Hiring Government Leaders

LESSONS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

GEOFF SMART, MARIA BLAIR, AND JEFF MCLEAN NOVEMBER 2020

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH

Executive Summary

electing the individuals to build a president’s our experience working as advisers across five cabinet Scabinet and lead executive agencies is one of the and senior staff selection processes for several sitting biggest challenges facing a newly elected president governors have demonstrated a more robust approach and likely one of the most important sets of deci- to selecting cabinet leaders and senior administration sions the president will make in his or her presidency. staff. The keys to successful selection are figuring out Cabinet structure and candidate selection will set the what you want the person to do on the job, generat- stage for how the president will formulate his or her ing a list of candidates, collecting valid and reliable agenda, implement policies, lead millions of federal data to be able to select a person who has at least a workers, and effectively govern the country. 90 percent chance of performing the role successfully, Our half century of research in industrial and orga- and convincing the person to accept the job offer. We nizational psychology; our over 25 years of professional illustrate how each step can be used in senior govern- practice in assessing tens of thousands of candidates ment hiring and suggest how it can be implemented for hiring, primarily in large private-sector organiza- through straightforward process changes. tions but also large not-for-profit organizations; and

1 Hiring Government Leaders

LESSONS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Geoff Smart, Maria Blair, and Jeff McLean

electing a senior leadership team is a president’s historical perspective, combine scholarly research Sfirst priority. Making cabinet appointments and and expert practitioner observations in the disparate hiring senior administration staff are regarded as fields of political science and industrial and organiza- among the most important duties of a newly elected tional psychology, propose methodological improve- or reelected presidential administration. The process ments specifically at the “interviewing” step in the of evaluating candidates for executive roles is con- process, and provide illustrative real-life examples of sidered difficult in other sectors. It challenges leaders successful and unsuccessful selection. to predict a candidate’s future behavior accurately, For many reasons, political institutions cannot often in a short amount of time. Senior executive hir- hire like the private sector can. But by adopting ing mistakes outside the highest levels of government some of the best practices from private businesses, occur as often as 50 percent of the time and carry an incoming presidential administration can expect with them an estimated cost of 15 times the person’s streamlined hiring practices for the process of select- annual compensation.1 ing tens of thousands of federal appointees, better When selecting cabinet and senior staff, these performance from senior executive officials, and pressures are compounded by a heightened volume more effective program implementation. Incremen- of selection decisions that are required over a short- tal improvements in hiring efficiency can therefore ened time frame, political forces from Congress and dramatically affect the successful implementation the public, and intense media scrutiny. Not surpris- of presidential policy. Drawing on decades of expe- ingly, the success rate of cabinet selection appears rience in the private sector and millions of relevant low. Turnover of cabinet appointees, over the past data points, we distill four concrete steps that vastly six presidencies, ranges from 63 percent to 80 per- improve administrative outcomes. If a White House cent over a four-year term.2 The human and financial uses these four practices from the private sector— costs of making selection mistakes at senior levels in scorecard, source, select, and sell—a president can the federal government are significant; therefore, the expect to achieve a 90 percent selection success rate. need for scholarly nonpartisan research on this topic This report examines three central questions: motivated this report. The purpose of this report is to provide research- 1. How does a president select cabinet leaders based insights to improve the success rate of cabi- and senior staff? net and senior staff selections. To achieve this goal, we review the process of cabinet selection from a 2. Where can the process be improved?

2 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

3. What selection methods are likely to lead to send meaningful signals to the public about how higher success rates? the president intends to govern, the coming priorities in the first term, and the management skill Finally, appendixes are provided that may serve as and style that a president will bring to leading the hiring guides for presidents, chiefs of staff, or tran- nation. A close associate of President Abraham sition team leaders. The insights contained in this Lincoln described the endeavor as “an intensified report are also valuable to not only the president but crossword puzzle in which party loyalty and ser- also any government leader, deputy, or civil servant vice, personal fitness, geographical location and a seeking to improve hiring success and maximize the dozen other factors have to be taken into account positive impact of their department or agency. Imple- and made to harmonize.”5 menting a proven hiring system in the public sec- Aside from close interpretation by many varied tor can improve efficiency, reduce bias and selection stakeholder groups, each selection will face inten- errors, and create a workforce capable of implement- sive background checks and the political gauntlet of ing complex policy. Senate confirmation and will be closely scrutinized This report does not seek to identify the hundreds by the public for meaning and direction. Missteps in of detailed tasks and steps across the entire hiring selection that lead to withdrawn nominations, failed process for cabinet officials and senior appointees. confirmations, or early performance problems could Many such guides outline the legal requirements in cause significant disruptions in successfully execut- great depth.3 Rather, this report focuses specifically ing the administration’s agenda and often reflect on the step in the process when presidents and their negatively on the president’s management and judg- senior advisers conduct interviews and select a leader ment. Additionally, such disruptions capture news for a senior role in their administration. cycles and generate the replacement process that requires an administration to return to these selection and confirmation challenges as opposed to focus- How Does a President Select Cabinet ing on moving policy forward. Leaders and Senior Staff? We are experts in executive selection with experience helping companies, nonprofit organizations, Selecting the individuals to build a president’s cab- and governments. Through a series of interviews inet and lead executive agencies is one of the big- and studies, we have compiled more than 15 mil- gest challenges facing a newly elected president lion pieces of data that offer guidance on the best and likely one of the most important sets of deci- practices in hiring senior staff. Our two decades of sions the president will make in his presidency. research and work highlight that selecting a lead- Cabinet structure and candidate selection will set ership team is frequently considered the most the stage for how the president will formulate his important and most challenging decision facing an agenda, implement his policies, and lead millions organization. From our research and experience, of federal workers. the average cost of a hiring mistake in a company Modern-day presidential cabinets consist of the is 15 times the employee’s base salary in hard costs secretaries of the 15 executive departments and and lost productivity. Applying that figure to the other senior administration leaders such as the vice federal context and considering the lost productiv- president, White House chief of staff, US trade rep- ity in replacing the leaders of government agencies, resentative, UN ambassador, and heads of Office who set the agenda for millions of federal employ- of Management and Budget, Central Intelligence ees and oversee budgets of many billions of dollars, Agency, and Environmental Protection Agency— the cost of a failed cabinet appointment is likely totaling 23 members.4 Initial cabinet selections many times that estimate.

3 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Historical Perspectives Nearly a century later, Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals” cabinet established an important precedent that has In some circumstances, the process of appointing a shaped modern American governance. Lincoln’s trusted and high-impact cabinet leader can be brief. unprecedented appointment of strong and power- When President George H. W. Bush selected his good ful rivals to his cabinet reflected his personal genius, friend and proven leader James Baker to serve in his humility, and confidence in surrounding himself cabinet, the choice was easy. with the sharpest minds and most powerful figures of the day. However, his appointment of rivals to Two days before the election, over cocktails at the the cabinet also reflected a savvy political strategy Vice President’s residence, Bush had asked Jim to unite factions of the nascent Republican Party Baker—“out of the blue,” according to Baker—If that required fostering and political unity to survive. he would serve [as Secretary of State] assuming When asked by a reporter why he had selected ene- Bush won. Baker accepted on the spot.6 mies and fierce political opponents for his cabinet, Lincoln responded: By all measures successful in the case of Secre- tary Baker, this idyllic vision of the process is not rep- We needed the strongest men of the party in the licable or reliable for appointing leaders to the over Cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. 20 cabinet positions. In fact, attempting to staff a I had looked the party over and concluded that these government of close friends and advisers has often were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to failed when attempted. So, what is the traditional deprive the country of their services.10 process for selecting leaders, and how can presidents leverage modern-day strategies to add rigor and Lincoln’s choice to surround himself with differ- improve outcomes for leadership selection success to ing opinions to unify his young party and solidify his improve the success rate of their cabinet and senior administration during a tumultuous time in history staff appointments? sharpened his own leadership and better served the The president’s power to appoint leaders of the interests of the country. The urgency, personal atten- executive departments, with the “Advice and Consent tion, and long-term consideration with which Presi- of the Senate,” is implied by Article II of the Consti- dent Lincoln formed his cabinet is a model for how tution.7 President George Washington’s cabinet con- crucial cabinet selection can be. sisted of four primary members: Secretary of State One reason President Lincoln’s cabinet appoint- Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of Treasury Alexander ments are still praised by political commentators is Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attor- that they contravened the era’s spoils system. Despite ney General Edmund Randolph. Vice President John the depth and breadth of cabinet members’ respon- Adams was less engaged in cabinet meetings but more sibilities, the process of cabinet appointments had involved in activities with the US Senate.8 Although been rooted in political power maximization, not in the Constitution makes no explicit provision for the meritocratic hiring. There are many good reasons cabinet, this unpredicted evolution has become one for a president to favor political allies. But while an of the executive branch’s most fundamental institu- elected official has the right to select staff familiar to tions. In the words of President Washington, him, he also has an obligation to the public to select staffers who are competent and can best serve the The impossibility that one man should be able to per- public interest. form all the great business of the State, I take to have At the very least, an incoming president who been the reason for instituting the great Departments, wishes to elevate political allies would therefore be and appointing officers therein, to assist the Supreme wise to select the most capable administrators among Magistrate in discharging the duties of his trust.9 them; after all, failed appointments and political

