A General Theory for Presidential Appointees

Word count: 3,787; fifteen minutes to read.

A “general theory” is a framework for describing reality using underlying principles.

It provides a big picture overview and is not meant to explain specific situations, but instead, lay out ideas which can be used to understand events or forecast how they will unfold, the way things “work,” and the likely behaviors of people and organizations.

This is different from a “grand strategy,” which is about doing, for example, developing a plan for achieving an administration’s (or a nation’s) long-term objectives.

Because general theories are broad, they risk overlooking or oversimplifying complex situations. Nonetheless, they contextualize and provide perspective people can use to make decisions or carry out their business.

One level down is a “mid-range theory,” which applies to more specific conditions.

A useful distinction for presidential appointees is the general theory concepts herein apply to all appointees at all levels and all places within an administration, while mid-range theories might concern themselves with the workings of a particular policy sphere (domestic vs. foreign affairs), or organization (White House vs. department).

At the bottom are “micro theories” which deal with subsets relevant to the specific work of an appointee, such as the policy-making process, or dealing with Congress, individual bureaucrats, and members of the media.

One micro theory every appointee should explore within their assigned portfolio is how policy gets made by “street-level bureaucrats,” which is to say, those at the tip of the executive branch spear who make presidential policies real by actually implementing them at the ground “government-to-citizen” level.

What follows are ten concepts of a general theory for presidential appointees to better understand how they should view the work they do, themselves, and the context within which they exist.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the executive branch, vests power in the President, and outlines his powers and responsibilities.

Key is all executive power is endowed solely in one person: the president.

Per the Appointments Clause, the president appoints two types of officials as leaders to help him fulfill his Constitutional responsibilities and carry out his agenda.

These are principal officers (nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate) and inferior officers (appointed by the president or someone he designates and without Senate involvement).

The president may delegate responsibilities to members of the executive branch, but at the end of the day, the president is the decider, his will rules, and every member of the executive branch is accountable to him and must be responsive to implementing his stated policies and programs.

There are no “independent” departments or agencies in the executive branch, and no action is siloed off from presidential direction and control.

The Constitutional is what gives legitimacy to the president and his appointees as they use presidential tools to execute presidential powers.

Provided something is congruent with our nation’s laws, the president has the authority, responsibility, and power to direct every action of the executive branch.

Neither the Courts nor Congress give him this control which is derived from the Constitution and the consent of the citizenry via election, making the president the only public official who is a direct representative of the will of the American people.

This is how our system was designed and works.

Attempts by Congress or the Judiciary to infringe on presidential powers are illegitimate, unconstitutional, and must be opposed in every way possible.

Presidential politics is about the acquisition and use of power, which can be defined as the ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

Power by the president and his appointees is to be used ethically, responsibly and actively for the benefit of American citizens.

Every policy or action determined by the president to be in the best interest of the American people, so long as it doesn’t violate the law, is by definition ethical and responsible.

Some, especially in regard to anything President Trump does, will say he is acting outside the law or norms, but whether true or not is a dance between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, subject ultimately to what each branch is willing to do.

Talk is cheap, and acts, not words, matter.

Neither the president nor his appointees should be afraid of grasping the levers of power in the executive branch and using all available presidential tools and resources to wield presidential power.

The president and his appointees must do so, even if a certain action hasn’t been taken before or may later be opposed by Congress or the Judiciary.

There are “checks and balances” present in our system (judicial review, impeachment, law-making, the next election) that can legitimately limit the action of the president, and these are the only means by which presidential authority may be constrained.

Appointees exist to help the president.

The political imperative means appointees must be responsive to the president’s policies and swiftly enact his agenda while serving as honorable representatives of the administration to the American people and presenting a united front.

Appointees are the eyes, ears, and long-arm of the president, responsible for assisting him in grasping the levers of power in the executive branch (personnel, policy, programs, budgets/expenditures, contracting) and aligning all executive branch resources with the president’s agenda.

The administrative imperative means appointees must be competent and possess or develop the required judgement, expertise, and management skills necessary to effectively lead/manage complex government organizations on behalf of the president, so his policies are translated into actual results at the government-to-citizen level.

