Introduction
Like many people around the world, I woke up on the morning of Wednesday November 6th to the startling news that Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States. I had fully expected Kamala Harris to eke out a narrow victory. However, as the results showed, Trump’s victory was not only decisive, but a rout. The fact that Republicans won both the Senate and the House of Representatives speaks to the magnitude of the results.
However, what has been more surprising than the result has been President Trump’s appointment of members to his Cabinet. He has eschewed previous Cabinet members such as Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo in favour of individuals whose predominant characteristic appears to be unfeigned loyalty. What does this say about this approach to recruitment and selection, and what does it bode for policy direction and management in the second Trump Presidency?
What is Loyalty?
Loyalty, in its simplest form, can be described as a strong sense of allegiance or faith to a particular individual, cause or principle in the face of opposition or pressure to renounce, disown or betray. Having persons in supporting roles such as a Cabinet who espouse and believe in the same things as the leader is essential to creating a common vision and goal.
In his first Presidency, Trump sustained a significant number of Cabinet resignations, terminations and defections. Some of these came before the January 6th, 2021 riots on Capitol Hill, and some came afterwards. One source lists the average number of Cabinet Secretary turnovers in his first administration at 14 which far exceeds that of any previous administration:
https://www.statista.com/chart/15071/how-does-trumps-turnover-compare-to-other-presidents/
This Time it Will Be Different
President Trump’s recent appointments have been announced quickly, and have been greeted with a range of emotions that vary from shock to bewilderment. Some, such as Tom Homan, the newly announced border czar, were expected. Others, such as his appointment of Elise Stefanik as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, attracted positive feedback. However, several others have been greeted with skepticism.
For instance, what qualifies Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is not a physician, to head up the Department of Health and Human Services? Pete Hegseth, a popular news anchor on Fox News, had a distinguished military career, but never held senior positions that would seemingly qualify him to oversee the U.S.’ complex military infrastructure. Most perplexing was Trump’s initial the appointment of Matt Gatz, a volatile and controversial U.S. congressman from Florida who has been the subject of numerous complaints and investigations, to become Attorney General. The flak that emerged from this appointment over Gaetz’s chequered past, were possible reasons why he withdrew his candidacy.
A Clear Departure from Tradition
Whatever you may think of Donald Trump, one thing is certain: the man does not conform to traditional approaches to management. He is clearly and distinctly an entrepreneur, and a product of the industry which molded and shaped his character. Having spent a brief period of my professional career in the real estate sector (and one I would love to forget!!), I can tell you that it is populated by people who are overtly materialistic, heavily influenced by style and appearance, marketing focused, and dominated by individuals who are obsessed with deal-making and bending the law and structures to suit their needs. There is a recklessness about real estate developers that I find both alarming and concerning. Structures, policies and following protocols are not prevailing practices in many real estate development firms.
Trump, I suspect, recognizes that in order to promote his agenda and realize change, he needs people around him who will do his bidding. What this ensures is minimal dissension, as well as few challenges to his authority or will. Discipline will be reinforced, and order will be maintained. The other characteristic that typifies his appointments thus far is that, whether or not you like or agree with them, they are high profile, charismatic, and invariably, strong personalities and good communicators. It wasn’t surprising to see people such as Kristi Noem, the Governor or South Dakota and Trump’s newly appointed Homeland Security, at many of his rallies. Ditto the new Secretary of State, Florida Senator Mark Rubio.
Trump’s second administration will be focusing increasingly on message alignment, and ensuring the government conveys its rationale and approach clearly without variation or compromise.
Getting Rid of Roadblocks
Having ensured conformity and allegiance to both him and his agenda, what then are the risks that a second Trump Presidency faces?
I think the biggest challenge he will face is that many of the people he has appointed won’t be as knowledgeable, adept or competent as those in the Departments they head. This will clearly become apparent in Justice and Defense.
In both cases, part of Trump’s plan is, frankly, to “clean house”. There are reports that a number of U.S. generals and senior officials will be fired soon after Trump takes office:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/08/pentagon-trump-fire-cq-brown-00188536
I suspect the same is true at Justice where the incoming President has been the subject of several ongoing lawsuits, many of which, he contends, were politically motivated.
In truth, I suspect part of Trump’s strategy is to appoint these two individuals to “cull the herd”, and who won’t be bashful about carrying out full-scale purges. Once they have fulfilled their usefulness, my guess is Trump will get rid of them and appoint others with more stellar credentials.
Senior management depend on trusted advisors, but loyalty itself is no substitute for basic competence and ability. (Photo courtesy of Kampus Production and Pexels)
When You Sacrifice Expertise in the Name of Loyalty
Elevating people who lack depth of experience carries with it severe risks. This is true regardless of whether you are the CEO of a company or the head of a government. Here are some of them:
1) A tendency to overlook details and problems. Department heads who are new to positions may, in pursuit of their agenda, feel compelled to short circuit processes or forego certain actions in order to meet deadlines or fulfill executive directives. Sometimes, this can lead to disastrous consequences.
2) A reluctance to challenge or confront senior leadership when bad decisions are being advocated. The head of a department needs to have a basic understanding and command of the issues, structure and operations. That isn’t something that can be fully explained in a briefing note or a position paper. It comes through years of experience and working in the organization. That knowledge allows the incoming department head to offer quality advice to the President or CEO. It also allows them to question subject matter experts regarding positions being advocated or recommendations being made. Without that knowledge the department head must be guided by gut instincts or executive fiat, and that isn’t always trustworthy.
3) A lack of support from rank-and-file employees. An incoming department head may have loyalty to their boss, and it may be reciprocated. However, there is no assurance that regular employees will respect or demonstrate the same degree of loyalty to the new leadership.
4) Dissension within the ranks. One of the reasons people like Pete Hegseth have been tapped to head a department is that they are being asked to get rid of supposed “problem” employees, or individuals who don’t support the President’s agenda. However, those problem employees often have friends and colleagues in the organization, and firing or terminating dissidents may actually breed more dissension from invisible loyalists who remain. If you are going to fire problem employees, you had better know who else in the organization supports these dissidents, and then get rid of them too. Depending on the number of persons involved, this could be hugely problematic for operational efficiency. If dissidents remain, they could then become saboteurs who usurp the department head’s agenda through leaks to the press, promoting misleading information, or cultivating other opponents.
A Little Personal Context
The tendency to promote people who are not subject matter experts to head departments is a characteristic of many banking institutions. The rationale has always been that these appointments were intended to give the newly promoted head, often a high potential employee from another discipline, some meaningful exposure in a staff position to enhance their profile. This was especially true in Human Resources where a number of outsiders were promoted as department heads.
In my last organization I saw this happen three times. One appointee had a background in credit. One came from a marketing background. The last one was an auditor. Invariably, their promotion was met with concern, skepticism and mistrust. None were particularly formidable individuals, an in truth, we could have hired or promoted more competent people internally.
A Final Thought…
Not since 1968 have I seen a year that has been marked with as much international turmoil, disasters, instability, dissent or upheaval. Indeed, the parallels between 2024 and 1968 are uncanny.
2025 will mark a new year for an international community that is in flux and facing challenges everywhere. Donald Trump, for whatever faults he may possess, is never dull or predictable, and I suspect the coming year will be as eventful as his first Presidency. Although I will be watching how he fares in his role, I’ll also be watching the people in his Cabinet to see if they live up to their hype.