4 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

scandals that deprive Americans of good governance On the management front, cabinet members and hurt a president’s standing with the electorate carry significant management responsibilities in help nobody. The lessons from our decades of expe- leading the more than two million federal govern- rience in the private sector can provide valuable ment employees and managing the administra- information on the best methods for selecting a tion of their work. Moe points out that “laws are high-performing staff capable of rising to the high not self-executing; they must be implemented, and challenges of the modern political world. implementation is a managerial function.”13 Cabinet officers play a key role in mediating interdepartmental conflict, supporting presidential policy, and man- The Role of the Cabinet aging the downward flow of nearly 4,000 political appointments in the federal government. The suc- Each president has the constitutional flexibility to cess or failure of an entire presidential agenda hinges approach cabinet selection in a way that suits his own on selecting the right mixture of these officials. objectives and leadership style. President Dwight D. Eisenhower sought to add structure to the cabinet, treating it like a military staff with weekly meetings Selecting Cabinet Members and an appointed cabinet secretary to administer its operations. In contrast, President John F. Kennedy As each president brings a unique style to using his brought an entirely different approach, leaning on cabinet, the approach to selecting cabinet appoin- personal engagements with cabinet members and tees similarly varies by each administration. Political White House staff.11 Other notable and distinctive scientist Richard Neustadt leveraged his experi- approaches to managing and administering the cabinet ence in the FDR administration to advise President include Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” Herbert Kennedy and many subsequent presidents on how to Hoover’s “Medicine Ball Cabinet,” and Franklin D. select a cabinet. His primary message was to organize Roosevelt’s (FDR) “Brain Trust.” the White House staff and cabinet There is, in practice, no “wrong” way to orient a cabinet. But while each president has brought his to suit the needs and style of the incumbent. Reagan own approach to using the cabinet, the primary roles and Kennedy were both highly staff-dependent pres- of an effective cabinet go beyond advising the presidents, though for different reasons: Reagan for ident. As Ronald Moe writes, “The cabinet should having set goals, then delegating; Kennedy for hav- not be considered as an institution of policy advice, ing extended his reach with generalists like himself. rather as a vehicle for management.”12 Selecting Their transitions into office were among the more capable, competent officials ensures that the presi- successful in recent decades.14 dent’s vision, as endorsed by the American electorate, is carried out to the highest possible standards Political scientist Nelson Polsby identified three (and with the best possible results). Moe’s model for philosophical approaches that presidents tend to the roles of a cabinet include: follow in selecting cabinet appointees, segmenting appointees as specialists, client-oriented, or gener- 1. Political and managerial advice, alists. In appointing substantive specialists, presidents are selecting individuals for “technical mastery, 2. Interdepartmental conflict resolution, knowledge of programmatic alternatives, and understanding of particular governmental agencies and 3. Administrative coherence, and their impact on the world.”15 Particularly in the largest, most programmatic departments, specialists are 4. Political assistance. often selected to bring legitimacy and experience in

5 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

driving the outcomes of a department. The Depart- included “simplification, reduction of duplication, ments of Defense, State, and Treasury often see indi- and the establishment of uniformity, predictability, viduals with significant specialty knowledge and and long-range goals.”20 Thus, the blend of special- experience appointed as leaders. ists and generalist executives dominated his initial The client-oriented approach to selection reflects cabinet selections. While Polsby’s framework for that each department “has custody over a range of individual cabinet member selection is informa- policies that tend to affect some Americans more tive, Martin suggests other effective dimensions for sharply than others. . . . Thus, one strategy for build- analyzing presidential cabinets. For instance, while ing a cabinet is to enter into a coalition with the client Polsby’s construct helps analyze individuals, presi- groups of departments”16 and select appointees allied dents may be driven in cabinet selection by a more with those constituencies. As political scientist Janet holistic view of the cabinet as a member of a larger Martin writes, “Several of the departments, notably team. Martin writes, Agriculture, Commerce, the Treasury, and Labor, are peculiarly identified with distinct segments of society. Observers of the presidency are often quick to The relevant organized interest groups make every evaluate the cabinet, in its initial configuration, as a effort to secure an appointment acceptable to them.” collectivity; they do not consider the president's or In these cases, appointing a candidate who rep- secretary's individual perspective—that is, the sec- resents a segment of the broader constituency is retary as a part of an administration, or as head of typical and practical, since, for example, “A Secretary a department, or as a spokesperson for a certain of the Treasury who was regarded with hostility by policy constituency.21 the financial and banking community would find it nearly impossible to perform his statutory duties.”17 Thomas Cronin advanced the framework of an Polsby writes, “A cabinet in which this alternative is “inner” versus “outer” cabinet distinction, whereby dominant is one heavy with former political office access to the president is a key driver of selection. The holders”18 as the former office holders bring with inner cabinet includes senior White House staff plus them constituencies and agendas that can deliver for secretaries of state, defense, and Treasury and the invested subsegments. attorney general, and they are often “selected primar- Finally, Polsby writes, “Those cabinet mem- ily on the basis of personal loyalty to the president,” bers who are connected neither to clientele nor to as they tend to serve more directly as counselors and agencies suggest a third alternative: the general- advisers. On the other hand, outer cabinet members ist executive.”19 Generalists may be selected for a are selected “to achieve a better political, geographi- gamut of reasons including trusted affiliation with cal, ethnic, or racial balance.”22 the president, political constituencies, or executive A further framework for cabinet selection that leadership skills. Polsby’s three archetypes for cab- drives thinking is the “balance framework,” which inet selection are informative, but he notes that no posits that, particularly with initial cabinet selection modern president has purely pursued one strategy at the beginning of a president’s first term in office, for an entire cabinet. Still, the mixture of the three cabinet selections are “often evaluated as a unit to archetypes is broadly informative as to how a presi- see if the administration is ‘balanced’ in its repre- dent intends to govern. sentation of interests, regions of the country, ethnic As evidenced in Table 1, for instance, President backgrounds.”23 Representing the first major public Jimmy Carter entered office as an outsider with actions of an incoming president, the announcement significantly fewer ties to the traditional constituen- of cabinet selection sends strong public signals for cies and platforms, which likely reduced the number the intentions and policy agenda of a new adminis- of client-oriented selections, while his early admin- tration. In this way, candidates must be considered istration emphasis on improving administration beyond their individual selection but also viewed as

6 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Table 1. President Carter’s Cabinet, 1977

Specialists Client-Oriented Generalists State Cyrus Vance* — — Treasury Michael Blumenthal** — — Defense Harold Brown** — — Justice — — Griffin Bell* Interior — Cecil Andrus — Agriculture — Robert Bergland — Commerce — — Juanita Kreps** Labor Ray Marshall** Ray Marshall** — Health, Education, and Welfare — — Joseph Califano* Housing and Urban Development — — Patricia Roberts Harris* Transportation — — Brock Adams* Energy — — James Schlesinger** CIA — — Stansfield Turner National Security Council Zbigniew Brzezinski** — — Office of Management and Budget — — Bert Lance Council of Economic Advisers Charles Schultze** — — UN Ambassador — — Andrew Young Note: *Lawyers; ** PhDs. Source: Nelson W. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making: Lessons for the Political System,” Political Science Quarterly 93, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 21, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2149047?seq=1.

part of a collective “team” that they complement with After experimenting elaborately in his first term, unique attributes. [Franklin] Roosevelt lost taste for interagency committees. Thereafter, he never seems to have regarded any of them—from the cabinet down—as a vehicle The Cabinet and Administration Are for doing anything that could be done by operating Dynamic over Time agencies or by a staff directly tied to him.24

As highlighted in the balance framework example, President Nixon also changed his approach toward each incoming president must seek to define his cabinet selection in his second term (Table 2). Polsby objectives and desired style to guide cabinet selection writes that, throughout his time in office, effectively, but those objectives are likely to evolve over time and change the selection criteria as well, as President Nixon increasingly appointed people of the political atmosphere and demands shift and pres- no independent public standing [indicating] a dis- idents gain experience and evolve in their roles. As tinctive change in the fundamental political goals Neustadt writes, and strategies of the Nixon administration, from early concerns with constituency-building to a later

7 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Table 2. Decline in Prior Political Experience of Nixon Cabinet

President Nixon’s First Cabinet President Nixon’s Second Cabinet

Prior Political Experience Extensive William Rogers, State Rogers C. B. Morton, Interior (Includes Office-Holding) Melvin Laird, Defense Earl Butz, Agriculture Walter Hickel, Interior Maurice Stans, Commerce Robert Finch, Health, Education, and Welfare George Romney, Housing and Urban Development John Volpe, Transportation

Prior Political Experience Moderate Winton Blount, Postmaster General Frederick Dent, Commerce (Active in State Party, etc.) Peter Brennan, Labor Caspar Weinberger, Health, Education, and Welfare

Prior Political Experience Slight David Kennedy, Treasury Henry Kissinger, State John Mitchell, Attorney General William Simon, Treasury Clifford Hardin, Agriculture James Schlesinger, Defense George Shultz, Labor Robert Bork, Acting Attorney General James Lynn, Housing and Urban Development Claude Brinegar, Transportation

Source: Nelson W. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making: Lessons for the Political System,” Political Science Quarterly 93, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 16, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2149047?seq=1.

preoccupation . . . with centralizing power in the Furthermore, thousands of jobs in the federal White House.25 government must be filled by an incoming administration. According to the Partnership for Public The challenges of cabinet selection are signifi- Services’ Center for Presidential Transition, there cant, and the lessons from prior administrations were 4,000 such political appointments as recently are difficult to unwind, as they reflect many differ- as 2016.26 The tools outlined later are a valuable ent influences and unique circumstances. Further- resource for any administration looking to improve more, a president may have personal knowledge of administrative efficiency and programmatic success. the candidates for cabinet positions, circumventing Regardless of the constraints and obstacles inher- the methods outlined below. He may be committed ent to the presidential hiring process, the lessons to picking candidates based on key figures, and he for selecting senior executive officials are crucial: may have promised certain spots based on prior con- Each incoming president will select a cabinet and tributions to his political success in the campaign. senior White House staff for the first time, making But, to the extent that a president will be filling the most important management decisions he will such senior positions from an unencumbered list of likely make in his term. Adding a framework for tal- potential appointees, the methods described below ent selection that adds rigor and provides sound can double or even triple the likelihood of a success- and meaningful input on how to improve the pro- ful hiring process. cess is crucial.

