To spend or not to spend? That is often the most basic question for an executive to decide. It requires the juggling of programmatic goals and fiscal realities, as Gov. James R. Thompson has well learned after nearly 11 years as Illinois' chief executive. Yet, as Thompson admitted earlier this year, decisions of this nature don't necessarily get easier as the years pass.

"Since 1985 the legislature has sent me dozens of good ideas, ways to help people, which cost money," Thompson said in a mea culpa the day in June that negotiations on his proposed tax increase ended without resolution. "Help for poor people, help for old people, help for children, help for farmers, help for the unemployed. All kinds of help for all kinds of people. They passed them, I signed them.

"Many of them I signed against the advice of my director of the Bureau of the Budget [Robert L. Mandeville], who for 11 years has stood for fiscal integrity. He would say you can't pay for good ideas with no money. I'd say to myself, maybe the economy will pick up, maybe they'll do the right thing next year, prosperity is just around the corner. Maybe, maybe, maybe. I signed it.

''All those good ideas have piled up on us, and now we can't help [the people] because we don't have the money to pay for it I will stand in line first, to say that what I did . . . was wrong to do without the money to pay for it. I should not have listened to the editorials, or to the legislature. I should have listened to Dr. Bob." 

Thompson really hadn't made those decisions on the basis of pressure from lawmakers or editorial writers, but because his own gut instincts told him it was time to move forward with programs Decisionmaking in any context is the balancing of sometimes conflicting information and recommendations. Certainly the advice Thompson received on the programs he signed into law during that period was split between the programmatic good and concerns over ability to pay. The balancing act requires that a judgment be made about which information is most important, which recommendation is most wise. Such judgments are, by their very nature, personal to the decisionmaker. Over time those decisions may follow a general philosophic bent. But the only one who really understands the process is the one who makes the decision.

"The variety of the decisions is such that what they are based on changes with each issue, with the time, with who the decision will impact and with whether it's in an area where I've delegated authority," Thompson said.

"It goes through eras. I spent hundreds of hours in 1977 on the budget because learning the budget that year was the best way possible to learn about state government. I don't need to spend that time learning the budget now. But the bottom lines are still the decisions I make."

In the office of the governor of Illinois, a state with a budget and payroll large enough to qualify it for placement among the top 20 business firms in America, the flow of information never stops. There is no relief from the need to resolve differences or decide among options.

Every year the governor makes thousands of appointments to boards and commissions, decides the fate of more than 1,000 bills that reach his desk (and makes thousands of additional decisions that help bills reach his desk or that kill others he opposes), approves an administrative position on hundreds of issues, decides how his time will be used on each of the 365 days; and responds to thousands of questions directed at him from reporters, constituents, employees and leaders both in and out of government.

"It's just staggering that someone like Thompson can have run the state for 10 years and do as good a job as he has," says Paula Wolff, who has served as Thompson's program staff director since his administration began in 1977. "There are not a lot of rewards in this process. You are subject to continual scrutiny and have virtually no private life. People feel they can criticize you as an elected official in ways they would never criticize others. It's incredible that someone can keep his perspective as well as he has for 10 years under these conditions.''

Not everyone in Illinois shares Wolff's view of the job Thompson has done in office. Thompson is commonly criticized by both political friends and opponents as too reactive, too interested in the quick political gain and not interested enough in the governing process.

If there is an enduring crticism of Thompson, it is that the governor has been unable to inject a long-range perspective into his decisionmaking. Three years ago, in an effort to blunt that criticism, Thompson established a planning office within his program staff. But that effort, headed up by Jeffrey C. Miller (now Thompson's chief of staff), never really moved the focus of staff analysis much beyond the present.

Miller remained involved in the day-to-day crises of state government, the "fire drills" as he calls them. He was involved in briefing the governor on several major issues — utility reform, health care cost containment, prison capacity, to name a few — but the focus was more on the immediate. The planning office was absorbed by the program staff when Miller was named chief of staff in early 1987. Wolff says that the persistence of individual staff aides in pushing certain pet projects "masquerades" for long-range planning in the Thompson administration. She believes, however, that true long-range planning in the public sector is very difficult, if not impossible. Thompson himself says the governor must have a "railroad mind" in decisionmaking: "You shove something in the front, think about it, make a decision, then shove it out the back and go on to something new."

Miller, however, believes that Thompson has recognized the importance of a more long-term approach to issues, as indicated by his desire to convene a transition team at the beginning of his fourth term and his decision to seek a forward-looking tax increase in the last legislative session. "If you've been governor for 11 years, you understand how decisions you made earlier can come back to haunt you," Miller says.

