INTRODUCTION 



This study deals with the place of goals in 

 decisionmaking in the particular context of 

 the Forest Service. It is not meant to be a po- 

 lemical tract, although it hopes to chart a new 

 course. It explores and perhaps illuminates an 

 already existing but not clearly recognized 

 path to improved management and decision- 

 making. 



The Forest Service, like most organiza- 

 tions, arose in response to a specific 

 problem — how to manage the nation's vast 

 timber resources to meet the needs of the 

 American people. This study attempts to take 

 an in-depth look at how the organization 

 which emerged to handle that problem can 

 define and evaluate its mandate so as to attain 

 its objectives. 



The Management Job: 

 The Forest Service View 



Forest Service responsibility lies in three 

 distinct areas: (1) Administration of National 

 Forests and certain other Federal lands; 

 (2) State and private forestry cooperation; 

 and (3) research (fig. 1). It is "charged with 

 responsibility for the technical phases ... of 

 forestry activities" within the Department of 

 Agriculture. The Forest Service line-staff or- 

 ganization as described in the official Forest 

 Service Manual 1 is designed to enable the 

 most effective fulfillment of those assigned 

 responsibilities: 



The organization is designed to provide a clear- 

 cut, two-way channel for the transmission of 

 policy and instruction from the top to the bot- 

 tom and for the flow of recommendations and 

 accountability from the bottom to the top. Be- 

 cause the Chief of the Forest Service is respon- 

 sible for all its work he must have the means of 

 assigning work and authority to subordinate of- 



'Sec. 1202, Amendment 119, 1964. 



ficers and units with assurance that the work 

 will be accomplished in accordance with his 

 policies and other requirements. In short, the 

 organization is essentially an extension of the 

 physical and mental facilities of tlje Chief. The 

 diversity and geographical diffusion of Forest 

 Service work require a clear, well-understood, 

 well-coordinated, and efficient organization. 



The statement suggests a tightly knit or- 

 ganization that would prevent any major de- 

 partures from well-recognized and nationally 

 held objectives. The existence of such an or- 

 ganization is open to question, however. The 

 remainder of this paper may shed some light 

 on this matter. 



The Critics' View 



Anyone interested in forest management is 

 well aware of the criticism that has recently 

 been leveled at the Forest Service. As Sterling 

 (1970, p. 24) puts it, "The United States For- 

 est Service catches hell from everyone these 

 days. Every action it takes, or doesn't take, 

 starts a public argument of some sort. And no 

 matter what the result, the agency always 

 seems to lose." At the heart of part of the 

 current controversy is the clearcutting issue 

 (see Burk 1970). But the roots of the problem 

 are much deeper than any particular silvicul- 

 tural practice. Even if clearcutting were to 

 cease there is little reason to think that the 

 controversy would be over (fig. 2). As the Wall 

 Street Journal (p. 24, June 4, 1971) reports, 

 the Forest Service is coming under increasing 

 attack as it smarts under the critics' claims 

 that it has allowed damage to the public tim- 

 berlands. The Journal contends that "the gov- 

 ernment's green-clad foresters have changed 

 from white hats to black hats . . . The un- 

 accustomed role of black hat has prompted 

 some painful self-analysis by the proud and 

 somewhat stiff-necked forester corps." 



1 