8 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Figure 1. The President’s Cabinet: Turnover from Year to Year

10 es 8

2 Number of Cabinet Departur 0

Bush Trump Reagan Clinton W. Obama H. W. Bush Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Presidential Administration

Source: Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, “Tracking Turnover in the Trump Administration,” Brookings Institution, October 2020, https://www. brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/.

Where Can the Process Be Improved? of candidates, timing, and politics. The skill set required to win an election bears scant resemblance According to our decades of research, the main ele- to the skill set required to govern effectively. Many ments of a successful hiring framework can be dis- newly elected politicians feel the intense and imme- tilled into four simple aspects that help a manager find, diate pressure to hire their teams successfully and assess, and hire the best available talent. The four main quickly following a successful election campaign. parts of making any hiring decision are (1) determin- Jennifer Christie, now the chief human resources ing the selection criteria (known as the scorecard), officer at Twitter, served as special assistant to the (2) sourcing candidates, (3) selecting a candidate, and president of the United States in the White House (4) selling the candidate on accepting the job.27 All Office of Presidential Personnel. She reflected on the four steps are examined in this report, with an empha- many hurdles facing selection committees. She told sis on the scorecard and selection steps. us in an interview for this report, That said, there are many challenges to executing a successful hiring strategy. Success rates of cabi- There are so many lenses and filters—did you net appointments, for example, are low. Twenty-two donate? Will the Senate confirm? Did you campaign? percent of the 1,200 appointments that reached the Then you have to pass the policy bar—what do you Senate in 2016 failed, speaking to the unique chal- believe in? You have to be on the right side of not lenges of selecting high-level officials in the contem- just the administration but the Senate committee porary political climate. Even after candidates are that has jurisdiction over the confirmation. Will you selected, failure rates and turnover have historically be an embarrassment to the president? Social media, been high. taxes, etc. You have all those gauntlets to pass before These complications arise from a number of even starting to figure out if someone is qualified— sources. Major challenges in the overall cabi- can this person lead at the end of the day? You are net appointment process are skill set, volume going to be running a massive organization. If the

9 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

career folks don’t believe in you, they will wait you Process Challenges out. The talent pool for the most senior roles is very small—these jobs require a lot—people have to move Compounding the many discussed challenges of to DC and many take a massive pay cut and they successfully appointing an effective core of senior have to divest investments to avoid conflicts. It’s a leaders, the legal and administrative processes for big decision. Being able to find great leaders in that sourcing, nominating, confirming, and appointing talent pool, who meet all those other requirements, these officials are incredibly cumbersome and intro- is a huge challenge.29 duce challenges in narrowing down voluminous lists of candidates, aligning timing, and adequately We have witnessed the stress on the faces of assessing candidates against the many dimensions 12 newly elected governors as they talked about of consideration. the daunting task of appointing their cabinets. The At the federal level, the 2010 Pre-Election Pres- National Governors Association invited our col- idential Transition Act was passed to add more leagues to conduct a “cabinet hiring” crash course support to empower and encourage presidential a few years ago. Only three of the 12 new governors candidates and transition teams to plan the cru- appeared prepared to hire their cabinets. The other cial step of staffing a government more proac- nine governors seemed thrilled to have won their tively before election to prevent such gaps in talent elections but were “behind the eight ball,” as one management, but the stresses of the process are the put it, on the task of hiring their cabinets and senior same, and the stakes are even higher. Figure 2 and staff. In fact, during one break, the governor sitting Table 3 demonstrate how exhausting and daunting to our right leaned over and in a hushed tone asked, the process for appointing cabinet members at the “Do you know if your governor has any spare can- federal level is. didates lying around? Like, leftover candidates that The Brookings Institution’s E. J. Dionne and you aren’t going to hire?” We smiled at his request, William Galston published a report in 2010 that hoping he was joking. He continued, highlighted some of these flaws in the cabinet appointment process: No. Really. I will take the oath of office in six weeks, and we don’t have any process mapped out, and we The selection, vetting, and confirmation steps, in don’t have any good candidates for any of the top conjunction with extensive physical paperwork and spots. It’s a ‘mad dash’ to get my team hired. individual committee jurisdiction over nominees creates an amalgamation of obstructions that slow The flaws in this cumbersome process lead to the process down. Political polarization and the vacancies. Although it is debatable whether “no thickening of government are secondary but formi- breath” is better than “bad breath,” it can be assumed dable obstacles to reform.31 that chronic vacancies in key cabinet roles are not desirable. Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell found They go on to propose specific improvements to that, among the highest-ranking positions at cabinet the vetting process. departments and executive agencies, • Simplify the cumbersome personal data from 1977 to 2005 . . . between 15 and 25 percent of statement. positions were either vacant or filled by acting officials [and] the highest positions at the Departments • For previously vetted candidates, start back- of Commerce and Health and Human Services lacked ground checks from where the previous checks confirmed or recess appointees more than 20 per- left off, not from scratch. cent of the time in the 1989–2009 period.30

10 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Figure 2. Confirmation Flow Chart

President-Elect Selects Nominee

Paperwork (FBI, IRS, OGE Agency)

Conﬁrmation Team Investigation Concluded Assigned

Member Notiﬁcation Transition Team Announces Nominee (Conducted by President- Elect, COS, OLA)

Policy Lead Begins Sherpa Spearheads Meeting Schedule Work on Committee to Include Leadership, Chair/Ranking Questionnaire and Committee Members

Submit Committee Questionnaire

Murder Boards Extensive Committee Internal Investigation

Hearing Scheduled

Conﬁrmation Hearing

Questions for the Record Policy Team Assists with from the Committee Questions for the Record

Nomination Reported Out of Committee and Placed on Executive Calendar

Senate Vote

Conﬁrmation

Note: OGE stands for US Office of Government Ethics, COS stands for chief of staff, and OLA stands for Office of Legislative Affairs. Source: Michael O. Leavitt et al., Romney Readiness Project 2012: Retrospective & Lessons Learned (Charleston, SC: R2P, Inc., 2013), 118.

11 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Table 3. Key Steps in Selecting, Nominating, and Confirming Priority Appointees

Step Timing Comments Develop initial list of five to 10 for June–September Early work of very small personnel each position group and close advisers Conduct initial public record vetting June–September Use public record (e.g., internet); no outreach to candidates Narrow to short list By late October Iterative discussion with personnel team and key advisers Conduct deeper background check After short list is chosen If person volunteers to complete forms; conducted by lawyers Transition team recommends potential Late October/early November Presidential candidate or president- nominees to president-elect elect selects likely candidate from small (three to five candidate) pool Interview and final decision by Early November Interview with presumed candidate; president-elect president-elect (with close advisers) makes final selections Formal offer to nominee During/just after interview — Paperwork (FBI, OGE, agency) November–inauguration FBI may initiate background check if (or after) name submitted earlier Background investigation and ethics review November–inauguration (after) FBI may initiate background check if conducted name submitted earlier Transition team announces nominee November to December Announce nominees for priority Wave I positions; cannot officially nominate until after the inauguration

Sherpa spearheads meeting schedule to November (postelection) Sherpas begin laying the groundwork include leadership, chair or ranking, and with Senate committees committee members Confirmation hearing February — Senate vote February — Senate confirms nominee February–March — Note: OGE stands for US Office of Government Ethics. Source: US General Services Administration, “President Transition Directory,” https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initiatives/ presidential-transition-directory.

• Make more effective use ofprivate-sector inquiries—in the Presidential Personnel Office, headhunters to propose candidates for top FBI, and relevant Senate staff. positions. • Authorize an expansion of the White House • Simplify the SF-86 form (clearance informa- personnel operation to create a permanent tion) and the SF-278 form (financial disclosure staff of professionals, overseen and supple- information). mented by presidential appointees.32

• Providing “surge capacity”—additional tem- Many have pointed out the systemic challenges porary personnel needed to process the in the system of nomination and confirmation and flood of early nominations and background have suggested procedural improvements to the

12 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

appointment process for cabinet-level positions. following a successful election campaign and have This challenging process makes timely and effective been in close proximity with campaign advisers and selection of highly talented candidates even more supporters and turn to their guidance. However, as difficult and detracts from ensuring the highest- Cohen describes, the skills required to win an elec- quality leaders can consistently be appointed to tion bear little resemblance to the skills required to these crucial national leadership positions. For these govern effectively. reasons, it is all the more important to use an opti- The turnover rates of cabinet secretaries are not a mized hiring framework that streamlines the process perfect proxy for measuring success of appointments, as much as possible. but the costs of churn on a president’s agenda are real, as each departure of a cabinet member can lead to four to six months of lost productivity as a replace- Less-Than-Perfect Outcomes ment is sourced, nominated, and confirmed. Addi- tional disruptions from senior executive departures In addition to the difficulties of a restricted talent occur in terms of lost leadership and administration pool, incoming presidents may also find that the and the political disruption and headline noise sur- seemingly ideal candidate, someone who had seemed rounding the departure and replacement, all of which the best on paper or who had shown brightly in inter- detract focus from executing a president’s agenda. views, is ultimately unable to execute the administration’s agenda. Presidential historian and former George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration The Inconsistent Interview Process for political appointee Jared Cohen notes: Cabinet Member Candidates

Administrations often make the mistake of selecting It is our experience that transition teams rely too cabinet members and senior officials based on being much on political records and FBI background checks in campaign mode rather than governing mode. They and too little on forming judgments about candidates are thinking of who was helpful during the cam- themselves. Cabinet-level selection committees typ- paign and those who are close to the top campaign ically have only a vague sense of what they are look- brass often are in the best position to land the big ing for, combined with informal interviews that only job. Many veterans of two term Administrations will scratch the surface of collecting relevant data about tell you that the best team they had from a governing a candidate’s professional achievements and failures, perspective was in the last two years of their admin- their working style, and information about how they istration, which is precisely when they had the least typically interact with bosses, peers, subordinates, mandate to make meaningful policy. Some of this and outside constituents. has to do with the winnowing down of politics as a While reference checking can provide some infor- factor for who gets the right job and some of it has mation about these questions, reference checks do to do with the time pressure to get things done. The not provide an opportunity to synthesize disparate real question should be, how do we get the best team pieces of information to recognize a pattern of behav- to lead and govern while the administration has the ior in candidates. This is a missed opportunity to gain mandate of the first 100 days?33 insights into a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses that lie just below the surface. In our years of experi- As Cohen describes, the confluence of pressures ence in the private sector, we have found that these on newly elected presidents and transition teams inefficient hiring preferences may be natural, but can lead to undesirable outcomes in executive selec- they can also select the wrong candidates—leading to tion. Most presidents feel the intense and immediate costly errors, administrative frustration, and, in the pressure to hire their teams successfully and quickly worst cases, disastrous consequences.