While most presidential appointees loyally meet the political imperative (recognizing there are always a few spoilers who deceitfully worm their way in), the administrative imperative is more difficult to capture.

So appointee leaders, those charged with selecting/hiring appointees, and individual appointees themselves, must continually work to increase their own personal administrative capacity, that of other appointees, along with the organizations to which they are assigned, in order to support the president’s plans.

Appointees must accurately understand the operating environment in which they exist, which is not just the international and domestic situations, but also those peculiar to their specific policy spheres and the organizations where they reside.

Contextual factors include public opinion; the state of the economy; the national security scene; the media landscape; the makeup, timelines, and law-making processes of Congress; the administrative capacity and inclinations of executive branch bureaucrats and organizations; technological capabilities/advances; and a reasonable assessment of what’s likely to unfold in the future.

These factors (and others relevant) must be analyzed and considered by appointees at all levels as they carry out their work, particularly by appointee leaders with decision rights. When properly understood and mapped, these inputs serve as a basis for developing options and decision making.

Outside actors are those with the ability to influence the actions of the executive branch.

They include other nations, state governments, interest groups (activists), private industry (plus trade associations), academia, Congress, the Judiciary, and other stakeholders, such as persons or groups with significant money or power (read: sway).

Each entity has persuasive powers over the citizenry or the executive branch and can put pressure on the president and his appointees to impact the course of events.

Appointees must know the outside actors relevant to their assigned responsibilities, map their relative power (influence) and interest (how much something matters to them), then engage them to leverage support, counter opposition, or sideline as necessary.

Accountability is baked into our system of government in the way our founders diffused authority among three branches (“checks and balances”), so power doesn’t disproportionally accumulate within one in particular.

Elections are another mechanism, and essential so public officials can be held accountable to the people they serve, which is the very basis of our government.

There is an information war for the minds of the citizenry and accountability, or the perception of it, plays a major role in the ability to get things done and maintain political power.

Appointees should not fear accountability.

They must embrace it without mistaking it for something it is not.

Accountability is not a dirty word.

It is taking ownership and responsibility for enacting the president’s policies in the best interests of the American people to achieve results that improve life for the citizenry, congruent with the Constitution and laws of our nation.

It is following through on commitments, doing what you say you will do, and holding yourself and all government employees to the highest standards.

Appointees must ensure they and their teams follow all legal/ethical obligations and loyally make a good faith effort to enact the president’s agenda.

Laws are general and cannot cover every situation or nuance because they are limited by practical, human, and moral factors, in addition to the unknown and unforeseeable.

That’s why we have judges, to interpret the law to unique situations.

Federal law and regulations, or presidential policies and directives, will in many instances be general.

This requires appointees to be able to take initiative, determine next steps, and adjust to new situations, environments, and information, which in a political context, is constantly changing.

All appointees must be flexible and creative in unique circumstances or situations where things do not go as planned or are unclear.

Appointees must possess the problem-solving skills to innovate and find solutions or “best paths forward,” even in the absence of information or complete guidance.

Appointees must be able to learn quickly and think strategically to prevent or mitigate problems and risks, and while making quick fixes as appropriate, address long-term challenges by leveraging their judgement, expertise, and skills (along with that of other appointees and career workers) to achieve the president’s agenda.

One of the worst things an appointee can do is do something just because that’s the way it has always been done, especially if it’s career official telling you that’s the way you need to do it. They may be correct, but first listen, analyze, and determine whether or not that is the optimal way. Appointees must understand the “why” and consequences before acting.

This can be described vertically and horizontally.

The appointee’s role is to understand the governing agenda of the president and his appointed leadership, from top to bottom, and ensure it is integrated (implemented) in an enduring way at all levels (vertically) of their organization.

Horizontally means integrating across the entire executive branch through coordination with other agencies or departments with equities or a role to play.

Think the synergies that need to occur between the Departments of State and Defense, or Homeland Security and the Justice Departments.

Many federal actions don’t involve just one department and may include several, who must be adequately coordinated with to achieve optimal results.

The same is true with states. The majority of federal programs are implemented at the state level with funding, other resources, and oversight provided by executive branch.

Success requires building trust and relationships, defining clear goals and outcomes, addressing duplication of effort and eliminating bottlenecks, improving information and communication systems or flows, and establishing clear accountability and oversight.

