On October 24-25, the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland (UMD) held a symposium to discuss the findings of a recent report on the organizational climate of Congress. In analyzing congressional behavior, the study includes psychological and sociological considerations. The study draws upon a broad range of interviews with current and former members of Congress and congressional staffers, and the Millennial Action Project (MAP) assisted here by organizing interviewees for UMD. The respondents’ political ideologies ranged from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats. The report provides insight into what factors promote intra-party advancement, as well as what drives bipartisan cooperation on some issues and prohibits it on others.
The study produced an organizational overview of Congress that displayed how relationships are formed, and how they operate within parties and across party lines. For the most part respondents described those who are able to form agreement amongst members and between colleagues from across the aisle as the most valuable and able to move up party ranks. The study found that members of a caucus have a much better chance of moving into positions of leadership if they are seen as consensus-builders amongst members, rather than ideological warriors focused on winning intra-party battles.
Likewise, the study found that, for those members who were seen as solely concerned with dominating debates within Congress and winning battles amongst other members, it was much harder to gain the trust and respect of their party leaders. It is the case that these members typically have to form some type of coalition of likeminded lawmakers within Congress in order to gain the type of leverage that less caustic members might enjoy on their own. While it is not advised for a member of a party to buck the party line too often, party leaders do understand that differences occur and that intra-party conflicts are a normal part of a democratic political system. Criticism of certain policy goals amongst members of the same party is not overly worrisome for leaders and is often seen as beneficial, but conflicts are expected to be kept within the party.
The UMD report also sheds light on how the organizational structure in Congress can act as both a facilitator and an impediment for bipartisan cooperation between parties. According to the report, Congress operates under what they call a “collaborative conflict culture.” In this environment, there is a constant interplay between the need for bipartisan consensus and partisan stymieing. The unfortunate fact is that today we see a fundamental unwillingness between the two parties to work on solving big ticket issues. As a result, many of the issues that actually have a general consensus, and where commendable bipartisan work is being done, are being overshadowed by toxic gridlock elsewhere.
The event was made up of a number of panels. The first featured four former members of Congress. On this panel, the former members shared their personal experiences, supporting the report’s findings about the inefficiencies and challenges faced in Congress. One interesting example is the challenge of travel for members of Congress. Because they are in Washington during the week and travel home to their directions every weekend, there is no time for extracurricular bonding or camaraderie to take place between members. The personal relationships formed when quality time is spent together is an excellent source for legislative collaboration, members’ travel expectations make this quite difficult to achieve.
The second panel featured psychologists and researchers who addressed the question: is Congress a dysfunctional workplace? From the perspective of organizational psychology, the panelists introduced frameworks by which the behaviours, conflicts, and norms of working by congressmen and congresswomen could be understood in a relatable human context. Three key themes emerged from this panel: (1) A significant change over time has been the centralization of power and “in the dark legislating,” which creates a negative cycle where information is power, the possession of information is unequal, and leaders become sources of information and cues; (2) faultlines (when demographic groups become clear subgroups) develop or intensify which has negative impacts on conflict, cohesion, and decreases overall group performance; and (3) the decline of moderates running for office, both due to and reinforced by increasing polarization.
According to participants in the UMD survey, shared policy interest, plus time spent serving on the same congressional committees help develop similar policy goals for members. The most basic way to create bipartisanship, according to respondents, is through shared experiences that help lawmakers develop a personal bond between one another. Time to build these personal, cross-party friendships is aided by shared living in DC, through Congressional trips abroad, and through participation in external bipartisan initiatives.
Check out our blog post for more.