13 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

This report does not attempt to take a position in To what extent should a president look for man- the debate of whether public-sector or private-sector agement and execution skill in selecting cabinet lead- leaders make better cabinet appointees.34 We believe ers? Legendary venture capitalist Arthur Rock, who there are talented and qualified candidates who spent reviewed over 90,000 new venture proposals in his the duration of their careers in the public sector or career, concluded, “Good ideas and good products are private sector or have a hybrid track record of lead- a ‘dime a dozen’; good management and good execu- ing inside and outside of government. There is no tion are rare.”37 “one-size-fits-all” profile of a great cabinet leader. There do not appear to be any consistent set of But while there may be no single set of professional, “personality traits” that predict executives’ future political, or intellectual experiences that define great performance.38 From the late 1960s until present, appointees, the right process for sourcing, scoring, and what are known as contingency theories dominate selecting a candidate can improve policy implemen- the literature with their mantra, “It depends on tation, reduce expensive mistakes, and meet the high the situation!”39 expectations that the American electorate has set for a presidential administration. Insights from Industrial and Organizational Psychology What Selection Methods Are Likely to Lead to a Higher Success Rate? The typical approaches of evaluating people are unreliable. David Gladstone, when president of the largest Presidential hiring occurs so infrequently, and in public venture capital firm in the United States, con- such small numbers, that we chose to look elsewhere cluded, “The problem with the venture capital busi- for lessons about best practices—namely, cabinet ness is that when we analyze people, our perceptions hiring at the state level by governors and executive of others are usually wrong.”40 hiring in sectors outside of government. Indeed, an The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psy- entire field of study—industrial and organizational chology suggests that there are seven common meth- psychology—is dedicated to personnel selection ods for evaluating candidates for jobs:41 job analysis, and provides useful insights from studies conducted resumes, different formats of interviews, work sam- over the past 50 years. ple, assessment center, reference interviews, and psychological tests. “Unstructured interviews” are known to poorly Problematic Executive Selection Methods predict a candidate’s performance. According to personnel selection researchers Herbert G. Heneman III, Economists have long proposed that a person’s Timothy A. Judge, and John Kammeyer Mueller, the “human capital” is the stored value of their knowl- average unstructured interview may include one or edge and skills.35 Among other criteria, a president more of the following characteristics: attempts to evaluate a cabinet or senior staff candidate’s knowledge and skills before making a selec- 1. It is unplanned (e.g., just sit down and “wing tion. There is widespread consensus among scholars it” with the candidate). in the fields of management and industrial and organizational psychology that human capital contrib- 2. It is “quick and dirty” (e.g., under an hour). utes to an organization’s performance.36 The goal is to select leaders who carry a high probability of suc- 3. It consists of casual questioning (e.g., tell me cess in being able to achieve the goals associated with a little bit about yourself). the role.

14 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

4. It has obtuse questions (e.g., what type of considered the most valid of all assessment meth- animal would you most like to be and why?). ods, and unstructured interviews (which include informal interviews) are considered the least valid 5. It has highly speculative questions (e.g., where of all methods. The evidence that structured inter- do you see yourself 10 years from now?). views are more valid than unstructured interviews is compelling. 6. The interviewer is unprepared (e.g., forgot to A meta-analysis by W. H. Wiesner and S. F. review the job analysis or failed to perform Cronshaw found that structured interviews produced one in the first place). mean validity coefficientsover three times as high as unstructured interviews did. These two researchers 7. The interviewer makes a quick and final eval- reviewed 150 validities with a sample size of 51,459.45 uation of the candidate (e.g., often in the first A later meta-analysis by P. M. Wright, P. A. Lichtenfels, couple of minutes).42 and E. D. Pursell also supported the claim that the structured interview was a valid selection These informal interviewers seem to think that approach and that the unstructured interview was they can “get a gut feel for” a candidate and make an inferior predictor.46 an accurate assessment simply by conversing casu- One important component of “structure” in the ally. The validity coefficient for this type of interview structured interview is performing a job analysis is low. The validity coefficient refers to the degree before the interview, culminating into a set of crite- to which the performance predictions interviewers ria on which the hiring decision will be made.47 Since made before a person is on the job correspond to the every situation is different, and every administra- person’s subsequent on-the-job performance rat- tion’s priorities are different, we do not suggest that ings. The range is from zero to 1.0. The validity coef- there is a one-size-fits-all set of criteria for top jobs. ficient for this type of informal interview tends to be Criteria that may be relevant or important to a pres- between r = 0.15 and r = 0.20 and is usually not statis- ident could include a candidate’s previous political tically significant.43 affiliations and positions on major issues, their man- For many decades, social scientists were skeptical agement and leadership skills, communication style, of any kind of preemployment interviewing. Inter- specific technical expertise, or any number of differ- views were thought to be invalid, categorically.44 ent criteria. The point here is not to prescribe what However, by 1988, researchers began distinguish- set of criteria should be used for cabinet and senior ing among various types of interviewing formats, as staff selection, but that a set of criteria be used. opposed to grouping all interviewing into one cate- What type of information is most useful in helping gory, and some interesting findings resulted. A major a president or advisers make successful selections? distinction emerged between the unstructured inter- Research in industrial psychology suggests that the view format and the structured interview format. best information is related to what a candidate has Unstructured interview formats do not seek to collect actually done in their career, not what they say they information about specific topics, vary the questions would do if given the job. This distinction is import- among candidates, and are the meeting equivalent of a ant. L. M. Hough found that past-focused questions “free for all.” These types of interviews are commonly aimed at uncovering a candidate’s “accomplishment practiced and associated with low success rates. record” were highly predictive of future perfor- In contrast, structured interviews use a set of cri- mance. An accomplishment record is simply a record teria, follow a consistent set of interview questions, of a candidate’s past accomplishments that are and seek to systematically collect data to inform a hir- relevant to the job for which he or she is interviewing. ing decision. Researchers in the late 1980s and 1990s The underlying notion is that the best predictor of consistently suggest that structured interviews are future performance is past performance.48

15 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

If an interviewer were not to ask questions about In his Handbook of Industrial and Organizational a person’s actual accomplishment record, then what Psychology article, R. M. Guion concluded that it is would they ask a candidate? Unskilled interviewers difficult to advocate the use of personality measures ask candidates hypothetical questions. Asking such in most situations in which assessment decisions questions (e.g., “How would you handle a certain type are made.51 of situation?”) may be tempting for trying to evalu- Some of the common methods described here ate a candidate. However, decades of research sug- are problematic predictors of future success and gest that answers to such questions are not helpful or unlikely to generate positive outcomes, like the predictive of how people actually perform on the job. unstructured interview and psychological evalu- While this may be useful for understanding whether ations. Others, like structured interviews and job a candidate has an intuition for the political aspect of analyses, illustrate important building blocks for a a position, studies have found that these responses successful hiring framework. would say little about how he would actually react in the position. In contrast to past-oriented interviews, hypothet- What Improvements to the Selection ical interviews or work samples ask job applicants to Process Are Likely to Lead to Higher picture a set of imaginary circumstances and then Success Rates? indicate how they would respond in that situation. For example, “How would you approach resolving a Research is one thing. How can a president and senior conflict between coworkers? How would you go about advisers put a scientifically reliable approach to selec- organizing and planning a project? How many hours tion into practice? would you work in this job per week?” This section applies the half century of research in In a study of 216 incumbents in a “large federal industrial and organizational psychology reviewed in organization,” the hypothetical method of interview- the previous section and comes out of our work over ing was shown to be a poor predictor of job perfor- the past 25 years in assessing tens of thousands of mance, whereas the past-focused interviewing format candidates for selection, primarily in large private- method was a valid predictor of job performance. sector organizations but also large not-for-profit orga- Correlations between the assessment score and the nizations, and working as advisers across five cabi- person’s subsequent performance rating score were net and senior staff selection processes for several an unimpressive r = –0.02 (ns) for the hypothetical sitting governors. The insights and suggestions are interview and a more robust r = 0.32 (p < 0.05) for the also drawn from data analysis provided by professor past-oriented interview.49 Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago.52 What are other alternatives to evaluate and select The following method, called the “A Method for candidates? Psychological tests (tests that attempt Hiring,” has been shown to improve hiring success to categorize people into various personality types) rates from 50 percent (which is the standard hiring do not appear to be reliable solutions to improving success rate across all sectors) to 90 percent. We the success rates of cabinet selection. Psychologi- define “hiring success” as the absence of regret in cal testing has long been used to measure personal- selecting a person one year after they were hired. ity characteristics or cognitive abilities. These tests This is the most effective way of measuring success rarely surpass the r = 0.53 level of validity in predict- because it fully captures satisfaction with candi- ing job performance for lower- to middle-level posi- date selection. tions.50 For senior-level positions that are arguably To summarize this process in simple terms, the more complex than narrowly defined jobs are, the use keys to successful selection are figuring out what of psychological testing is even more problematic. you want the person to do on the job, generating a

