White House Evolution and Institutionalization: The Office of Chief of Staff since Reagan

Abstract

In exploring the evolution and institutionalization of the White House chief of staff and the office that chiefs oversee, we focus on presidencies from Reagan through Obama. We pay particular attention to the evolution of several major roles that chiefs of staff perform, to the dynamics in the chief of staff's office, and to the emergence of multiple deputy chiefs of staff. Despite variation in the activities and emphases of chiefs of staff and their operations, patterns include partisan learning across administrations, term and meta cycles, and distinctive prioritization of roles.

Assessing the Trump White House

“…Most contemporary White Houses are responsible for three sets of tasks: outreach, policy, and administration/management (e.g., Cohen, Hult, and Walcott 2016; Hult and Walcott 2004). The priorities and weights administrations assign to each vary within and among presidencies.…”

Do White House Chiefs of Staff “manage up”?

“…Succeeding a tradition that emphasized each president's personal style (e.g., MacGregor Burns, 1965), character (e.g., Barber, 1985), and skills (e.g., Greenstein, 2009), political scientists increasingly stressed the process more than the president per se. Richard Tanner Johnson (1974) outlined three “approaches” to managing the White House—“formalistic,” “competitive,” and “collegial”—before Charles Walcott and Karen Hult (2005) traced the “standard model” that eventually won out: a hierarchical, formal process, led by the president, informed by domain‐specific advisors, and executed by relevant executive branch officials (see also Burke, 1992; Cohen et al, 2016; Hart, 1995; Hess & Pfiffner, 2002; Hult & Walcott, 2004; Moe, 2009; Patterson, 2010; Rudalevige, 2005, 2009).…”

“…The growth of the institutional presidency contained a vital corollary: the COS role is pivotal. Academics (see Cohen, 2002; Cohen et al, 2016; Cohen & Krause, 2000; Kernell & Popkin, 1986; Pfiffner, 1991, 1993; Sullivan, 2004; Villalobos et al, 2014) and journalists (see Dickerson, 2020; Whipple, 2017) who studied modern presidential history all concluded that a well‐functioning White House requires a high‐functioning COS. Only when a COS faithfully and effectively implements what Alexander George (1972) called “managerial custodian” functions—for example, prioritize agendas; coordinate personnel; enforce directions; facilitate deliberations; synchronize schedules—can a president realize his highest and best use.…”

El poder en Moncloa: el jefe de Gabinete del presidente del Gobierno

“…Por ello, el estudio de las oficinas presidenciales está recibiendo una especial atención en los últimos años (Inácio y Llanos, 2015;Lanzaro, 2016Lanzaro, , 2018Rhodes y Tiernan, 2014a, 2014bTiernan y Pfiffner, 2014;Truswell y Atkinson, 2011). En otros países, los jefes del Gabinete han estado muy presentes en la doctrina, especialmente el staff de la Casa Blanca (Cohen et al, 2012(Cohen et al, , 2016Pfiffner, 1993Pfiffner, , 2011Sullivan, 2004;Virgala, 1994;Whipple, 2017). En España, sin embargo, este interés ha sido menor y los escasos estudios publicados sobre el Gabinete, con carácter general, han sido de tipo jurídico o sociológico (Olías, 1994;Ortega, 1991;Santolaya, 1991; Prats y Villoria, 2011) o permanecen inéditos (Molina, 1998) o se centran en el proceso de «presidencialización» del Gobierno (Heywood y Molina, 1997, 2000Van Biezen y Hopkin, 2005).…”