Management Styles and the President

By Laura McKenna

In between Election Day and the Inauguration, President-Elect Obama has been choosing his staff. Political pundits and academics have been examining his choices with some interest as it may give some hints about how he'll govern after taking office.

A President in charge of a large bureaucracy, nearly 2.6 million people. This bureaucracy is responsible for implementing the nation's laws. Of course, a new president doesn't replace all 2.6 million people when he takes office. He does, however, replace the top administrators in the Cabinet, Executive Office, and the White House Staff. In the past few weeks, Obama has nominated many top staff, including the Homeland Secretary, Health and Human Services Secretary, and the National Economic Council Director.

Every president has his own style for choosing and managing his chief staff. Carter was notorious for being unable to delegate power and for micro-managing the smallest details of his job. While Reagan believed that a president should set the big message, such as state control and small government, and then give his staff wide latitude to implement that message in their departments. George W. Bush ran the White House meetings with a business school model with strict agendas and punctual attendance. Clinton preferred free ranging, brain storming meetings. Loyalty was a characteristic that George W. Bush valued most in his staff; many had worked with him for years. 

These different styles of leadership have a profound effect on a president's ability to control the behemoth bureaucracy, work with Congress, and set a policy agenda in motion. As Obama assembles his staff, we are getting hints of how he will govern.

Obama has said that he wants to model his cabinet after Lincoln's. In Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin explains that Lincoln pulled in his opponents into his Cabinet and convinced them that it was necessary to work together to get the country through crisis. To that end, Obama has brought in Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. He has also said that he hopes to give Republicans some top appointments.

The Team of Rivals approach has some advantages and some negatives. On the positive side, a president will be surrounded by a diversity of views; presumably the best ideas will rise to the top. It also keeps one's opponents busy working with him, rather than undermining his efforts. On the negative side, meetings might end in angry stalemate where nothing is accomplished.

Obama has said that he wants to "best and the brightest" to serve in his cabinet and other leadership positions. He admires intellectuals and policy specialists. He prefers that the top positions goes to intellectuals and policy specialists rather than party loyalists.

Some have felt that the "best and the brightest" approach means giving preference to Ivy-league credentials and this leads to insular and elitist thinking. Others out right question whether the smartest people in the room really make the best decisions. They say that Kennedy's smartest guys got us into Vietnam.

Obama's willingness to deal with the economic crisis even before he enters office, may shed some hints of his leadership style. In the past few weeks, he has worked openly with Republicans and is very well versed in policy specifics.

There is no consensus about the best way for a president to choose and manage his staff. How would you pick your staff? Would you choose academics, party loyalists, long time aides, opponents? Would you prefer free-ranging brain storming sessions or punctual, agenda-driven meetings?

Comments

[Best B Schools in india]

It was a awe-inspiring post and it has a significant meaning and thanks for sharing the information.Would love to read your next post too......

Thanks

Regards

Best B Schools in india

[Best B Schools in india]

I really appreciate your post and you explain each and every point very well.Thanks for sharing this information.And I’ll love to read your next post too.

Regards

Best B Schools in india