16 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

list of candidates, collecting valid and reliable data to military action abroad, in order to focus resources on be able to select a person who has at least a 90 percent promoting domestic progress.” chance of performing the role successfully, and con- For lower-level appointments, when an adminis- vincing the person to accept the job offer. We explore tration’s needs may be more ambiguous, clearheaded and illustrate each step in turn. evaluations of a position’s mission, roles, and responsibilities matter even more. Again, this is a nonpartisan report, and there is no right way to write Four Steps to Better Cabinet and Senior a scorecard; our only point here is that a scorecard Staff Selection must be created for each role as a first step in practicing good selection. There are four steps to better cabinet and senior The outcomes that might be expected of a sec- staff hiring: defining the selection criteria or the retary of Health and Human Services could be “to scorecard for the role, sourcing candidates, using achieve 0% growth in annual healthcare costs per structured interviewing to collect valid data on the capita by 2024.” A more sophisticated version for candidates, and convincing the selected candidate to the same role might be to “successfully manage and accept the appointment. implement the roll-out of a complex Medicaid Part D expansion within 12 months of taking office, while increasing program participation among eligible Scorecard low-income Americans by 20% and cutting administrative overhead by 5%.” What is important in writing A scorecard describes what results are expected to be outcomes is to name the result you expect the person achieved in a role. It is the set of “criteria” used to to achieve, by a certain date. make a selection. Competencies refer to the behaviors, skills, styles, The first step in good selection is to articulate, in and approaches that a candidate is likely to use to writing, what the mission for the role is, identify what accomplish the outcomes and mission of a role. The specific outcomes you expect the person to achieve, desired competencies for one administration may be and list the competencies that matter most. Just radically different from the desired competencies in like an Olympic archer could not be expected to hit another administration. For example, is open debate a bull’s-eye while blindfolded, a hiring manager can- with the president encouraged or discouraged? Is not make a successful hire without knowing what the the desired style of decision-making in the admin- “target” is. It is also important to eliminate bias in istration fast and fluid or slower and more planful? hiring; one key element of structure that reduces bias Should an appointee manage the bureaucracy or be is to use a consistent set of criteria to evaluate each guided by their expertise? candidate (e.g., so that decisions are made based on Competencies can also be role specific. For exam- objective criteria rather than a biased “gut feeling”). ple, detail-orientation may be of paramount impor- The mission for the role is a simple statement tance for the role of secretary of the Treasury but about what you expect the role to achieve. For exam- somewhat less important for the role of secretary of ple, for secretary of state, a mission statement might the Interior. Table 4 defines a list of common com- be “to achieve peace through promoting economic petencies, from which a subset may be selected for a interdependence first, military influence second.” In scorecard or all of which may be used as a checklist a different administration, the mission might be “to during the evaluation process. assert American military power to promote freedom The experiences of one cabinet hiring process at globally.” Another secretary of state mission might the state level show why this process is crucial. The be “to systematically withdraw from diplomatic and newly elected governor and his chief of staff were

17 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Table 4. List of Competencies

Term Definition Efficiency Able to produce significant output with minimal wasted effort Honesty/Integrity Does not cut corners ethically; earns trust and maintains confi- dences; speaks plainly and truthfully Organization and Planning Plans, organizes, schedules, and budgets in an efficient, productive manner; focuses on key priorities Aggressiveness Moves quickly and takes a forceful stand without being overly abrasive Follow-Through on Commitments Lives up to verbal and written agreements, regardless of personal cost Raw Intelligence Learns quickly; demonstrates ability to quickly and proficiently understand and absorb new information Analytical Skills Able to structure and process qualitative or quantitative data and draw insightful conclusions from it; exhibits probing mind and achieves pene- trating insights Attention to Detail Does not let important details slip through the cracks Persistence Demonstrates tenacity and willingness to go the distance to get something done Proactivity Acts without being told what to do; brings new ideas to the table Ability to Hire A Players (for Managers) Sources, selects, and sells talented people on joining the administration Ability to Develop People (for Managers) Coaches people in their current roles to improve performance and prepares them for future roles Flexibility/Adaptability Adjusts quickly to changing priorities and conditions; copes effectively with complexity and change Calm Under Pressure Maintains stable performance when under heavy pressure or stress Strategic Thinking/Visioning Able to see and communicate the big picture in an inspiring way; determines opportunities and threats through comprehensive analysis of current and future trends Creativity/Innovation Generates new and innovative approaches to problems Enthusiasm Exhibits passion and excitement over work; has a “can do” attitude Work Ethic Possesses a strong willingness to work hard and sometimes long hours to get the job done; has a track record of working hard High Standards Expects personal performance and team performance to be nothing short of the best Listening Skills Lets others speak and seeks to understand their viewpoints Openness to Criticism and Ideas Often solicits feedback and reacts calmly to receiving criticism or negative feedback Communication Speaks and writes clearly and articulately without being overly verbose or talkative; maintains this standard in all forms of written communication, including email Teamwork Reaches out to peers and cooperates with supervisors to establish an overall collaborative working relationship Persuasion Able to convince others to pursue a course of action

Source: Authors.

18 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

debating the scorecard for the budget director role. who served under him during his two terms. That What was the mission for this role? Was it going to administration’s results were widely praised and car- be to simply manage the budget process compe- ried the governor through a successful reelection. tently but not affect the outcome? Or was the per- Other key questions we have observed during the son expected to conduct analyses and be able to cabinet scorecard creation process are: negotiate with legislators? We all agreed that the ideal candidate’s profile would change dramatically • To what extent do we want the cabinet leaders depending on whether the governor wanted a “green to be autonomous (e.g., making decisions on lampshade accountant” versus a “financial bulldog” their own) versus centralized (seeking much versus a “data-driven negotiator.” guidance from the White House) in their man- In another cabinet hiring process for a different agement of their agencies and departments? governor, we observed a great deal of disagreement about the scorecard for that state’s version of a com- • What is “hard but important” that this cabinet merce secretary. Were the outcomes here just num- leader must achieve this term? ber of jobs created? Were all jobs created equal? The administration ultimately decided the desired out- • To what extent do we want our executive come was to increase the number of not just jobs branch leaders to exist merely to support overall, but “knowledge work” jobs, and to attract the political agenda that we are champion- more of those types of employers by improving edu- ing through the legislature? How important is cation and training in key areas. political affiliation to us? The point here is that it is not at all obvious what the scorecard should be for a cabinet leader. • How might the scorecard for a cabinet role It is entirely up to the principal elected official change as time goes on in an administra- (president, governor, or mayor) to decide what the tion’s term (e.g., needing a “turnaround mission, outcomes, and competencies are for key agent,” “figurehead,” or “steady hand” in the leadership positions. early phase)? When making hiring decisions, some newly elected leaders will prioritize political support, oth- Answering these questions will not get you exactly ers specialized academic expertise, and others still what you need. A leader still must, after all, create administrative experience; the most important task, the scorecard. But these questions allow an incoming though, is to identify a strategy that works and eval- leader to develop and structure the tools needed to uate candidates based on that decision. One adminis- organize their priorities and set their goals. tration we advised took an entirely “meritocratic” and In summary, having a scorecard is required in the “nonpartisan” approach to making senior appoint- practice of good hiring. But what appears inside it ments. Behind closed doors, that governor made his is entirely context and administration specific. For- preferences clear. “I do not believe what will make going the scorecard is to accept greater unreliability this cabinet successful is the degree to which we are and bias in the selection process than is necessary aligned in our political views,” he said. “I choose to or desirable. take a contrary approach, which is to put ‘competence and character’ far above political views in making these selections.” Source By setting expectations for his staff, the gover- nor could use the most effective possible methods To source means to generate a list of candidates. to evaluate candidates. Indeed, that governor did not There are many ways to generate a list of candidates. even ask what the political affiliations were of those It has been our experience that recently elected

19 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

or reelected leaders to the executive branch do not and data-gathering to increase the confidence in the have a hard time generating a flow of candidates. selection decision. Evaluating the various approaches is outside the focus After a candidate is sourced, what should mem- of this report. bers of the selection committee talk about with One important priority at this step in the selec- the candidate in the first meeting (whether it be by tion process is to ensure a diverse candidate pool, phone, video, or in person)? For early interviews, we which reflects the demographic makeup of the recommend a screening interview. This is a one-on- population. This requires energy. Diverse sourc- one interview (to preserve the time of the selection ing does not happen on its own, since “referrals” committee), whose purpose is to collect key pieces from networks of relationship often follow a similar of data quickly to allow the selection committee to demographic pattern as the person asking for refer- begin to rank-order the list of candidates. rals. Generating a comprehensive list of qualified As with all the interviews we present with the candidates is paramount to finding the right person “A Method for Hiring,” we advocate a structured for the job, as the selection process will invariably approach to screening interviews. This means follow- winnow candidates from the field for important ing a common set of questions every time you screen personal, professional, and political reasons. somebody. The consistency reduces unconscious Finally, in the spirit of sourcing capable and bias (e.g., treating candidates the same is better than diverse candidates, our research and experience in treating candidates differently) and increases the sourcing candidates for cabinet roles suggest that it ability to calibrate relative strengths and weaknesses is wise to focus on candidates who have the talent between candidates. to execute an administration’s policy program, the In the screening interview, four questions help temperament to fit the administration’s leadership build a comprehensive fact base for rejecting can- style, and the timing to ensure that the candidate didates who do not match the scorecard: What are would be willing to move into the role at this stage your career goals? What are your greatest strengths? of his or her career.53 What are your areas for improvement? How would your last five bosses or key advisers rate your performance one (low) to 10 (high) and why? Select The reader is encouraged to observe that nowhere in the proper screening interview are there “random” The “select” step is when a list of candidates is eval- questions about the weather, sports, vacations, or uated and narrowed down to the winner. The task of other topics that are used to “make conversation” or evaluating an (often) large list of candidates in a short “test for chemistry.” The problem with randomness period and arriving at a selection that does not turn in interviews is that it is inconsistent, and inconsis- out regrettable is one of the most challenging tasks tency produces bias. And the problem with asking that successful executives face. people personal questions about casual conversation The goal of this step is to arrive at a finalist who topics is that these topics have little to do with the has at least a 90 percent chance of achieving the job, also increasing bias. scorecard. Our experience advising executives across For example, imagine if a president were to make tens of thousands of selection events suggests that conversation to “test for chemistry” by asking a can- to attempt to select a candidate with more than didate about her recent vacation. She describes her 90 percent certainty is not practical because of the vacation, which was to attend a sailing regatta, where time and resources required. Tolerating less than there was champagne in silver ice buckets and a beau- 90 percent confidence in a hiring decision is deemed tiful modern art exhibit on shore. Imagine if that unwise because the expected costs of hiring mistakes president also loves sailing, champagne, and mod- outweigh the costs of conducting further research ern art. So the two “hit it off,” and the president

