As I read Tyler Cowen’s musings at Bloomberg View on President-Elect Trump’s appointments:
In addition to expertise, an appointee may be picked for some of these reasons:
- Ability to command the interest of the public in policy change
- Ability to influence Congress
- Ability to think outside the usual Washington “boxesâ€
- Ability to reach and motivate the president when necessary
The unusual backgrounds of many Trump appointees make more sense by these standards. For instance, Trump does not seem to be detail focused or policy oriented, as Obama has been. It’s therefore more important that he can rely on advisers to direct his attention. That means nominating candidates who have credibility with him and who can speak his language, rather than eggheads. Those same individuals might be relatively effective taking their cases to the broader public, even if they don’t have experience working the levers of Washington.
it occurred to me that it’s too bad that more people don’t know what generals and big company CEOs actually do. In addition to having substantial managerial expertise, possibly more than anything else they’re politicians accustomed to working through large, complex organizations. The image that some journalists seem to have of generals or corporate CEOs commanding legions of myrmidons into action with imperious sweeps of their hands is a figment of their imaginations.
Re-purposing Tolstoy’s remark, all large organizations are the same. Small organizations are all small in their own way.
“The image that some journalists seem to have of generals or corporate CEOs commanding legions of myrmidons into action with imperious sweeps of their hands is a figment of their imaginations.”
As a former myrmidon, I’ve come to the conclusion that generals lose battles. Privates and pfcs win them.
That’s quite true, sam, and I think it supports my point. Generals and CEOs work through organizations and in the context of established organizational infrastructure. They don’t carry them around, will them into being, or dismiss them at will.
To be fair, some CEOs actively perpetuate that image.
Steve
“In addition to having substantial managerial expertise, possibly more than anything else they’re politicians accustomed to working through large, complex organizations. The image that some journalists seem to have of generals or corporate CEOs.”
This is absolutely true, and why much of the criticism of Trump is misguided. (And probably why Obama was ineffective at creating coalitions.) However, care must be taken to not dismiss the crucial fact that the CEO (in collaboration with his close advisors) sets the vision. For better or worse.
I have been holding off on criticizing Trump’s appointees. This will be a test on whether or not business people in charge will run things better. I don’t think so but I could be wrong.
Steve
CEOs also create or allow the space in which subordinates can implement that vision. In the case of Trump I think that what we should be watching for are whether he articulates a vision that anybody could implement and whether subordinates have the ability and space in which to do it.
I believe it’s the second aspect that will be difficult. Can he build a wall? Sure. Can he see to it that the laws are enforced more effectively? Always. As Michael noted in the comments thread of another post it’s like turning an ocean liner.
Query- What is the history of people who are used to running their own enterprises suddenly taking up a second fiddle position and functioning well? I don’t see it as a given that it will work well.
Steve
They didn’t spring up as fully grown generals or CEOs like Athena from the brow of Zeus. Before they were CEOs they excelled as subordinates. Whether that means they will thrive with Trump as top management remains to be seen.
My point was narrow, focused on a “buck stops here” role for CEOs and their choice of a vision, policy path and resource allocator for an organization. In any event, yes, facilitating subordinates is crucial. The press’ notion of a grand wizard of detail and prescription like Jimmy Carter, or as Obama professed to be, is just bizarre. Talk about ineffectual.
I guess I’m more sanguine about Trumps ability to create the conditions necessary for his people to operate than others. You don’t do what he has done as a solo artist. Contra Steve, my experience has been that business executives are better trained to execute than pure politicians. Watch CSPAN. And consider how governors fair compared to Senators.
“Contra Steve, my experience has been that business executives are better trained to execute than pure politicians.”
I would actually are that they are better trained to execute, but in a business setting. I don’t see any special reason why that will necessarily carry over. How will they perform when half of the country and Congress opposes them. Plenty of examples of CEOs who failed when faced with a divided board or divided upper management. One even ran for POTUS recently. But, as I said, we can wait and see. While I expect them to churn out policy that benefits their fellow plutocrats, will be happy to be surprised on the upside.
Steve
I don’t think there’s as much difference as you seem to, Steve, at least when you’re talking about large businesses. They’re both big bureaucracies.
I’ve worked in government, for big companies, and for small companies. My experience is that there’s a lot more difference between small organizations and big ones than there is among large organizations.