Ultimately, appointees must understand what the president wants and integrate it as necessary across the whole-of-government through unity of action, breaking silos, and integrating/optimizing resources.

Two forms exist: personal and institutional.

Most appointees will at some point face pushback from career officials who oppose a policy or action. This may be for perfectly good reasons, such as they think it’s a violation of the law or organizational rules, is unimplementable (beyond existing administrative capabilities), insufficiently resourced (lacks the necessary money, labor, etc.), or is otherwise suboptimal.

The official may do their best to convince their appointee leaders to take another path or alter the decision in such a way as to mitigate what they perceive it’s negative effects.

This sort of feedback should be welcomed.

Full deliberation and candid discussion of a pending policy or action, its associated risks and implementation challenges, especially by someone with the organizational expertise many career officials have, can help make what the administration is trying to do better.

As Proverbs 27:17 says, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.”

Teams become better by professionally debating ideas while collaborating with one another.

The caveat is the feedback must be provided in good faith and not just to oppose a president, which means collegial discussions that are kept internal to the team with no leaks to media or other types of obstruction.

And at the end of the day a career official must abide by the decision of their appointed leadership and do his or her best to see it successfully implemented.

This is the ideal scenario, but as we know, some bureaucrats consider themselves “the Resistance” and will violate their oaths of office as they seek to thwart what the administration is doing by engaging in illegal and unprofessional actions.

Tactics include (but are not limited to): 1) withholding information; 2) refusing to implement policies; 3) intentionally delaying; 4) deliberately underperforming; 5) leaking to Congress and the media; 6) outright insubordination; and 7) other forms of sabotage.

It is critical early in their tenure for appointees to distinguish which career officials are operating in good faith from those who are not.

The former should have their expertise and institutional memory leveraged to the greatest extent possible, while the latter must be uncovered quickly, then marginalized, and if possible, moved out of positions of influence or fired.

Institutional resistance is different and results not from disagreements by career personnel, but from the nature of the organization itself.

The most prevalent feature is bureaucratic inertia.

It is in the nature of all bureaucracies to resist change or be sluggish. Part of this has to do with all the rules, rigid processes, numerous approval layers, existing norms and values, and fragmented responsibilities that are part of bureaucracies that make them slow movers.

Another is the fear of the unknown and the fact bureaucrats don’t want to lose the comfort they have in continuing to do things the way they have always been done (the “status quo bias”).

And there are vested interests and power dynamics at stake.

Organizational redesigns or major policy changes alter the allocation of power and resources individual bureaucrats or offices hold, and it is in the nature of bureaucratic entities and personnel to protect, hoard, and accumulate these things.

At the end of the day, appointees must understand bureaucratic resistance will be a continuing feature.

They must decipher whether it is personal or institutional, and in either case, overcome the resistance through fully understanding the situation they are in, smart planning, hard work, continuous pressure, and the marshalling of coalitions and resources.

Appointee life exists within a panopticon, which means constant surveillance by various groups who have harmful intent.

There is no place to hide.

There are bureaucrats where you work who are monitoring and archiving what you say and do and will strategically leak anything that can be harmful to the media.

Or they may initiate an Inspector General investigation against you.

Online activists (think the “J6 Sedition Hunters”) will be trying to find out all they can about you since your name as an appointee is public.

They will send what they find to opposition media or just post it online.

The most extreme will harass you personally, either by phone, email or showing up at your house, knocking on the door, talking to your neighbors, posting signs about you on nearby telephone poles, or scrawling hateful messages on your driveway and sidewalk. Some will even call law enforcement and make false accusations.

Every single one of these things has happened to appointees.

Public interest groups and other stakeholder communities will attack you when needed if they don’t like what you’re doing. Creating problems, instability, fear, or exerting other pressures to your life helps them achieve their goals.

Most importantly is the media glare, which is the intense public attention from journalists, many of whom have the sole job of intensively scrutinizing (investigating) and constantly monitoring appointees, no matter how junior.

When they find something useful, they leverage their platforms and microphones to hurt individual appointees, hoping it will wound the president and his administration.

