Reviewed by Fred Euphrat, Ph.D. What does the Forest Service think of the Forest Service? A recent University of Washington report, "Policies and Mythologies of the US Forest Service - A Conversation with Employees," by Brian Boyle and others tells us a great deal. The idea of interviewing employees on their beliefs and attitudes may not be groundbreaking in itself, but the format, the scope, and the timeliness of the report make it a good read and an interesting research effort.
The report acknowledges it is a pulse-check of the FS, coming more than 30 years after Kaufman's "The Forest Ranger." While Kaufman found the FS a "healthy organization," has the increasing pressure of the public, the increasing scrutiny of Congress, the re-drafting of legislation, the increasing exactitude of science, and the rapid dwindling of raw land and uncut forest forced the FS into a state of decay and decadence? These researchers asked the employees.
The authors summarized a set of nine interviews in 14 sessions in all but one region of the FS, with a total of 621 interviewees answering 235 questions. Questions were previously developed in focus groups, and participants were selected randomly. All answers were given secretly and interactively, allowing for instant feedback during the sessions. This method may have skewed results of subsequent answers, for questions were grouped in sets, but the reading of 'group think' that we may be seeing is fascinating in itself.
The authors showcase employees' opinion that "only 35% of the respondents said their forest's uses are sustainable for 100 years..," a reflection of a general disenchantment with present budgets, political priorities and ecosystem management (EM) implementation. The data back these opinions up with more opinion:
There is a special focus on EM, public involvement, and ID team work. While the report states that "ecosystems are social constructs," an idea which may not get general agreement, it does do a good job of ascertaining people's opinion on the implementation and the value of EM. It evaluates the perceived role of publics, and documents the role and perception of ID teams. Successful teams were those in which the leadership was open to any conclusion, and where the leadership was strong, but not assertive. The survey results may be combined to suggest that good leadership is leadership that involves the public.
The meat of the book is in the survey form and tabulated responses. I found myself scouring this for trends and deviations, seeing where and why people had strong opinions, or disagreed among regions.
All these numbers must be taken with caution. Any half believing one way means the other half disagrees...thus, no real significance. For another, the summaries of the questions are often clearer than the questions themselves, giving the reader, perhaps, greater clarity than the respondent. For example, one statement is phrased "If timber were not a primary output from the forest, we would have much more difficulty getting appropriations." The statement is summarized "Timber gets us appropriations."
The format of the questions may also restrict the quality of the answers. Q. 210 asks, "Which is a bigger problem for the FS, (1) We listen too well and promise too much, OR (2) We don't listen to the public..?" Were I asked this question, I would struggle more with the syntax than the issue. While these game-playing questions may lead to greater survey significance, their convolutions may have harmed the forthrightness of the answers.
The most fun in this report is comparing the regions and D.C. Only in D.C. did less than half the respondents strongly agree that the budget process needs revamping (Q.197). Only in D.C. did more than 2/3 of the respondents believe that leadership requires a sense of direction for the agency (Q.178). And only in D.C. did less than 20% of the respondents believe that there were high rewards for teamwork (Q.153).
In general, this is a well thought-out approach to gathering the opinions of the people of the FS. It focuses on questions of leadership, morale, multi- and inter-disciplinary management, policy, and budget. The book is well worth reading for the quotes, well worth having for the survey responses, and deserves a place on your bookshelf next to Kaufmann's "The Forest Ranger" and Downs' "On Bureaucracy." It may not define institutional theory, but it proves it.
Fred Euphrat, Ph.D, California Licensed Forester No. 2365
(707) 433 5544
FAX 433 9449
email: [email protected]
PO Box 1802
Healdsburg, CA 95448
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Copies of "Policies and Mythologies of the US Forest Service: A Conversation with Employees," February 1994, are available for $10/copy from: