproperly, only when the advisor avoids entering the policy field. As John Huizengatestifies, "Intelligence people must provide honest and best judgments and avoid intrusionon policymaking or attempts to influence it" (Church Committee, Book 1: 266-7).Many intelligence scholars have taken this approach, among them Sherman Kent (1966),Yehoshafat Harkavi (1984) and Michael Handel (1987). Economists like Alan Peacock (1992) and Charles A. Schultz (1996) also embrace views that can be identified with thetraditionalist doctrine.
The activist doctrine
. Against the traditionalist's view, the activist doctrine claims that themain duty of the advisor is assisting the decision maker to choose the appropriate policyto his goals. Accordingly, the advisor should be actively involved in the entire decisionmaking process. Furthermore, he should be aware of the objectives of the decision maker,
There are many names to this debate in the area of intelligence study e.g. the 'objective-actionable' debate(Westerfield, 1996). For another description of this debate see Hulnick, 1987; Betts, 2003. Descriptions of this debate in economics see: Heller, 1966; Stewart, 1989; Coats, 1981.