Although nasty politics, self-interested members of Congress, and presidents provoking deep hostility are nothing new in American political life, the near-total refusal in recent years to reach across the aisle to achieve agreement on legislation needed to move the country forward or protect its interests is new—and dangerous. Moderation has become synonymous with having no principles and compromise with selling out. Failure to pass even routine budgets for government departments year after year, much less tackle tough issues like immigration, the deteriorating national infrastructure, underperforming schools, and long-term fiscal problems, represents the worst sort of dereliction of duty by our political class.
Over the last few years, between the scorched-earth tactics being used by both parties to win control of Congress and the uncompromising stance of both the hard Left and the hard Right, nothing is getting done—unless, like “reform” of the Veterans Administration, opposition would be suicidal or, in the case of the Affordable Care Act, legislation affecting every American and 15 percent of the economy is passed without a single vote from the other party. If you add to the mix two presidents who have not been much interested in investing the time and energy to forge compromises on the Hill or, facing resistance, simply gave up, we see why the government truly is in a ditch.
Volumes have been written about our national political malaise, and, admittedly, the causes and history are much more complex than I have described. But the resulting paralysis is apparent to all, and forecasts of the chances of the situation improving anytime soon vary primarily only in degrees of pessimism.
The natural assumption, under these circumstances, would be that anyone with aspirations to reform a bureaucracy—at least in the federal government—would, like Don Quixote, simply be picking up a lance and tilting at a windmill. And to be sure, pessimists abound. Francis Fukuyama wrote in the September/October 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs that demands for more legal checks on the executive branch have reduced “the quality and effectiveness of government” and yet greater demand for government services has imposed “new mandates on the executive, which often prove difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill.” Both processes, he contends, “lead to a reduction in bureaucratic autonomy, which in turn leads to rigid, rule-bound, uncreative, and incoherent government.” Fukuyama quotes the scholar Paul Light that, “Federal employees appear to be more motivated by compensation than mission, ensnared in careers that cannot compete with business and nonprofits, troubled by the lack of resources to do their jobs, dissatisfied with the rewards for a job well done and the lack of consequences for a job done poorly, and unwilling to trust their own organizations.” Fukuyama would probably apply much of that dreary assessment to local and state employees as well.
However, after spending a lifetime in public service and working with many state and federal workers in diverse departments and agencies of government, I believe Fukuyama is wrong in the assertion they are more motivated by compensation than mission. While I agree with his description of the challenges they face, I am convinced most of those employees continue to do their jobs because they believe in the mission of their organization. And therein is the opportunity for the bureaucratic reformer.
Moreover, the picture is brighter at the state and local levels. Many states have constitutional requirements for a balanced budget, thus forcing legislatures to make tough and timely decisions, regardless of which party has control. And at both the state and the local levels, there are many experiments under way in reform and governance that hold the potential for problem solving at those levels. Also, because governors and municipal executives must deliver services directly to citizens (and voters), those holding such offices tend to be fairly pragmatic in their actions if not their ideology. If street crime skyrockets, the garbage doesn’t get picked up, or snow doesn’t get plowed quickly, a mayor is in trouble no matter what his or her political coloration.
I have written this book because I believe that the challenges of public service such as Fukuyama describes can be overcome by talented leaders and, most important, that solving our larger political problems is not a prerequisite for bureaucratic reform—for doing what government does better, cheaper, faster, and in a more “user-friendly” way and holding people accountable for performance both good and bad. Such optimism is uncharacteristic for me. Many years ago, The Washington Post called me the “Eeyore” of national security. Like A. A. Milne’s character in Winnie-the-Pooh, I was able, the paper said, to find the darkest cloud behind every silver lining. But when it comes to changing bureaucracies for the better, I am optimistic.
A politically dysfunctional environment is not, in itself, an insurmountable impediment to bureaucratic reform. After all, there wasn’t exactly a lot of reform going on before government paralysis. At all levels of government and however rancid the country’s politics, the suggestions in these pages will stand the reformer in good stead wherever she sits.
