The keys to building a solid Cabinet

“Not all my choices were great ones.” That recent admission by President Trump regarding his Cabinet picks was an extremely rare occurrence for this White House: an acknowledgement of a mistake. It also was a reminder that building a strong working relationship with the Cabinet has always been among the most difficult tasks facing incoming chief executives. There’s no how-to guide for putting together a team of top presidential advisors.

Yet, as Mike Pompeo faces a confirmation vote in the Senate, the latest in a historically long line of replacement nominees under the current administration, it’s worth remembering that all successful presidents — both Democrats and Republicans — have shared certain managerial traits. While there’s no written manual for Cabinet relations, there are extensive lessons from history and shared experience that can inform any commander-in-chief, and, given the latest high-level shakeup, it seems clear this White House is no exception.

{mosads}A strong relationship between president and Cabinet must begin before the names of nominees are even submitted. Potential picks must be vetted and assessed along several dimensions. Do they have the desired background and knowledge in the agency’s policy areas and mission to be successful as its leader? Can they help build coalitions with local governments, federal agencies and members of Congress? Do they have the executive experience to manage a vast independent agency while still following the White House’s lead?

These difficult challenges are further complicated by the unique circumstances and pressures of a presidential term of office. Because of term limits, an agency that goes leaderless for even a few months can hinder a president’s overall ability to get things done. Every time a Cabinet secretary is replaced it means often contentious Senate hearings, followed by a transition period in which the new secretary forms a team and gets up to speed in the new job. The old business adage to “hire slowly and fire quickly” doesn’t apply so neatly to Cabinet picks.

Then there is the question of what each Cabinet member brings to the table, both literally and figuratively. Strong Cabinets are more than the sum of their parts. They provide access to a wide variety of perspectives, opinions and capabilities — Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” is perhaps the most famous example — while ensuring that their agencies advance the president’s agenda once a policy direction is set. From Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, successful presidents have not only sought to select the most qualified individuals, they have endeavored to select the best overall team.

Once the right secretaries are in the right seats, successful presidents engage their Cabinets regularly, maintaining lines of communication and building a solid foundation of trust. A federal agency is more autonomous than, say, a large division of a private company. Without proper coordination, agencies sometimes find themselves working at cross purposes, not only to each other but to the president’s overall goals. On the other hand, Cabinet secretaries who are empowered and encouraged to communicate easily and informally with the president and his White House staff can serve as the eyes and ears on the ground, and as an early warning system as potential crises develop.

Communication is also essential to building trust. With 15 Cabinet secretaries comes 15 potential sources of distraction due to scandal or unforced error. It’s up to the president and his staff to set the tone for the entire administration, creating not only clear policy direction and goals but also clear standards for acceptable conduct. It’s up to heads of each agency to hold themselves and their people to high standards, and to be honest and forthright with the White House about potential crises.

Finally, once communication and trust have been established, presidents must decide which priorities to delegate and which to reserve. Over the last several decades, the trend has been to consolidate power in the White House, but all presidents eventually learn that there are things the White House is simply unable to do on its own. Statutorily, there are certain responsibilities only a Cabinet secretary can discharge. Moreover, the president and his staff are inevitably preoccupied with the most urgent issues of the day, which often makes the agencies better equipped to pursue longer-term objectives.

Perhaps most important, the executive office of the president represents only a tiny fraction of the federal bureaucracy. The agencies have less centralized power but more of virtually everything else: more funding, more employees, more institutional knowledge, and a bigger footprint in all 50 states and around the world. It is the president’s job to define the administration’s agenda, but if he or she doesn’t properly delegate implementation of that agenda to Cabinet secretaries, the work will not get done. To put it in less bureaucratic terms, while the White House sets the menu, it’s the agencies that get dinner on the table.

Managing a Cabinet is not easy. Given the sheer size and complexity of the federal government, it’s no surprise commanders-in-chief often find themselves frustrated. “I’m sick of the whole bunch,” Richard Nixon once groused to his national security adviser. Yet 229 years after George Washington made Alexander Hamilton the first ever Cabinet nominee, an effective Cabinet remains one of the best tools available to a president of either party who hopes to get things done.

Even as we speculate over whether Mike Pompeo will clear the Senate, we should ask ourselves what kind of Cabinet he will join. If high turnover is a sign that an administration is unable to effectively manage the leaders of federal agencies and the president’s own White House staff, that administration will struggle to make sound decisions, articulate its overall strategies and deliver on its goals. If, however, the Cabinet is composed of the right leaders, bolstered by strong communication and mutual trust, and guided by a clear mandate of principles and priorities, both the president and the American people will be better off as a result.

Mack McLarty served as President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff, counselor to the president, and special envoy for the Americas.

Jack Watson served as President Jimmy Carter’s White House chief of staff, assistant to the president, and secretary to the Cabinet.