The Federalist Papers

I'm a senior official in the executive branch. My boss—a Cabinet secretary—wants to implement a major policy change through executive action. Our lawyers say it's legally defensible but will certainly be challenged in court. The courts might uphold it, or might strike it down. The alternative is to work with Congress, but that would take years and might fail entirely. People are suffering now from the problem this policy would address. Some of my colleagues say we should act boldly. "The executive exists to execute. Let the courts check us if they think we've overstepped. That's how the system is supposed to work—action and response, not paralysis by anticipated objection." Others say we should respect the limits of our authority even when we disagree with them. "If we stretch executive power when we're in charge, we legitimate the same stretching when our opponents are in charge. The precedent matters more than the policy." I believe in this policy. I also believe in institutional limits. How do I weigh doing good now against the long-term health of the system? — The Executive Overreach Question in DC

Law & Power Debate: Should executives act boldly and let courts check them, or defer to institutional limits?

My department's been dysfunctional for years, and I've just been promoted to lead it. The previous manager blamed the problems on the team. The team blames the previous manager. HR blames both. Everyone has a different story, and I don't know who to believe (or trust). I've been told to "fix the culture," but I'm not sure culture is the problem. It could be the systems are broken—unclear processes, contradictory incentives, no accountability mechanisms. When I suggested structural changes, people say I'm "not addressing the real issue" which is "trust". Do I focus on fixing the people and relationships, or do I redesign the systems and processes? Can you even have good culture without good systems? Or good systems without good culture? — Engineer Trying to Fix Humans in Hartford

Leadership & Management Debate: Systems versus culture. James Watt's engineering mind meets Madison's institutional wisdom.

Is it a sense of justice or bitterness that motivates me? Two years ago, a senior partner at my firm retired and I was passed over for someone who joined six months after me—but who went to a more prestigious law school and has family connections to major clients. I've been stewing ever since. I work harder than anyone in my department. I bill more hours, and my outcomes are better. But I can't stop obsessing over this injustice. I've started looking at other firms, but part of me wants to stay and prove them wrong. My wife says the bitterness is changing me. I snap at the kids. I check my work email at dinner. I fantasize about my rival failing spectacularly. Is my ambition healthy or is it destroying me? Should I leave for a fresh start or stay and fight for what I deserve? — Passed Over in Philadelphia

Career & Professional Growth Debate: When ambition becomes obsession. Hamilton's relentless striving meets Lincoln's patient principle.

Hamilton's legacy