However great the public’s dissatisfaction with the public sector, the private sector doesn’t fare much better. It’s not just huge frauds like Enron (2001), WorldCom (2002), and Bernard Madoff’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme that have hurt the reputation of the business community. There have been gross management failures in big industries such as automobile manufacturing and in financial institutions, the latter—along with misguided (and often self-serving) government and political decision making—leading to the Great Recession, which reduced the household net worth of most Americans, threw millions out of work, and wrecked retirement plans for millions more.
While the media have focused on mismanagement and lawbreaking, far more widespread in business in my view has been a failure of leadership and, too often, a failure of character: arrogance, egotism, obliviousness to the fate of employees, failure to hold people accountable for behavioral or financial misdeeds, belief that high position warrants entitlement, and so much more. Regardless of one’s opinion on the cause or extent of recent growth in pay disparities between executives and those who work for them, the highly negative public perception is all too real. Just as government is paralyzed by self-serving, power-hungry politicians, private sector executives are seen as equally self-serving, greedy, and believing themselves entitled to be held to a different standard of behavior from ordinary folks.
On the other hand, the business executives I know personally are men and women of strong character and high integrity, personally enormously generous to worthy causes, conscientious about the well-being and future prospects of their employees, concerned about what ails our society—and deeply involved in trying to find remedies. But again, that is not the broad public perception of the top rung in the private sector. And just like negative perceptions of politicians, that is a problem for our society, a leadership problem I believe the suggestions in this book can help address.
—
I conclude with a few words specifically addressed to public service. The columnist Walter Lippmann wrote long ago, “Those in high places are more than the administrators of government bureaus. They are more than the writers of laws. They are the custodians of a nation’s ideals, of the beliefs it cherishes, of its permanent hopes, of the faith which makes a nation out of a mere aggregation of individuals.” If you scratch deeply enough, you will find that most of those in public service—“the custodians”—no matter how outwardly tough or jaded or egotistical, are in their heart of hearts romantics, idealists, and optimists. They actually believe it is possible to make the lives of their fellow citizens better and the world a safer place. But an important part of what makes America unique is that our nation’s ideals, hopes, and faith are manifested not only in individuals but in our institutions.
Accordingly, we can only bring our ideals alive, fulfill our hopes, and strengthen our faith as a country by improving the institutions that are the instruments through which we can achieve those goals. I have loved each of the organizations I have led—the CIA, Texas A&M, the Defense Department, and now the Boy Scouts of A
merica. But my love of and dedication to them have not blinded me to their shortcomings and need for change and reform. Most of the big changes I have led to improve those institutions have worked and often have endured because I applied the approaches and techniques described in these pages.
Bureaucratic reform can be accomplished even in rough political waters. Indeed, politics is just one of multiple obstacles facing a leader when it comes to challenging the status quo. Accordingly, there are no excuses for not starting today.
The question is whether new leaders, agents of change, are up to the challenge. Harry Truman once said, “Every great achievement is the story of a flaming heart.” The task of reforming institutions is a difficult one. A leader’s heart must be on fire with belief in what she seeks to do. Changing institutions is a battle, and she must undertake it with courage, strength, and conviction. She must believe in it before she can persuade others to believe in it. She must be prepared to put her job on the line for it if she is to ask others to risk their careers and reputations to help her.
Woodrow Wilson wrote, “When you come into the presence of a leader of men, you know you have come into the presence of fire—that it is best not incautiously to touch that man—that there is something that makes it dangerous to cross him.” The reformer must be very tough and, from time to time, ruthless. She will sometimes stand absolutely alone in pressing for change. She must hold people accountable and be prepared to remove those who are opposed or who cannot do the job. She will encounter criticism—sometimes vicious and personal—along the way. The path of the reformer of institutions is never easy and rarely downhill.
