administrator the law is the foundation upon which an implementation strategy is hung.

One of the sources of conflict in

American-style governments is this disconnect between administrators and legislators. This is not to deny the
considerable overlap between the two branches in policy making, but it does reflect a mind-set about policy making. A
well-conceived and widely supported law nevertheless may be difficult to implement. The legislator (and chief executive)
seeks to achieve success through a political decision process in which consensus is a tool. Administrators often turn to
more rational analytic methods. As was discussed in the chapter on policy analysis the “best” outcome derived from
rational analysis may not be politically feasible. As managers advance within the organization they find that the problem
to be solved is as much one of political feasibility as it is technical assessment. One of the most difficult transitions for
public service professionals is the shift from a program and process focus to a policy-making political focus.

Managing at the Margin

Each of the different types of transboundary relationships calls for a different management outlook, because the context
and environment of each is different. The internal demands of the field office-central office are interesting because the
dispute is between persons who presume that they have the same goal and outlook because they work within the same
organization. Yet the management lesson concerns communications and perspective. The assumption that “we have the
same goals” is at least partly wrong. The easy assumption that everyone knows what and why things are done is also
wrong. Open communication even about what is assumed to be obvious is necessary because the uses of information
are different and, therefore, the form and shape of information transfer is different. In this sense, managing in a peer-to-
peer relationship is more straightforward, even though it involves persons in other agencies and jurisdictions. Typically,
peer-to-peer relationships are voluntary, but also driven by a shared professional ethos. Managing such relationships are
as much about time management as anything. The single caveat is that certain regions and areas have different histories
with such relationships. In areas where such relationships have been unsuccessful, a manager may encounter resistance
from other jurisdictions or from political leadership in the community.

Intergovernmental relations often have the characteristics of peer-to-peer relationship, particularly in the technical silos
of special districts, but because they are both horizontal and vertical they are more complicated. Depending on the
policy type being implemented, such relations may have some of the characteristics of the field office-central office
dynamic. Also because of the political dimension to vertical relationships, there may be an antagonistic rather than
cooperative history in the relationship. In addition, this type of relationship reflects the complex political relationships
and history of government jurisdictions. Creating regional governance organizations is the most difficult of all
intergovernmental relationships.

Politics infuses the transboundary process more than may first be apparent. This is not so much a problem as it is a
warning to recognize that the rules of the game in the relationship are often far removed from simple, technical,
professional exchanges. Mastering the dynamic interplay of politics may be the most critical for the manager navigating
the boundary.