Virtually every large enterprise has a chief operating officer (COO) or the equivalent to ensure that business is properly managed and runs effectively and efficiently. In the U.S. government, that assignment usually falls to individual deputy secretaries or undersecretaries for management for each department.
Only one organization lacks a COO to oversee the smooth running of a government that employs nearly 3 million non-defense workers: the White House.
How can that be? Management 101 dictates otherwise. Yet despite all the skills, experience and management backgrounds of many members of the Cabinet and White House staff, the most searing and unanswerable question is who is in charge?
The usual answer is a non-sequitur: the president.
It is absurd to think the president should become his own COO. Lyndon Johnson tried that during the Vietnam War. It failed miserably. The reason is simple. Presidents have no business micromanaging — period.
All presidents wear too many hats as it is. The president is the chief executive and head of government, commander in chief, head of state, leader of his or her party and leader of the country and the Western alliance that includes Asian and other partners.
But who is the COO for him? No one.
Instead, there are many mini-COOs. Heads of Cabinet departments, agencies and bureaus are in essence the equivalent of corporate executive or senior vice presidents. While the secretary of State is the most senior of the president’s Cabinet, chief operating officer is not part of the job description.
The chief of staff is mainly a coordinator. However, those responsibilities are so broad and often focused on the president’s political agenda that the chief of staff cannot be COO. Additionally, that this position is appointed not elected is another drawback.
Sometimes the director of the Office of Management and Budget plays a de facto role. But that does include overall management of the process to ensure the president’s plans and policies are properly coordinated and executed.
Many examples make this point. Economic and financial policies and plans are prorated across most of the 15 executive departments as well as the Council of Economic Advisors, Office of the Trade Representative and the Small Business Agency.
Likewise, national security must embrace more than the Department of Defense and State Department to include the directors of National Intelligence, Justice, Homeland Security and Treasury. And that may not be a complete list.
Who then might be the appropriate individual to serve as COO? The typically bad solution would be to establish by law an office of the chief operating officer. But what would be the responsibilities and authorities? How would that fit within the Cabinet system? And who would be primus inter pares? Would this even be constitutional? Clearly, this is not a good idea.
The obvious person for this assignment is the vice president. The vice president is second in command, outranks all other executive branch officials and is the only individual who serves in both the executive and congressional branches as president of the Senate.
Thus, while perfectly logical as the right choice for COO if the government decides it needs one, there is a tiny problem called politics.
Vice presidents are selected as running mates for many reasons. Managerial competence is rarely one. John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson to ensure winning Texas and for his mastery of the Senate. Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew to help carry Maryland, and more importantly, Agnew made Nixon impeachment-proof until he was forced to resign for taking bribes.
John McCain selected Sarah Palin to shake up the race. And Barack Obama wanted Joe Biden for his political experience and skill. Neither vice president would have made a good COO.
Making the veep the chief operating officer would change the nature of American politics. Competence and managerial skills would have to trump politics and the pressure for a vice president to meet other criteria whether its diversity or rallying needed constituencies to win an election.
Thus VP for COO does not have good odds of succeeding.
But does the government need a chief operating officer? From a business and managerial perspective, the answer is absolutely. This becomes more obvious as running the government becomes increasingly complex and difficult. However, the need for a COO is by no means a sufficiently good reason to adopt it.
One powerful argument for the vice president becoming the chief operating officer is that the government today has failed and is failing further. A chief operating officer at least has the opportunity to make the executive branch operate more effectively and efficiently.
But will that be enough to send the vice president to the executive suite?
Harlan Ullman Ph.D. is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.