20 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

concludes that there is great chemistry and fit. Now or “tell me more.” Keep using this framework until imagine the next candidate who was asked about a you are clear about what the person is really saying. vacation talked about planting a community garden We once asked a cabinet-level candidate the ques- in his neighborhood. Let’s say that story bored the tion, “What are you not good at or not interested in president, who does not like gardening, so he strug- doing professionally?” The candidate replied, “I am gles to remain focused on the conversation and finds not great at candy-coating tough messages.” This can- his mind wandering. In this second case, perhaps the didate was known as being a “true believer” in the president concludes that the “chemistry” with the political ideology of his party. The question on every- second candidate was not good and therefore rejects one’s mind was whether he could play nicely in the that candidate. sandbox with colleagues and constituents. This “random and casual” approach to informal His answer could mean many things. So, we used interviewing is loaded with bias. Worse than simply “what,” “how,” and “tell me more” to gather more being an unfair method for evaluating candidates, it good data. It went like this: unreliably predicts how a person will perform in the job. When little time during that style of interview “What does it look like when you don’t candy- is spent talking about substantive topics and experi- coat tough messages?” ences, the White House is left with little usable data to make a responsible choice. “I tell the truth. I tell it like it is. Some people If informal interviewing is biased and unreliable, can’t handle that.” what are ways to reduce bias and improve reliability of selection decisions? We offer several tactics to col- “How do other people take it?” lect good data. Good data—data that are reliable and predictive measures of future behavior—are descrip- “Not well sometimes.” tions of actual events and behaviors in a person’s past. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behav- “What is an example?” ior. Again, this does not include what people say they “would do” in a situation, because that is an example “The example that comes to mind is when I of the unreliable hypothetical style of interviewing. was serving as a legislator and we were close There is a temptation to test a candidate’s hypotheti- to getting an important bill passed.” cal responses to new situations to gauge their political instincts, but better data would make use of descrip- “Tell me more.” tions of what a candidate “did do” in relevant past situations to project future responses. “Well, it was actually a member of my own party. I probably could have been more deli- cate, but I told her that she had to support it, What, How, and Tell Me More and publicly, or that I would end her career. I’m good at navigating around people and box- There are thousands of additional questions you could ing them into a corner and making them bend ask during interviews to gather better data. Rather to my will.” than create a rigid and unwieldy screening guide that tries to cover all the possibilities, we use a simple pro- “How did she take that?” cess called “getting curious.” Here’s how it works: After a candidate answers one of the primary ques- “Not well. We got into a screaming match for tions above, get curious about the answer by asking about an hour. I never did find out why she a follow-up question that begins with “what,” “how,” was not comfortable supporting my bill. But

21 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

when the stakes are high, I don’t really care focused questions about those sections. For exam- what the reason is, I just wanted to get it done ple, during one cabinet hiring process to appoint at all costs.” The candidate actually smiled as a replacement executive director for the Depart- he was saying this. ment of Corrections, the scorecard was divided into four different areas of focus: One interviewer asked “They say politics can be a blood sport, eh?” about the person’s experiences with criminal justice reform, one probed into the candidate’s expe- “Yes! And those of us who win at this sport riences with rehabilitation programs and policies, have more of a killer instinct than other one looked at financial management experiences, people. This game is not for the faint of heart.” and one examined the candidate’s people management experiences leading an organization at scale. That candidate was not selected for a cabinet role. At the beginning of each focused interview, the can- The reason was not just that he was more interested didate is told that the purpose of this interview is to in the thrill of political maneuvering and coercion talk about the interviewer’s particular area of focus. than he was in achieving positive outcomes—a style The candidate is then asked for examples in which that was incompatible with that particular adminis- he has and has not succeeded in this area, all using tration’s values. He was rejected mostly because his the “get curious” approach. style of working was so toxic and combative that it After conducting these focused interviews, the would have been an obstacle to creating that adminis- interviewing team convenes to compare the data tration’s desired culture of cooperation and respect- they received and to assign preliminary scores to ful problem-solving. This style never would have candidates across the categories on the scorecard been evident from a resume or a traditional hiring to determine who should advance to the final round interview; it required that the interviewer “get curi- of interviews. ous” about past experiences. What was deemed more important than their “die hard loyalty” to the cause was the person’s fit to the team culture. The Who Interview

Once the long list of candidates has been screened Focused Interviews and three or four finalists are left, it is time to use the “who interview.” Since many people are involved in screening can- This interview method was designed to be consis- didates, one question that arises is “What ques- tent with the half century of research in the field of tions should different interviewers ask of the same industrial psychology. This approach represents the candidate?” This goal is to collect more good data results of years of academic research that has been while not wasting time by asking repetitive ques- honed by the “trial and error” of expert practitioners tions. For example, a worst practice is for five dif- over decades in the hiring and appointment process ferent people in a hiring committee to ask the same of tens of thousands of executives. candidate the same questions, such as “Why should The who interview is an in-depth interview that we appoint you?,” “Would you tell me about your- seeks to collect 400–800 data points across a per- self?,” “Would you please walk me through your son’s entire career life. It does not contain hypo- resume?,” or “Is there anything you want to tell thetical questions (how would you . . .); it contains us about what we might uncover during your FBI only questions designed to collect real-life data of background check?” what the candidate has done and the consequences The best practice is for multiple interviewers to of their behavior. This style of interview does not carve the scorecard into different sections and ask resemble “chitchat” in that it follows a consistent

22 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

structure—a structure that is repeated for each Active Listening candidate to avoid bias and to collect good data. The who interview begins by asking the candi- Novice interviewers typically err on the side of either date to talk about where they grew up, what some being too “informal and conversational” or too “stern key influences were in their early years, and what and formal.” Both extremes reduce rapport and they were known for. This not only “warms up” the reduce the number and quality of data points col- candidate but also allows the interviewer to begin to lected during an interview. Novices talk too much, see patterns of behavior that begin at an early age. preventing the candidate from providing information. Next, the candidate is asked to discuss high points, And they talk too little, staring blank-faced at a can- low points, grades, and test scores from their edu- didate who is wondering whether his or her story is cation years. being heard or understood. The bulk of the remainder of the interview is In contrast, expert interviewers practice “active designed to understand the candidate’s behaviors listening.” Active listening is a technique in which the and results in each job they have had. Or, if there are interviewer shows the candidate that they are being time constraints, it’s particularly important to discuss heard and understood by empathetically repeating every job the candidate has had in the past 15 years the points that are being made. Here is a basic level (the most relevant period of leadership). of interviewer skill in active listening, based loosely Five core questions are repeated for each job: on what we observed during one cabinet appointment process. 1. What were you hired to do? “I resigned from the cabinet because I had a 2. What did you accomplish that you were difference of opinion about some procedural most proud of in that job? How did you issues which were too dictatorial.” accomplish it? What were mistakes and lessons learned? “It sounds like you did not agree with some procedures.” 3. Who was on your team? Whom did you hire or fire? “Yes. They were too intrusive.”

4. What was your primary boss’ or key That example of active listening achieves the goal adviser’s name? How did she or he rate of signaling to the candidate that their point has been your performance? What will she or he heard and understood, and it encourages elaboration. say were your strengths or weaknesses But the interviewer does not have the full story yet. in that job? There is an even higher-skill way to practice active listening. That is to reflect not just the words but also 5. What were your reasons for leaving? the emotion behind a statement. This builds extra rapport and often yields even better data. For example: The interview concludes by asking the candidate what their future career goals and aspirations are. “I resigned from the cabinet because I had a Many techniques enable a skilled interviewer difference of opinion about some procedural to build rapport and collect the most useful data issues which were way too dictatorial.” possible, which increases the hiring success rate. Please see Appendix F for an interview guide. “It sounds like you felt coerced or controlled by some procedures.”

