You can tell a lot about a leader by the appointments he or she makes.  For the President of the United States, filling vacancies is arguably the most important aspect of the job, since many appointees are in place long after the president’s term has expired. Supreme Court justices are the most obvious examples, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President of the World Bank usually occupy their offices for multiple administrations, Paul Wolfowitz notwithstanding. We tend to believe, or maybe we just hope, that the process is objective, independent and designed to find the best-qualified candidate. This administration and others have revealed that this is not always the case. What do leaders really consider when they make these decisions?

  • Patronage.   An executive usually has a coterie of advisers and associates who have all helped him advance. These people are not highly paid. They see their current role as a stepping stone to greater things. An incoming president will introduce people from outside his circle, but the bulk of the plum jobs are seen as rewards for loyal followers. Harriet Myers must have felt that her loyalty was being appropriately rewarded…

  • Protection. Sometimes you need a colleague you can count on – a person you can depend on completely. You don’t know whom you can trust in the new organization, but you have one associate who always tells you the truth – or at least that part of the truth you want to hear at the time. I have known several CEOs who went from position to position with the same second-in-command. It wasn’t always the case that he could do the job very well, but he didn’t rock the boat, and he was a good source of information about what was going on in the organization…

  • Neutralization. On occasion a leader will use a top position to silence a potential critic. After a bruising battle for the leadership, typical in large companies, the loser often gets a substantial consolation prize. This appointment keeps him or her at least ostensibly loyal to the new leader and shuts down the election campaign.  Appointing a former opponent can also mollify a constituency that supported the wrong candidate. There is no guarantee that the disgruntled loser will keep quiet, but criticisms will at least be off the record. It might seem that when Tony Blair gave Gordon Brown the Treasury it didn’t keep him quiet, but it probably stopped him from mounting a serious leadership challenge during Blair’s ten years in office, and it gave Brown something to do between meals.

  • Competence. It is always nice to have someone who will be good enough at a job to forestall embarrassment. You don’t want someone who will overshadow the boss, though. Given all the other the priorities in filling positions in the leaders, job performances that outshine the leader are not so common, unless the latter is particularly incompetent.

Unfortunately, chief executives place many factors above demonstrated ability to perform a job.  Given that it shouldn’t be too surprising that many executive appointees perform so poorly.