Why hasn't there been a female White House Chief of Staff?

In preparing for a class discussion about the impact of female leadership in American Foreign Policy, I was struck by a question. There have been a number of women to hold top White House positions, especially when it comes to foreign policy, including: Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, UN Ambassador, etc. This applies for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

However, there has yet to be a woman as White House Chief of Staff. Why is this? It strikes me as an odd office to be held above the glass ceiling. (The Jed Barlet-CJ Cregg pairing worked after all, albeit only in a fictional universe.)

What makes a good Chief of Staff? According to an article by David Cohen, their primary functions are to be an administrator, adviser and guardian of the office. None of these seems to invite a particular gender gap. The difference in quality seems to be in how they go about their job. Howard Baker, a Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan is praised in the Cohen article for emphasizing the following traits in the role: interchangeability, collegiality, being complimentary and teamwork. These are not traits which men are thought to hold a monopoly over. 

Perhaps there is an overt bias at play. The Obama White House has been criticized as being a "Boy's Club." 

I would argue that a bias probably exists. In fact, this example may show how publicity affects presidential staffing decisions. Presidents are concerned with the perception of their office. Therefore, it is no surprise that despite the presence of a probable male bias, presidents of both parties have elevated women to high profile positions of influence. Chief of Staff is a position without a high public profile, yet it has as much influence as any staff position in the government. Therefore, if you're looking for gender bias in the White House, the occupancy of the office that connects to the most powerful office in the land may be a good place to start. 

Popular posts from this blog

Turnout for What?: An altogether different concern with field experiments

Image
To the degree that Political Science Twitter can blow up, it blew up this week with the controversy over a field experiment run by professors at Stanford and Dartmouth in Montana (For the latest in the debate, see John Patty ; for overview, Derek Willis in NYT ). I don’t have anything to add to the ethics in field experiments discussion, although I am sympathetic to the accused profs. (If you would like a totally ethical look at how information increases participation in races like these, see my MPSA paper from last year!) My concern with this episode is that it illustrates a problem with the literature on turnout studies. They’ve gotten too good. One only needs to look around at the mail parties send to voters to see that voter shaming ( like in Alaska ), and possibly intimidation, is alive and well. These are techniques that were first tested by field experiments. (Look, it even happened to me in 2012) The combination of these techniques and the robust field offi
Read more

2022 Midterm Projection: Fundamentally Republican

Image
I think this is going to be an ugly election cycle for the Democrats. We can expect losses for the president's party in Congress in their first midterm election, and Joe Biden has not done anything to change my expectation. This is compounded by the fact that the economy seems to be the most pressing concern for voters, and inflation is a very difficult issue for policymakers to make go away or minimize. Since inflation is effectively making money less valuable, people that have a lot of money hate it , and even though unemployment is at a record low right, and many people in lower tax brackets have money in their pockets, it doesn't seem to go as far when you have to pay large bills for gas, heating your home or buying groceries.  So I believe we'll see the US House of Representatives swing to Republicans, probably with about 15-20 Democratic seat losses. Oddly, this is not actually that high of a number (Trump's party lost 41 in his only midterm, Obama lost 63 in his
Read more

10 Tips for Going on the Political Science Job Market

Image
It’s August, and academics are procrastinating so I’ve seen lots of advice on the job market. A lot of this advice seems good, but it usually comes from tenured professors who last went on the market before the advent of Twitter. So here are ten quick thoughts on my two recent trips to the academic job market: My qualifications for dispensing advice include spending many hours in the belly of the beast. Long term planning. One of the most sobering pieces of advice I got on the market came from Mike Horowitz at Penn, who emphasized to a group of us: “The market is a multi-year process.” This turned out to be the case for me, and the majority of people I have seen go through the market. At Penn we had 5 years of guaranteed funding, so planning for the market should begin in earnest in the second half of the fourth year. Once you lose that guaranteed funding, you’ll need to spend time on finding contingent employment, and anytime that is spent not on research you will not get
Read more