23 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

“Exactly! I mean, did we really have to 1. How did your performance compare to attend all of these cabinet meetings in per- previous year performance (e.g., if a candi- son? Why couldn’t we dial in for them? It date reports that “we were able to reduce made no sense!” the spending in an important category in my department from $75 billion to $50 bil- “It sounds like you preferred to dial in for lion per year, while maintaining the same cabinet meetings, but you were expected to service levels”)? attend in person. How many meetings did you dial in for versus attend I wonder?” 2. How did your performance compare to the plan (e.g., find out what the plan was “Well, that’s sort of embarrassing. I never compared to the person’s performance)? showed up for any cabinet meetings. They were held monthly. I mean, I felt like I could 3. How did your performance compare to contribute just as well by phone. I was busy, peers (e.g., in jobs in which a person had and I was living about two hours away at the peers doing similar jobs, find out how time. Anyway, I was asked to resign from the their performance compared to that of cabinet if I was unwilling to attend the meet- their peers)? ings in person, so I did.” One final tactic for calibrating accomplishments By building rapport, interviewers can build is related to knowing how much “weight” to put trust and learn valuable information in the inter- on a particular data point. Industrial psychologists view. The “exactly” moment followed by the rich pay particular attention to behavioral data that data under the surface is what interviewers can are “recent,” “frequent,” or carry a high “magni- expect as they practice the advanced version of tude.” For example, it is more relevant if a candi- active listening. date failed and was terminated from her most recent job as opposed to, say, a job that was 20 years ago. It is more relevant that a person in five of their last Calibrating Accomplishments and Mistakes five jobs displayed overly argumentative behavior during staff meetings versus if the person did so in Government leadership roles are complex, and the only one meeting during his or her 30-year career. contexts are always different. It is sometimes diffi- Finally, it is more relevant if a person missed a dead- cult to “calibrate” the degree to which a candidate’s line that cost taxpayers $500 versus if the person accomplishment in a job is a great achievement or a missed a deadline that wound up costing taxpayers minimal one. Similarly, it is difficult to calibrate what $5 million. Expert interviewers pay attention to the a mistake means. Was it a “small lesson learned or a recency, frequency, and magnitude of behavioral costly blunder?” data in evaluating and ranking candidates. It is also important to figure out whether the candidate was actually the one driving a particular outcome, whether they were merely on a Push-Pull team that did the work, or whether the candidate had nothing to do with the outcome at all and was One can sometimes tell if somebody was a great only coincidentally “there” when greatness or fail- performer by whether they were pushed out of their ure transpired. jobs or pulled to better opportunities. We recom- Three follow-up questions are helpful for calibrat- mend against hiring anybody who has been pushed ing any accomplishment a candidate describes: out of more than 20 percent of previous positions or

24 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

who has job-hopped with excessive frequency, espe- • For managerial hires, candidate has never cially when their bosses did not try to retain them. had to hire or fire anybody. Here is how to go about this. After you ask, “Why did you leave that job?,” you will hear one of • Candidate is self-absorbed. Self-absorbed two answers: executives rarely perform well on teams, and every cabinet or senior staff is a team 1. Push. “It was mutual.” “It was time for me to some extent. to leave.” “My boss and I were not getting along.” “Judy got promoted and I did not.” Once all the data have been collected through the “My role shrunk.” “I missed my goals and various interviews and reference checks, it’s time to was told I was on thin ice.” “I slapped my assign final grades on the scorecard by candidate. boss during a staff meeting and was fired on This process will make clear the choices that are the spot.” (That is a true story.) before the selection committee. If there is only one candidate who achieves an A-rating (which we define 2. Pull. “My old boss recruited me to a big- as at least a 90 percent chance of success in achiev- ger job.” “The new Executive Director ing the scorecard), then hire her. If several candidates asked me to take a double-promotion.” “A receive overall “A” grades, then choose the one who former peer went to a different state and rec- stands out in the way that is most important. ommended me.” For example, it will become clear that the first candidate is a passionate party loyalist who is artic- During the who interview, watch for red flags in ulate and will represent us well talking to the media, the data. Based on our experience, the major red but the second candidate better manages large, com- flags include: plex organizations. The third candidate appears to be capable but extremely independent (which may not • Candidate does not mention past failures. be desirable), but the fourth candidate’s leadership This indicates too much ego or a lack of a style is to seek more input and be more collaborative performance mindset. (which may be preferable). Conceptually, we think of an ideal candidate as one • Candidate exaggerates his or her answers. who perfectly matches the “skill-will bull’s-eye.” That is, they have demonstrated the skill to do the job. As • Candidate takes credit for others’ work. important, they also demonstrate the will, or desire, to do the job. For example, candidates who are moti- • Candidate speaks poorly of relationships vated by a genuine motivation “to serve” generally do with past bosses. A reliable predictor of better than candidates who appear more interested whether the president will like working in basking in the glow of the spotlight of cabinet and with someone is the degree to which that senior staff jobs. A candidate who is lacking in one or person’s previous bosses liked working the other will have a lower probability of achieving with them during their career. the scorecard than one who has a high level of both factors. To achieve higher than a 90 percent hiring • Candidate cannot explain job moves. success rate, it is important to hire candidates whose Unexplained job moves are often unex- skill and will both hit the bull’s-eye. plained because something bad happened Consider the following illustrative example —poor performance; conflicts with bosses, about the skill-will bull’s-eye. We observed a selec- peers, or subordinates; or other negative tion process at the state level for executive direc- behavioral reasons. tor of a Department of Family and Human Services.

25 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

The administration wanted a “turnaround manager” that their talents and interests “fit” the role and the to come in and reset strategy, overhaul the complex culture of the administration, “family” (meaning the organization, and redesign key processes in managing degree to which any significant others or other key this large workforce and multibillion-dollar budget. influencers are supportive of the person taking the The first candidate was a passionate “advocate” for job), “freedom” (perceptions that the candidate will health-related causes and was perfectly aligned polit- have some autonomy in leading his or her depart- ically with the administration. However, despite all ment or agency and not just be a drone of the admin- the vetting that was done before an in-depth assess- istration), “fortune” (the long-term career benefits ment of her capabilities, nobody seemed to be con- of serving in the role are worth it), and “fun” (per- cerned that she had never managed another human ceptions of the degree to which serving in a cabinet being. Not one. Managing a large, complex govern- or senior staff role will be considered fulfilling to the ment agency requires a robust skill set—strategy, hir- candidate as opposed to unsatisfying misery). ing and firing, performance management, budgeting, monitoring and holding people accountable, conflict resolution, and so forth. But this candidate had spent Obstacles to Selling Cabinet and Senior her career advocating for at-risk populations as an Staff on Accepting the Appointment individual contributor. So, while she had the “will” to do this job, there was little evidence that she had While conducting research on successful and unsuc- developed the “skill” to turn around an organization cessful public servants for our book Leadocracy: of this scale. Hiring More Great Leaders (Like You) into Government, Appointing a cabinet leader with no management we observed three constraints to otherwise talented experience and expecting her to learn it on the job cabinet leaders accepting appointments.54 The first is equivalent to selecting a newly minted doctor to concern candidates have is related to “confidence.” do your heart surgery. The selection committee ulti- Good candidates sometimes are uncertain that their mately concluded that hiring a passionate party loy- previous experience has prepared them for the “big alist to lead a complex large-scale organizational stage” in assuming a cabinet appointment. This does turnaround of a large department would have carried not mean they are not a great candidate; it just with it a sub–10 percent chance of success. means you need to address this concern if you want Instead, a different candidate was appointed based to persuade them to accept the job. on the evidence that he had faced similar turnaround The second concern is “cost,” as candidates won- challenges previously and that he had consistently der to what extent this job, with its government managed to achieve success. His party loyalty was salary, will present an opportunity cost to other, deemed to be sufficient, but what was perceived to more lucrative jobs. To overcome this obstacle, the be more important was managerial competence. This selection committee can emphasize how a two- or second candidate’s skill-will bull’s-eye was deemed a four-year stint in government will not negatively closer match to ideal. That assessment proved to be affect one’s earning power during an entire career correct, since the executive director ended up being and highlight the benefits associated with serving in revered for high performance and positive impact a cabinet role—making a positive impact, creating across a long tenure in that role. relationships, learning, and testing one’s leadership skill set. The third obstacle is “confidentiality.” This obsta- Sell cle is harder to overcome than the first two. The real- ity is that in this day, all cabinet and senior staff roles Our research and practice suggest that people take are in the spotlight. You will be watched. You will be jobs based on one or more of five factors: perceptions critiqued to an extent that is more invasive of one’s

26 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

privacy than in other less senior government jobs or achieve a higher return on investment in cabinet and in private-sector or not-for-profit jobs. It would be senior staff salary dollars, not to mention better out- appropriate to point out to the candidate that the comes in international relations, infrastructure, jus- president certainly takes the brunt of the media scru- tice, safety, education, health care, and the promise tiny while acknowledging that cabinet leaders also of achieving the American dream. face scrutiny. Communications professionals pro- When the executive branch hires and develops tal- vide support to help cabinet leaders manage their ented, diverse, and good-hearted leaders, America’s messages with the media and constituents. But the capability—its leadership capability—increases the lack of confidentiality or privacy is real for the cou- prospect of achieving a safer and more prosperous rageous and selfless public servants who heed their world and an elevation of the quality of human life. president’s calling to serve. It is the necessary price of transparency and accountability. About the Authors

Conclusion Geoff Smart is chairman and founder of leadership advisory firm ghSMART. He is theNew York Times Selecting a cabinet and senior staff is important bestselling coauthor (with Randy Street) of Who: and hard. Of course, federal government cabinet The A Method for Hiring (Ballantine Books, 2008). appointments include additional steps and hurdles He holds a PhD in psychology from Claremont not found at the state, local, or organizational lev- Graduate University. els (such as Senate confirmation). These real con- siderations may restrict the pool of politically viable Maria Blair is a partner at ghSMART and advises candidates. But our point has been to show places CEOs and government leaders on hiring and develop- in the overall process in which outdated, biased, and ing talented teams. She is a Rhodes scholar who previ- unreliable methods can be replaced with current, ously worked at McKinsey & Company and served in less-biased, and reliable methods. This has been our the White House. focus in this report, and our suggestions are entirely within the control of a president and senior advisers Jeff McLean is a principal at ghSMART. A Fulbright on the selection committee. scholar, he was appointed a White House Fellow and Practicing good executive selection methods served as a fighter pilot, test pilot, and department does not guarantee successful results. It matters head in the US Navy. how the cabinet is managed, for example.55 How- ever, by avoiding preventable mistakes in cabinet and senior staff selection, a president can set Acknowledgments himself or herself up for a greater degree of success than being plagued by costly and distracting Thank you to ghSMART Managing Partner Randy hiring mistakes. Street for his input and perspective and to the hun- If the four steps outlined in this report are dreds of clients and tens of thousands of executives followed—score, source, select, and sell—a presi- whose careers provide the data set upon which this dent can expect to achieve a 90 percent selection research and insights were based. success rate. When that happens, taxpayers will

