Although you’ve probably heard: “Behind every successful husband is a stunned mother-in-law,” I doubt that you’ve heard: “Behind every successful leader is a highly effective staff.” However, it’s true. Effective staff members are essential for a leader to be successful.
I was most fortunate to have exemplary staff supporting me in my leadership roles at Arkansas, Georgia Tech, and the National Science Foundation. They were highly qualified and loyal. They went out of their way to support my goals and objectives. Because they were so good at what they did I had to make sure they didn’t over-step their levels of authority, become gate keepers, and believe they spoke for me on all issues.
I learned the hard way to ensure that tension doesn’t develop between one of my staff members and a member of my leadership team. Steven Sample rightly noted, “Whenever a staff person is empowered to act as a buffer between a leader and his line officers, the results can be truly disastrous.”[i]
While it’s generally best for the leader to deliver bad news to a member of the executive team, there’re exceptions. To avoid creating a split between the two, having a staff person do it can be the better approach. Condoleezza Rice provided a perfect example, drawing on her role as national security advisor. Unwittingly, Colin Powell, while serving as Secretary of State, shared information with the press prematurely, resulting in an article on page A20 of the Washington Post regarding a matter related to North Korea. Calling Rice, President George W. Bush asked, “‘Do you want me to take care of this, or do you want to?’
“‘I’ll take care of it, Mr. President.’ That, in a nutshell is what the national security advisor does: takes care of it.
“I called Colin and went through the same drill. ‘Get your newspaper.’ He did. He immediately saw the problem.”[ii]
If Bush had handled it, it would’ve come across to Powell as a stronger reprimand than if Rice did it. Leaders must think carefully about who they want delivering messages, especially to members of the executive team. After all, as Sample put it, “leadership is largely situational and contingent!”[iii]
Support staff competitions can develop if leaders fall asleep at the switch. In several presidential administrations tensions existed between the president’s staff and the vice president’s staff because the latter didn’t believe the vice president was receiving appropriate recognition from the president, the media or other governmental agencies. Such competitions are not limited to the offices of the President and Vice President of the United States of America. They can and do occur in any organization.
Rice provided considerable insight regarding tensions between Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, as well as between Rumsfeld and herself.[iv] Generally, tensions among members of the executive team are based on a combination of responsibilities of positions held and differences in personalities. Both were present in Rice’s portrayal. They also existed among members of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet.
In Why It Matters[v], I share the following: “Abraham Lincoln was confronted with a situation involving two of his cabinet members, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase and Secretary of State William H. Seward. Chase was jealous of Seward’s influence and friendship with Lincoln. Working behind the scenes, in 1864, Chase complained to Republican senators about Seward’s performance and said Lincoln did not consult all members of the cabinet about important decisions. A delegation of senators met with Lincoln and urged him to remove Seward and reorganize his cabinet. When Seward learned of the meeting, he submitted a letter of resignation, which Lincoln put in a coat pocket. This was the last in a string of resignation letters from Seward; Lincoln had declined his earlier submissions.
“As Donald T. Phillips describes in Lincoln on Leadership, after thinking about the situation, Lincoln brought the delegation of senators into a meeting with his cabinet, excluding Seward. With everyone in the room, he asked all parties to resolve their disputes before anyone left. The senators were not aware the cabinet members would be in the meeting and the cabinet members were unaware of Lincoln’s plans. Chase was placed in an
awkward position: he could not side with the senators, because his cabinet colleagues would know he was the cause for the senators’ concerns. So, Chase admitted that Lincoln did consult the cabinet on important matters and Seward performed his duties admirably. The senators were embarrassed, and Chase was exposed as a fraud. Chase’s hopes of replacing Lincoln as the Republican Party’s nominee for president were dashed. He resigned the next day. If all else fails, Donald Phillips noted in Lincoln on Leadership, try getting all parties to the dispute together, ‘lock them in a conference room—sometimes on a Saturday—and compel them to
stay together until peace is made.’”[vi]
Next: Why Are We Killing Geese That Lay Gold Eggs?
[i] Sample, Steven B., The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2003, p. 129.
[ii] Rice, Condoleezza, No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington, Broadway Books, New York, NY, 2011, p. 35.
[iii] Ibid, p.3.
[iv] Ibid, pp. 15-21.
[v] White, John A., Why It Matters: Reflections on Practical Leadership, Greenleaf Book Group Press, Austin, TX, 2022, pp. 185-186.
[vi] Phillips, Donald T., II, Lincoln on Leadership, Warner Books, New York, NY, 1992, p. 102.