I entered public service nearly fifty years ago because, when I was a college student, President Kennedy urged us to ask not what our country could do for us but what we could do for our country. I remained in public service because President George H. W. Bush reminded us that “public service is a noble calling.” And so, especially to young people, I would paraphrase John Adams’s admonition to his son, quoted earlier: If the wise and honest among you refuse to serve, others will not. And we will all be the poorer for it.
The Nobel laureate Anatole France once wrote, “To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe.” To those who believe our institutions can be better than they are, I say, Dream. Believe. Plan. Act.
Acknowledgments
In writing this book, I have drawn on memories and experiences stretching back to childhood. The lessons taught and example shown by my mother and father with respect to character and integrity, how to treat other people, and the joy of living have shaped my entire life.
How do I thank the countless men and women who, over the course of my professional life, have taught and influenced me, from my first CIA cubicle mate and lifelong friend, the late Barry Stevenson, to those in uniform who so inspired me as secretary of defense? I have been fortunate to have mentors, coaches, partners, and friends everywhere I have worked in government, universities, and on corporate boards. Their influence, collectively and individually, is reflected on every page of this book.
I asked several people to review this manuscript, and I want to thank them for making the time and effort to help me: Pete Chiarelli, Benton Cocanougher, Ryan McCarthy, Rodney McClendon, Geoff Morrell, Michael O’Quinn, Robert Rangel, Harry Rhoads, Thayer Scott, and Neal Wolin. Obviously, responsibility for any errors or mistakes is mine alone. Thanks also to my assistant, Keith Hensley, for his help in preparing this book and for managing my life and my time so I could actually get it done.
Both the CIA and the Department of Defense reviewed the manuscript to prevent the disclosure of classified information, and I thank both for their expeditious responses. Needless to say, all statements of fact, opinion, and analysis are mine and do not reflect official positions or views of the CIA or the Defense Department. Similarly, nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. government authentication of information or as endorsement of my views.
Special thanks to Wayne Kabak of WSK Management, who has represented me for more than twenty years and through three books. He is a very special friend. I also want to thank Jonathan Segal of Alfred A. Knopf, an always constructive and superbly gifted editor who has guided me through two books. Jon, I raise my martini glass to you. I also want to thank Sonny Mehta at Knopf for his confidence in me for both this book and Duty, as well as others at Knopf for their contribution.
Finally, I want to thank Becky, my wife of nearly fifty years, who has been my love, my companion, and my best friend through many trials and adventures. She has always kept me grounded and made home and a loving family a sanctuary for me from the pressures of some very stressful jobs. Her generosity and kindness toward others have set an example I have tried—not always successfully—to emulate. When I asked her to marry me so long ago, I promised our life together would never be boring. I believe I have kept that promise.
A NOTE ABOUT THE AUTHOR
ROBERT M. GATES was appointed the twenty-second secretary of defense (2006–11) by President George W. Bush and is the only secretary of defense in U.S. history to be asked to remain in that office by a newly elected president. President Barack Obama was the eighth president Gates served. President Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor, on Gates’s last day in office. Before becoming secretary of defense, Gates was president of Texas A&M University. Prior to that, he served as interim dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at the university from 1999 to 2001. Gates joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1966. In 1967, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. He spent nearly nine years at the National Security Council, serving four presidents of both political parties. He served as deputy director of central intelligence from 1986 until 1989 and as assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for President George H. W. Bush from 1989 to 1991. Gates served as director of central intelligence from 1991 to 1993. A native of Kansas, Gates received his bachelor’s degree from the College of William & Mary, his master’s degree from Indiana University, and his doctorate in Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University. He was installed as chancellor of the College of William & Mary in February 2012 and became national president of the Boy Scouts of America in May 2014. He is the author of From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War and Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.
What’s next on
your reading list?
Discover your next
great read!
* * *
Get personalized book picks and up-to-date news about this author.
Sign up now.
A Passion for Leadership Page 24