In fact, Illinois has generally prospered in the past decade — not as much as some of the coastal states, but certainly more than its fellow heartland states. And the electorate has been satisfied enough with Thompson's performance in office to reward him with four terms. That electoral success may be the most objective, definitive measure of the quality of decisionmaking in the Thompson administration. Thompson says it indicates the public's trust in an official's ability to make decisions. Thompson says he believes the quality of the decisions he's made in office should be judged by asking whether the state has been ahead of other states or behind them on the issues, whether the decisions are made quickly, and whether the demons are accepted by the other players in government.

It is clear that throughout much of his tenure as governor Thompson has been exceptionally popular, politically astute and resilient. He has also been, arguably, the beneficiary of some lucky breaks. Yet, during his nearly 11 years in office, the state has been able to expand its services while keeping its taxes from becoming a larger proportion of Illinoisans' income.

Miller thinks a good decision is one that can be implemented by the executive and one that stands the test of time. Poor decisions force an executive to return again to the same issue for further resolution. To Miller, the entire structure for decisionmaking in the Thompson administration is designed to give the governor the time he needs to meet both of these criteria.

Thompson's staff of 230 is organized in an effort to make sure the concerns of programs and budget, as well as other perspectives, get to the governor for his consideration. It is split in two: the Bureau of the Budget with about 80 employees, and the rest of the office. Included in the main staff are the offices of program and planning, legislative affairs, relations, hiring and political relations (patronage) as employees who keep track of the myriad boards and commissions under the governor's control. 

Deputy Gov. James R. Reilly is the top staffer. Under him are Miller and two deputy chiefs of staff, Kathy Selcke in Springfield and Ellen Craig in Chicago. Wolff is director of program and planning; Mandeville heads the Bureau of the Budget; Zack Stamp is director of legislative affairs; David L. Fields is press secretary; and William R. Ghesquiere is the governor's chief counsel. Wolff, Mandeville, Miller, Selcke and Reilly form the "senior" staff, which has a routine weekly meeting and also meets ad hoc to respond to specific issues. Although the governor heads a far-flung state bureaucracy with handpicked agency directors to take the lead in every subject area, there is also an assistant on his office staff who reviews the programs in each subject area and at least one program analyst in the Bureau of the Budget to oversee the fiscal concerns.

"The staff is designed the way it is because we all look at issues from a different perspective," Reilly says. "Agencies, as they should, always see their mission as more important than any other. Within our office, there are two perspectives intentionally built in. It's the bureau's job . . . to be as conserative as they can be about spending. The program staff's job one [of] advocates, not necessarily for an agency but for a particular program. What you get when you put those three together are three perspectives on the same problem that gives you a well-rounded answer."

Miller adds: "There is no right answer to most of these questions. Decisionmaking is not an adversarial process. Part of the process involves the staff agreeing on recommendations. He is well served by a staff process that allows consensus to be achieved as well as he is by a process that allows the staff to disagree."

Reilly is on the hot seat as the man through whom most of the staff-developed information funnels to the governor. He views his job as helping the senior staff "meld" the disparate views that come from the various perspectives. "I try to bring the views together to give the governor options as I can with the emphasis on what seem to be the best options," Reilly says, "but ultimately he's the one that has to draw all those together. Like anybody, he has some areas where he has strong personal views and he does more hands-on control in that area than in others. Economic development is one example, intergovernmental relations with Washington is another. And he takes a real interest in the budget.

"After a while, he gets to know what my reactions or decisions will be and I get to know what his will be. That's not to say he doesn't surprise me sometimes, but. . . after a while, you have a kind of unspoken understanding. Some things I don't take to him are things that are basically trivial, but others are ones that are maybe fairly important but that I'm fairly confident I know what his position is. You're always learning; you don't always think exactly alike from day to day.

"I'm the point of last resort only in cases where a cabinet director agrees with my decision. If there is disagreement, we rarely have a formal meeting where the governor sits down with me and the director. More likely, I will give the governor the options, along with the senior staff. Or, I may just write a memo that may or may not have my own recommendations. The directors always have the option of going to the governor."

Reilly, 42, a former state representative, is viewed as a deft negotiator who has made the Thompson staff operation more involved in the formation of legislation as it develops than it was under previous staff chiefs James L. Fletcher (1977-1980) and Art Quern (1980-1984).

But Reilly also is known to possess a quick temper, and his penchant for action sometimes leads him to try to move an issue too quickly toward resolution. Quern, on the other hand, was known for his sensing when an issue had been properly seasoned.

"A delay allows you the opportunity to read public sentiment and to take legislative and press soundings," Miller says. ''The governor never wants to make a decision until he has to. That sounds pejorative, like he delays. But it's very important to let an issue ripen. That allows you to get more information and to assess what the opposition might be. Then, even if you decide to go ahead with something, you can prepare better for the campaign."

