Wrote it many times, now confirmed by research

SCIENCE LAB: "Who Manages Best? Research shows that career bureaucrats trump political appointees in government jobs," by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 1-7 December 2008.

There is the assumption that it's the political appointees who run things or change things or are the real power players in DC. My experience has always been that the real power in DC is the persistent class of senior bureaucrats just below the political level. The appointees typically last about 12-to-18 months, getting up to speed for most of that period and--maybe--having some actual impact if they're quite focused in their goals. Otherwise they come and go, leaving nary a trace. They may think they run things and we may hold them ultimately responsible, but the truth is they're more powerless than powerful.

The reality is not the change factor associated with new appointees in an active sense but more in a passive sense: it's not what leadership they bring but what leadership-from-below that they allow.

This article cites two schools of thought on appointees:

One . . . argues that lots of political appointees can sweep away bureaucratic cobwebs. The other suggests that appointees mostly get in the way of the career professionals who really know how to make government work.

My experience definitely tends to the latter view. I mean, there's just no comparing the knowledge base and wisdom.

New study from the University of Wisconsin (my alma mater) says that appointees' biggest impact tends to be negative--as in, they're more likely to damage the president's agenda than to help it, because they're ideologues or scandal-creators or too "loyal" for their own good.

Another one from Vanderbilt does direct comparisons of 600 federal programs run by career bureaucrats and political appointees. On paper, the appointees have better educational and career credentials, but when it comes to performance, "programs administered by civil servants were significantly more likely to display better strategic planning, program design, financial oversight--and results."

The key analytic judgment:

For all the hatred that political candidates aim at the Washington bureaucracy during campaigns, political interference rather than bureaucratic inertia appears to be the central driver of governmental incompetence.

This is why, when people ask me, "Have you gotten to [some political appointee]?" I tell them that the real goal is to network with the career bureaucrats just below and around that appointee. That's why I love briefing SESers (senior executive service) and top-line general service players in government conferences. Give me a room of 500 of these players, and you've got a serious quorum of influencers.

Comments

[Allen]

Doc, that is truly an insighful post. Your sense exactly matches what I saw in 21 years of Air Force active duty, and what I see now working as one of those money-grubbin', lyin', cheatin', stealin' federal contractors. ;)

The real power and influence is at the lowest SES and higher GS levels. And their ability to make things happen is a direct function of how well they can form teams of the GS-11/12/13/14s (and officers/NCOs in the military). The most effective ones are those who lead more and manage less.

[TEJ]

After my OIC tour I'm taking my lumps in a HQ staff tour. Last year I bumped into an officer whom I last saw in Banda Aceh,Indonesia. His serenity was remarkable, so I asked his secret. He said he was acting as if he were still advising the Indonesian Ministry of Health. He's really onto something. I know I certainly lacked some cultural competency when I got here. I wouldn't swoop into Baghdad or Dili and tell that government how to suck eggs, but that's exactly what many appointees do in DC. Then they find the agency simply 'waiting them out'.

[Bob W.]

Tom,

I agree, that was a very informative article, and I concur with the gist of it. The "old hands" who stay for years (decades) in the same offices often shape the narrative of any policy decision that comes before the appointees, or execution decision that comes into a particular office (And the long term bureaucrats are even more relevant in the Pentagon, where political appointees come and go, AND uniformed leaders on the Joint Staff rotate in and out with an even higher turnover rate).

The comfort level that any of the political appointees have with new policies and initiative is normally commensurate with that of the career bureaucrat deputies in the office.

[Louis Heberlein]

Too many political appointees see their opportunity to serve as a tool for a later career, or to pursue some narrow area of interest. The bureaucratic establishment often gives them some high visibility project success that will not not disrupt the overall ongoing process.

I think Obama is wise to choose experienced retreads that have experienced both their limitations and successes, and are still willing to help. That includes Mrs. Clinton.

I agree that Tom's comments like this should be sent as letters to the editor in papers like New York Times and Wallstreet Journal. Perhaps he could give authority to do things like that to a clan insider with discretion. Tom needs to feel free to be candid on this site without all comments being subject to media misuse out of context.

[Jim]

"...the real power in DC is the persistent class of senior bureaucrats"And it has long been so. When Nixon entered the WH his administration was so concerned with the bureaucracy that Fred Malek was given the job of devising end runs around the civil service regulations. Jobs without responsibilities, offices with out phones, transfers to the departmental field office in Fairbanks

[Rudy]

Certainly seems to confirm why I found "Yes, Minister" to be such a great show.