The available talent pool is shallow

A leader can choose to hire people that are competent, experienced and even loyal. When a new President comes on board, they usually draw from a deep talent pool of folks who served the incumbent’s party in the past.

From the outset of the current incumbent’s election as President, the rules have not fully applied. The first clue was his surprise that he won. He had done little preparation for hiring a staff and is still behind in filling positions.

The second clue is the focus on loyalty more than the first two criteria. While there are a few capable folks on the staff, many capable and experienced folks took their names off the list or were not considered as they dared be critical of this imperfect man. They were not loyal enough.

The third clue is the continual lack of due diligence on the people announced and even hired. Many people told the President not to hire Michael Flynn. He was the first to go. Others were not approved by Congress and still more should not have been approved due to poor qualifications for the position.

A final clue is the talent pool has tightened. More candidates have taken their name out of the pool given the tempestuous White House. This a reason the President is hiring people he sees on TV which is where he spends much of his attention. By itself, that is not necessarily bad, but coupled with the lack of due diligence, several people have been offered jobs who should not have been due to conflict. As recent evidence, his legal team announced four new additions, only to withdraw their names after finding out about conflicts of interest. A Supreme Court experienced attorney named Ted Olson declined to be considered citing this chaos as one example of a well oiled machine.

One year ago, the President said he had formed the finest cabinet and staff ever. With the significant amount of turnover, it is obvious that statement was hyperbole. Yet, the people he has added of late are not being described as universally great choices. Even the more competent ones are defined as having similar character flaws to the President.

The key question I ask folks is would you want to to work for such a tempestuous and deceitful person? And, if you did, how long do you think it would take before you wore out your welcome or left because of the environment?

We need more competent, experienced and cooler heads. This is even more true when the boss colors so much outside the lines. The problem is that pool has been purposefully drained.