Appointees must be prepared for the above and recognize anything in their past that can be used negatively will. They must also be cognizant of what they do at work, while out in public, and in their personal life, so nothing becomes an issue.

An appointee must always remain calm and respectful in every situation and be careful what they say and do in public, lest some passerby with a phone camera starts recording.

They must also be mindful of what they write and any electronic records they create at work or on their personal devices.

Every appointee must be willing to support, protect, and defend their fellow appointees during their tenure. And if you see an appointee getting out of line at work or in public, then pull them aside and talk to them privately so they can self-correct.

Appointees must behave like tribe members to survive the panopticon together.

Time Box #1 is the 1,461 days making up a presidential administration (one minus if it doesn’t include a leap year).

A second term or successor admin held by the same party is never guaranteed, so presidents and their appointees must ensure every minute counts.

For forty years from 1955 to 1995 Democrats held a majority in the House of Representatives every year, and in that same time period Republicans only held the Senate for six years.

Twenty years passed between Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inauguration in 1933 and Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953.

The longest stretch of one party control of the White House since then was 1981-1993 during the twelve years of Reagan and Bush.

The lesson?

Who holds power changes.

The clock will stop, and no one can predict when those things left on the table are going to have another chance at being implemented.

When the pendulum swings back and a Republican is in power again, by then it might be too late, or an incalculable amount of damage may have been done.

Time Box #2 is the presidential term broken into chunks for specific tasks, one cognizant of America’s political calendar and the time it takes to achieve certain goals.

Consider for instance “midnight regulations,” which are Administrative Procedure Act rules issued by an outgoing presidential administration during the lame duck period between Election Day and Inauguration, when the “midnight” period ends.

This is a final push to advance an administration’s policy priorities before leaving office, but there is a 60-day (or 30-day for minor rules, those with less than a $100 million effect on the economy) waiting period required for these take effect.

A new admin from the opposing party can cancel them.

This means that by November 21st of a presidential election year, rules have to have been published in the Federal Register in order for them to be locked in.

The time it takes to go through the APA process varies, but can take years due to the many steps, including public comment periods that are legally required to be at least 30 days, with longer periods often granted for complex issues.

Other items in this time box are the time it takes to get a policy designed, decisions made, and implementation completed.

When they involve complex organizations, programs, or lots of people, changes can take a huge chunk of time, and are often dependent on Congress for either authorizations or funding (though not always).

Appointees should backwards plan and know their key end dates, milestones, critical deadlines, the associated tasks (and time it takes to achieve to those tasks), so they can realistically assess the time it takes to achieve their goals, and then get started sooner rather than later, because the clock never stops ticking.

Time Box #3 belongs to individuals.

The average presidential appointee doesn’t stay in a position more than two years. They move up or out.

The position may not be backfilled quickly or at all so maybe what an appointee has been trying to achieve drops or is significantly delayed. Or their successor may not continue with the work they’ve been doing.

As an appointee, you may leave because you’re tired as the work can seem like an unending sprint. Or you may enter another phase in your life during the admin (you get married and have kids) so the demands of the job are no longer compatible with the home life you desire.

A long-term or more compensated job opportunity may open up.

Or your appointed leadership changes and the role you’re in is no longer a good fit.

As an “at will” employee serving at the pleasure of the president, in a matter of hours you can be unemployed due to a political situation or other reasons unknown to you.

Whatever the reason, most appointees will have a shelf life.

Determine what you want to accomplish, in addition to what professional experiences and skills you want to leave with, and figure out a way to realize them, along with a plan for your post-admin future.

Though one can include more concepts in a general theory for appointees, and each of the above can be expounded on in-depth, I think these initial ten provide a basic set of organizing principles for appointees to inform the work they do.

Understand and internalize them.

Use them as a basis for determine how you behave.

Don’t let the panopticon or anything else above deter you from making the tough and right decisions that need to be made.

Remember, appointees exist for one reason: to help the president.

This means working loyally, efficiently, and effectively to implement his agenda.

Being an appointee is a great honor.

Good luck!

Please share this general theory (forward this email!) with all appointees you know.

If you have more ideas to include, then let me know in the comments.

Until next time,

Bill Short

P.S. Follow me on X (I’ll follow you back): @POTUSAppointee