Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 89 his last COS, Denis McDonough, maintained a much more formalistic model of organization by placing himself as the leader of Obama's "team." Chiefs of staff who are effective in their major duties have a positive impact on the administration. This is not to say that each COS places an identical emphasis on each of their major roles. Different chiefs adapt their behavior to fit the needs of the president they serve and the major organizational needs of their White House. White House staff and organization should strive to complement the president's strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Regardless of personal style or preference, the White House needs a COS to impose order, advise on policy development, serve as a gatekeeper to the president, and settle staffing disputes that are not of particular presidential importance. Organizational styles that are too open in access to the president prevent the chief of staff from performing these roles effectively, forcing the president to be a mediator in issues that are not of presidential importance. Someone short of the president must be in charge, or the president will be overwhelmed. Therefore, the formalistic model of White House organization serves both the COS and the president by providing clear, delineated lines of organization that clarify the specific roles that each individual fills. White House organization faces its next challenge under President Donald Trump. When the former real estate mogul announced his candidacy for president, many believed that he would run the White House like his own business. However, there are many ways in which a business is very different than the White House, and a near-constant revolving door of senior-level staffers suggests that the White House organization of the Trump administration is not nearly as effective as it could be. The particular style of organization that Trump is mimicking harkens back to the competitive model, used during the Roosevelt administration. President Trump has surrounded himself with individuals from a variety of Republican factions as senior level staffers. During the 2016 presidential elections, Trump often decried mainstream Republicans in favor of other factions of the Republican Party, including the business world and populist or nationalist groups. When staffing his White House, Trump seemed to intentionally select individuals from varying groups within the Republican Party and the right-wing populist movement. For example, the first months of his administration saw Reince Priebus, former Republican National Committee chairman, appointed as COS and Steve Bannon, executive chair of Breitbart News, a publication with strong economic nationalist leanings, appointed as chief strategist. Priebus and Bannon were bonded, politically or otherwise, by little except their boss. They had fundamentally different ideas about what the Trump administration should look like. The chaos inherent in this design is what the competitive model thrives on. It deliberately seeks to provoke conflict among different factions to provide the best possible answer to problems. However, the main weakness of the competitive model is that it requires the president to broker the diversity of opinions personally. Thus far in the administration, there seems to be a lack of interest in personally brokering the conflicts inherent in this type of organizational system. Without an honest broker, the system dissolves into chaos. To make a change that is desperately needed in the current administration, however, organizational lines must be clarified. Throughout recent presidencies, we see that the longer a staff serves, the more organization moves toward a formalistic model of White