White House Structure and Decision Making: Elaborating the Standard Model

Abstract

A consensus has emerged about how White House staffs should be organized, which we refer to as the “standard model.” Yet recent presidencies have produced various kinds of dissatisfaction with the performance of the White House staff. Here, we explore whether the new normative understanding of White House structuring for decision making offers prescriptions that are as “good” as they might be. Focusing on the limitations of hierarchical structuring and of multiple advocacy, we urge both a more nuanced view of the nature of White House decision making and a more variegated approach to modeling and prescribing appropriate structures.

Competition, Conflict, and Conformity: Foreign Policy Making in the First Year of the Trump Presidency

“…Walcott and Hult () considered the formalistic approach to be the “standard model” of contemporary presidential decision making. Variations of the formalistic model have been associated with several presidents, such as Harry Truman (George ), Dwight Eisenhower (Johnson ; George ), Richard Nixon (Johnson ; George ; Mitchell ), Ronald Reagan (Pfiffner ; Rudalevige ; Walcott and Hult ), and George W. Bush (Mitchell ; Rudalevige ). Despite the inherent differences in the size and the configuration of the advisory structures in each of these administrations, the formalistic model reveals several distinguishing characteristics: The president centralizes the advisory system in his White House staff that is responsible for managing the information flow to and from the president; Division of labor is based on the functional expertise of each department or agency, which briefs the president exclusively on the policy area under its jurisdiction; Advisors, such as cabinet members and heads of agencies, are responsible for collecting and forwarding information and advice from their subordinate units; The advisory process is centered around briefing papers prepared by the competent department or agencies; White House staff, particularly the chief of staff, is responsible for filtering the incoming information from cabinet members and heads of agencies and formulating policy recommendations for presidential approval; The president abides by formal channels of communication and rarely circumvents cabinet heads in search of independent information. …”

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

“…This innovation was short lived, however, because Eisenhower's Democratic successors did not use such a formalized, hierarchical system (Walcott and Hult ). Instead, John Kennedy, reflecting Truman's experience and the advice of Truman veterans like Clark Clifford and Richard Neustadt, returned to a spokes of the wheel arrangement, with the president at the center of operations and no single aide designated as the sole administrative leader (Johnson ).…”

“…Yet the power of partisan learning (Hult and Walcott ; Walcott and Hult ) remained strong. Democrats viewed Republican operations as being misguided—hierarchical, militaristic, corporate, and vulnerable to corruption.…”

The Chicago Clan: The Chiefs of Staff in the Obama White House

“…Nevertheless, the power of what Hult and Walcott have called “partisan learning” remained strong (Hult and Walcott, ; Walcott and Hult, , ). Whatever the Republicans did seemed to Democrats to be wrong—hierarchical, militaristic, corporate, vulnerable to corruption—and the advice of the wise old heads who steered Kennedy away from the Eisenhower model held sway with former governor Jimmy Carter.…”