Wolff, 42, remembers being driven "crazy" early in her tenure by the fact that Thompson would be presented with an issue and then not make a decision. But over the years she's seen several examples where the decision that would have been made at first blush would have been the wrong one. "He gives himself the latitude to decide when a decision is needed," she says.

Wolff first worked in state government in the Ogilvie administration, then wrote a doctoral dissertation on organizing the governor's staff. Thompson asked her to help direct the transition process after he was first elected in 1976, and she was named to head the program staff when the new administration began.

Wolff sees the decisionmaking process in the administration as one in which two countervailing forces are constantly at odds. The first force, coming from Thompson himself, is one that encourages the expression of a variety of different points of view. The second force is the internal staff organization in which different perspectives are represented by the senior staff, which tries to sort through the disagreements.

Her main concern, Wolff says, "was to make sure all the information coming from the program staff was balanced. Too often in the Ogilvie administraiton, a decisionmaker would get a slanted point of view depending on which analyst presented the case. I want to make sure that the governor gets the same kind of information whether a coal issue is presented to the economic development staffer or the environment staffer."

Wolff admits to being frustrated at times, but she supports and believes in the overwhelming majority of the decisions Thompson has made, or she would have left the staff long ago. When her point of view does not carry the day, it is most likely because of the arguments made by the keeper of the Thompson hooks, Robert Mandeville. Dr. Bob, as he is known throughout the Capitol, is a veteran of budgeting and budget politics under three governors: Ogilvie, Walker and Thompson. He was among the first appointments made by Thompson after the 1976 Section and has served in the same position ever since.

Mandeville's critics complain that he has manipulated budget figures to benefit the administration, perhaps a backhanded compliment on his skills. Others suggest that the bureau under his tutelage has lost some internal battles because it has been too predictable in its approach to issues. One administration staffer said that the bureau's standard line — if it costs money, it's not good — keeps it from being a creative force in the adminstration. It is seen as obstructionist rather than as a bureau that will propose a better way to get something done. Nevertheless, the 55-year-old Mandeville remains an influential Thompson aide. More than anyone else, Mandeville understands the state budget, and that understanding is true political power.

Now he's more familiar with it, he's delegated more," Mandeville says of Thompson's understanding of the budget. "Before we start each budget cycle, we ask him what he's particularly interested in, and he will make the decisions on those areas and on the big issues. We fill in the rest. He has set up the mechanism to give him the information he needs."

Mandeville believes that Thompson runs through cycles in which first the programmatic concerns and then the fiscal concerns are given primacy. He says this must be true with any governor because state resources tend to follow the business cycles. When the economy is good, there is a cushion for spending on programs. When the economy is bad, the fiscal concerns are overriding.

"The governor is program-oriented. He wants new programs to be implemented. He wanted to act on criminal justice, mental health, DCFS [Department of Children and Family Services], and now he's very strong on economic development and job creation. It is very hard to get him to say no to a program to create jobs now, even if we think the program is of questionable value. He has program priorities in his own mind. He will gamble on funding programs if fund balances are high. He felt that way in 1985, that it was time to embark on education reform because we had a cushion. In retrospect, both he and I believe that we went too far and couldn't sustain that level of spending."

It says something about Thompson's style of decisionmaking that both Wolff and Mandeville believe he has sustained their viewpoints on the important decisions even when their perspectives are so different. Miller notes that the decisions are seldom "so clean that you could say there are winners and losers." But Thompson clearly takes pains to protect the egos on his staff.

Unlike some managers who try to encourage internal competition on their staffs, Thompson's approach is to downplay those divisions that naturally occur. In fact, the picture painted by those who have served on the staff is one of a leader who is particularly sensitive to the psychic needs of his aides.

For example, Mandeville says Thompson will often try to avoid announcing a decision to a group if it goes against the arguments made by a staffer who is present. The decision is reported in a memo later. Or there is Wolffs view of Thompson as a person who goes out of his way to encourage people to give him advice. Be it a top staffer or a patron of a state fair beer tent, she has never seen him rebuff anyone who came forward with a suggestion.

Miller says Thompson refuses to "pigeon-hole" his staffers, allowing all to feel they can make recommendations on any issue, despite their job description. Press secretary Fields, for example, feels free to comment on policy and politics.

Similarly, Wolff adds, "He will stop anyone from dominating a meeting to make sure everyone who is present gets a chance to contribute their views. He will not be critical of people's arguments. He is a very intelligent man, and I've seen him get some pretty unintelligent analysis. He doesn't act like he sees the holes in the analysis, but when his decision is announced, it's clear that he did."

Wolff also notes that Thompson seems to have a sixth sense about when it is time to reassert his role in making decisions. Just when the staff begins to think it knows what the governor wants, Thompson will deliberately throw a curve.