27 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix A. Scorecard

Role:

Candidate Name:

Name of Interviewer:

Date:

Overall Rating and Comments (A,B,C):

Recommendation: Hire/No Hire

28 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix B. Mission

The mission for this role is to…

OUTCOMES RATING and COMMENTS

1 Statement » Measurable goal » Measurable goal » Measurable goal

2 Statement » Measurable goal » Measurable goal » Measurable goal

3 Statement » Measurable goal » Measurable goal » Measurable goal

4 Statement » Measurable goal » Measurable goal » Measurable goal

5 Statement » Measurable goal » Measurable goal » Measurable goal

29 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix C. Competencies

RATING (A, B, C) AND COMMENTS ADMINISTRATION’S VALUES Think win-win Speak up but listen too Focus on the result, not just the process Focus, focus, focus RIGHT PRIORITIES Brainpower/learns quickly Analysis skills Strategic thinking/visioning Creative/innovative Sets high standards and goals RIGHT WHO Hires A players Develops people Removes underperformers Network of talented people RIGHT RELATIONSHIPS Organization and planning Integrity/honesty Calm under pressure Aggressive Moves fast Follows through on commitments Attention to detail Enthusiasm/ability to motivate others Persistent Proactivity/takes initiative (continued on next page)

30 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

(Appendix C continued from previous page) Work ethic Treats people with respect Flexible/adaptable Listening skills Open to criticism and others’ ideas Written communications Oral communication Teamwork Persuasion Holds people accountable TECHNICAL Finance Executive Branch Legislative Savvy Source: ©2020 by G.H. Smart & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

31 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix D. Screening Interview

Candidate Name:

Name of Interviewer:

Date:

Overall Rating and Comments (A,B,C):

Recommendation: Proceed/Do Not Proceed

1. What are your career goals?

2. What are your greatest strengths?

3. What are your areas for improvement?

4. How would your last 5 bosses/key advisors rate your performance 1 (low) to 10 (high) and why?

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

32 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix E. Focused Interview

Candidate Name:

Role:

Name of Interviewer:

Date:

AREA OF FOCUS FOR THIS INTERVIEW (e.g. management skills, technical expertise, etc.):

1. The purpose of this interview is to talk about [area of focus from the scorecard, for this interview]. Let’s talk about some examples when you have succeeded in this area.

2. Let’s talk about some examples of when you did not succeed in this area.

33 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Appendix F. Who Interview

(Repeated for each job candidate has had for at least the past 15 years)

Early Years

Let’s start at the beginning of your story. Where did you grow up?

Who were some key influences in your early years?

What were you known for in your early years?

High School High Points Low Points GPA SAT/ACT Scores

University High Points Low Points GPA GMAT Score (continued on next page)

34 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

(Appendix F continued from previous page) Years of Employment Company Name Role What were you hired to do?

What did you accomplish that you were most proud of? How did you accomplish it?

What were mistakes and lessons learned?

Who was on your team?

(Hiring, firing, developing team)

Primary Boss' or Key Advisor’s Name?

How did your boss rate your performance

1 (low) – 10 (high)? Strengths

Weaknesses

What were your reasons for leaving?

Career Goals

What are your career goals?

35 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

Notes

1. Geoff Smart and Randy Street,Who: The A Method for Hiring (New York: Random House, 2008). 2. Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, “Tracking Turnover in the Trump Administration,” Brookings Institution, October 2020, https:// www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/. 3. See, for example, Partnership for Public Services, Center for Presidential Transition, “Presidential Transition Guide: A Compre- hensive Guide to the Activities Required During the Transition,” https://presidentialtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/01/ Presidential-Transition-Guide-2020.pdf. 4. White House, “The Cabinet,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-trump-administration/the-cabinet/. 5. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005). 6. John P. Burke, Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., 2000), 199. 7. US Const., art. II, § 2, cl. I, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii. 8. Forest McDonald, The Presidency of George Washington (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1974). 9. George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1939), 334. 10. Goodwin, Team of Rivals. 11. Ronald Moe, “The President’s Cabinet: Evolution, Alternatives, and Proposals for Change,” Congressional Research Service, September 12, 2000, http://congressionalresearch.com/RL30673/document.php?study=THE+PRESIDENTS+CABINET+EVOLUTION+ ALTERNATIVES+AND+PROPOSALS+FOR+CHANGE. 12. Moe, “The President’s Cabinet.” 13. Moe, “The President’s Cabinet.” 14. Charles Jones, The Presidency in a Separated System (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005). 15. Nelson W. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making: Lessons for the Political System,” Political Science Quarterly 93, no. 1 (Spring 1978): 15–25, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2149047?seq=1. 16. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making.” 17. Janet Martin, “Frameworks for Cabinet Studies,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 18, no. 4 (Fall 1988): 793–814, https://www.jstor. org/stable/40574731?seq=1. 18. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making.” 19. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making.” Emphasis added. 20. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making.” 21. Martin, “Frameworks for Cabinet Studies.” 22. Martin, “Frameworks for Cabinet Studies.” 23. Martin, “Frameworks for Cabinet Studies.” 24. Richard Neustadt, “Approaches to Staffing the Presidency: Notes on FDR and JFK,” American Political Science Review 57, no. 4 (December 1963): 855–64. 25. Polsby, “Presidential Cabinet Making.” 26. Zach Piaker, “Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointees,” Partnership for Public Services, Center for Presidential Transition, March 16, 2016. 27. Smart and Street, Who. 28. Tenpas, “Tracking Turnover.” 29. Jennifer Christie (chief human resources officer, Twitter), in discussion with the authors. 30. Anne Joseph O’Connell, “Staffing Federal Agencies: Lessons from 1981–2016,” Brookings Institution, April 2017, https://www. brookings.edu/research/staffing-federal-agencies-lessons-from-1981-2016/.

36 HIRING GOVERNMENT LEADERS SMART, BLAIR, AND MCLEAN

31. E. J. Dionne and William Galston, “A Half-Empty Government Can’t Govern: Why Everyone Wants to Fix the Appointments Process, Why It Never Happens, and How We Can Get It Done,” Brookings Institution, December 2010, https://www.brookings.edu/ research/a-half-empty-government-cant-govern-why-everyone-wants-to-fix-the-appointments-process-why-it-never-happens-and- how-we-can-get-it-done/. 32. Dionne and Galston, “A Half-Empty Government Can’t Govern.” 33. Jared Cohen (presidential historian and former George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration political appointee), in discussion with the authors, June 2, 2020. 34. Lex Rieffel, “Trump’s Cabinet, Agency Picks and the Art of Policymaking,” Brookings Institution, December 2016, https://www. brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/12/16/trumps-cabinet-agency-picks-and-the-art-of-policymaking/. 35. G. S. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964). 36. R. W. Stuart and P. A. Abetti, “Impact of Entrepreneurial and Management Experience on Early Performance,” Journal of Busi- ness Venturing 5 (1990): 151–62; M. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: Free Press, 1985); and I. C. MacMillan, L. Zemann, and P. N. Subba Narasimha, “Criteria Distinguishing Successful from Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process,” Journal of Business Venturing 2 (1987): 123–37. 37. Arthur Rock, “Strategy vs. Tactics from a Business Capitalist,” Harvard Business Review (November–December 1987): 63. 38. R. M. Stogdill, “Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature,” Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 35–71. 39. M. M. Chemers, “The Social, Organizational, and Cultural Context of Leadership,” in Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. B. Kellerman (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984), 93–108. 40. D. Gladstone, Venture Capital Investing (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988). 41. R. M. Guion, “Personnel Assessment, Selection, and Placement,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2, ed. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991), 327–97; and J. P. Campbell, “Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial/Organizational Psychology,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychol- ogy, vol. 1, ed. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990), 687–732. 42. Herbert G. Heneman III, Timothy A. Judge, and John Kammeyer Mueller, Staffing Organizations (Middleton, WI: Mendota House, 1994). 43. M. S. Van Clieaf, “In Search of Competence: Structured Behavior Interviews,” Business Horizons 34, no. 2 (1991): 51–55. 44. P. L. Roth and J. E. Campion, “An Analysis of the Predictive Power of the Panel Interview and Pre-Employment Tests,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 65 (1992): 51–60. 45. W. H. Wiesner and S. F. Cronshaw, “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Impact of Interview Format and Degree of Structure on the Validity of the Employment Interview,” Journal of Occupational Psychology 61, no. 4 (1988): 275–90. 46. P. M. Wright, P. A. Lichtenfels, and E. D. Pursell, “The Structured Interview: Additional Studies and a Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Occupational Psychology 62, no. 3 (1989): 191–99. 47. E. D. Pulakos et al., “Individual Differences in Interviewer Ratings: The Impact of Standardization, Consensus Discussion, and Sampling Error on the Validity of a Structured Interview,” Personnel Psychology 49, no. 1 (1996): 85–102. 48. L. M. Hough, “Development and Evaluation of the ‘Accomplishment Record’ Method of Selecting and Promoting Professionals,” Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (1984): 135–46. 49. E. D. Pulakos and N. Schmitt, “Experience-Based and Situational Interview Questions: Studies of Validity,” Personnel Psychology 48, no. 2 (1995): 289–308. 50. Van Clieaf, “In Search of Competence.” 51. Guion, “Personnel Assessment, Selection, and Placement.” 52. Smart and Street, Who. 53. Geoff Smart,Leadocracy: Hiring More Great Leaders (Like You) into Government (Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2012). 54. Smart, Leadocracy. 55. Geoff Smart, Randy Street, and Alan Foster,Power Score: Your Formula for Leadership Success (New York: Ballantine Books, 2015).

37 © 2020 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s).