"I think he sometimes intentionally does things totally outside the structure that's set up," Wolff says, "to create a little excitement, to keep people off balance and to assert his primacy in decisionmaking. He makes it clear that the staff is not making the decisions, that it's up to him."

Although the state's government operation may represent a top-20 business in budget and personnel, there is a distinct difference that makes the person in the governor's seat all that much more important than a CEO. The mission of a business is usually well-defined, but the mission of state government is not so easy to put a finger on. There is no basic goal that is the equivalent of the profit motive.

The governor must identify the goals for state government to pursue. He also sets the tone for state government. While he has been accused of some questionable dealings involving property mortgages and gifts, Thompson and his administration have been relatively free of scandal. Wolff credits this in part to Thompson's early decision to select former federal prosecutors to head his law enforcement department, the agency that investigates charges of internal corruption.

"It could be just a maggot's nest when you think about the number of asses that must be kissed and the amount of money that must be raised to run a campaign for governor," Wolff says. "There are people that come back to the administration with the attitude that their political support should get them favors, yet very few of the decisions made in the administration even have a whiff of that kind of thing."

No discussion of executive decisionmaking would be complete without some mention of personnel decisions. After all, the extent to which Thompson succeeds or fails is in large part attributable to the quality of the information he bases his decisions on. Generally, Thompson is credited with bringing exceptional people into key government jobs. Starting as an outsider to state politics and not beholden to the old-boy network, Thompson's early choices were among his best. Along the way the governor established a kind of farm system for his staff, moving people up from Wolff's program staff and Mandeville's budget bureau into higher staff positions or into top management jobs in the agencies.

"The people on the governor's staff are probably the brightest group of people I've ever worked with," said Ross Hodel, who was Thompson's aide for education and is now with the Board of Higher Education. "He recognizes talent in others without worrying about a person's age."

Wolff says Thompson recognizes the importance of recruiting good people, and he retains them by "building off their strengths and giving them the opportunity to grow."

Zale Glauberman, Thompson's first legislative liaison, points to Mandeville as an example of a recruit whose "genius was unleashed" by the confidence Thompson showed in his abilities. To a person, staffers and former staffers mention Thompson's willingness to let them expand and to delegate to them the power needed to do the job he wants them to do. "He's a terrific guy to work for," Glauberman says. "You have a job to do and you do it. He isn't in there trying to meddle. He expects his people to be self-starters and to be innovative."

Decisionmaking in the Thompson administration is not solely a staff function. "He does independent research," Glauberman says. "He talks with a lot of people outside the staff, and he does a lot of reading. He's a very quick study and he has a very retentive memory. He has an intuitive sense of how much information he wants. When he is not ready to make a decision, he may just pick up the phone and call someone else" Wolff adds, "Thompson's scope is so much broader than the staff's. He is very open to external views. He's more likely the anyone else in the room to drive a decision back to common sense. He has remained unencumbered by bureaucratic concerns — he just doesn't let himself get trapped that way. His best resource is his gut instinct."

Staffers routinely talk of Thompson having more than 100 regular contacts outside of government who may be consulted on a variety of issues, sometimes without the staffs knowledge. Miller says this kind of approach helps keep the system "honest" because staffers at times will try to strengthen their point with the governor by briefing outsiders they know he will consult.

The members of this outside group range from university presidents to company presidents. He also leans on former staff members like Dave Gilbert (press secretary) and Michael Jones (lottery director) for advice and counsel. Former top aides Fletcher and Quern, along with federal appellate judge Joel Flaum and Regional Transportation Authority chairman Sam Skinner are considered the most influential outsiders, but all four were once Thompson insiders.

But Thompson has no "kitchen" cabinet, no small group of government outsiders who meet regularly with him to discuss policy matters. And he asserts that people tend to overemphasize the old group from the U.S. attorney's office. "I depend more on my staff on the issues. There are some people I'll bounce ideas off of, but fewer than people think. I do talk with former colleagues from time to time, but those might be considered more political than governmental."

All of those who know him, however, name first lady Jayne Thompson as the single person with the greatest influence over his decisions. "I don't think that anyone would question that Jayne is his best, most faithful adviser," press secretary Fields says. "She is probably the person he listens to the most. She's got a reservoir of common sense that he taps constantly Thompson says his wife is "a woman of eminent good sense who has no axes to grind and no interest to protect or defend except my own. She's just a good sounding board."

Thompson adds: ''There are many more decisions to be made today than 10 years ago. A lot of them are 'which experts you trust' because you can't have the understanding of some these issues. I delegate a great many decisions, more now than earlier. It's a negative delegation — what I decide not to reach out and interfere with."

And the years of experience have influenced the decisions being made today: "I like to kid Mandeville that over the last 10 years I've made him more liberal and he's made me more conservative."

Jeff Brody is Statehouse bureau chief for The State Journal-Register, Springfield.