Interview with Tom Ridge, Former Governor and Secretary of DHS - Part 1 of 2
February 21, 2006
During the research stage of the change agent paper I had a chance encounter with Tom Ridge, just days before he stepped down as Secretary of DHS. During our sidewalk conversation in Bethesda, Maryland, Ridge mentioned that he thought incoming DHS Secretary Chertoff was likely to become a change agent.
I managed to secure a future interview, where the Governor was kind enough to dedicate nearly an hour of his time to discuss the topic of change agents. In an engaging and thoughtful discussion, Ridge offered a self-assessment of his time as Secretary of DHS. The full transcript of the interview is below and has been divided into two parts:
Daniel Forrester: Governor, you used the word "change agent" the day we met. Can you give us your definition of that term? What do those words mean to you?
Governor Ridge: In my view a change agent is someone who can effectively re-align or redirect the capacities of individuals or organizations to achieve either better results for a traditional mission or new outcomes based on another assignment. So it’s a realignment or re-direction of basic capacities to achieve new or different results.
Daniel Forrester: Is that a term ever used in one of the cabinet meetings? Is that something the President might have even used? I am just curious about the word because the term gets thrown around a lot.
Governor Ridge: I cannot recall its use, but certainly the expectation existed. It’s a term we used when I was a governor. People who have the opportunity to serve in an executive capacity are more inclined to use the term because part of their responsibility is either to achieve higher and better results given the existing mission or new and different results or outcomes if there is a different mission.
Daniel Forrester: Can you give us a few examples in the War on Terror where you have observed change agents who you think have been effective? And can you tell us why you think they have been effective?
Governor Ridge: Yes. I could start with Jim Williams, who spearheaded the implementation of the nation’s first entry-exit system, US-VISIT. We could discuss Rob Bonner at Customs and Mike Garcia at ICE to the extent that they took two significant pieces of two pre-existing groups and pulled them together, ran them differently and efficiently with the goal of effectively performing both the traditional and new missions.
I could highlight Col. Bob Stephan (ret.), who basically drove a consensus around a national incident management system and a national response plan. We needed someone who had a vision for the development of an operational prototype that state and local officials would use in response to a terrorist event, natural disaster or a horrible accident. Bob’s inclusive management style, persistence and vision resulted in the creation of a National Incident Management System that will be embedded at the state and local level throughout the country. Furthermore, there were five or six national response plans on the shelf. Bob had the foresight and the energy and the vision to blend them and create consensus around a single plan. This was a huge change. It was not sexy; not much was written about it, but the emergency management professionals know that such a unified national plan - along with a standardized state and local system is a dramatic and necessary change.
Daniel Forrester: Why do you think he was successful?
Governor Ridge: He’s a leader. He maintains a sense of urgency that is reflected in his work ethic. He’s got a huge intellect. He could affect change because of the clarity of his vision, the inclusiveness of his approach and the constant pressure he put on the system to get results. He knew exactly what he wanted to do and figured out a way get there. And he was inclusive. Everybody has embraced it because everybody’s fingerprints are all over it. It wasn't mandated like many federal departments are inclined to do.
Daniel Forrester: Can change agents be made or are they born?
Governor Ridge: Probably a product of both DNA and experience. I think some people innately are more comfortable being leaders. That doesn't make them effective leaders or effective change agents. There are certain personality traits that lend themselves to an inclination to drive change, but I think it’s through both those personal qualities and experience that one becomes an effective change agent.
Daniel Forrester: If you could go back to the day you became the first Secretary of Homeland Security, what advice would you give yourself around the organizational change?
Governor Ridge: There is a contrast between being governor, where you have ultimate authority, to being Secretary. That’s not a criticism. It’s just a difference you have to understand upfront. Truman's expression that the buck stops here – at the executive branch – is true. You win or loose, succeed or fail based on ultimately your own strengths or weaknesses, etc. It is unlikely that I could have negotiated a greater independence or a more flexibility once the organization was structured to do things differently.
Daniel Forrester: If you could go back, you would have tried to negotiate a little bit more of that flexibility?
Governor Ridge: I recently had an interesting conversation with Minister Netanyahu who surprised many Israelis by going into the Sharon government. He negotiated certain autonomy and flexibility. I am not sure any Cabinet member can achieve that in our system of governance. And even if the President is prepared to provide greater latitude, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can obtain that flexibility from Congress.
Daniel Forrester: We have discovered that change agents have fascinating relationships with the leadership above them. Obviously your leadership was the President. Can you talk about the relationship in the sense of the change you were trying to enforce? Certainly, there is authorization within the law, and yet what kind of mandates and what kind of relationship did you have with him to have the flexibility to be the manager that you wanted to be in that Department. Can you comment on that?
Governor Ridge: Whether we're talking about defining the role of the department or the creation of the structure, by and large the President gave our team carte blanche. Essentially, his direction was to build upon the enabling legislation and report in from time to time. It was pretty much hands off. We coordinated much of our work through the Office of the Chief of Staff and OMB.
Daniel Forrester: Did that surprise you?
Governor Ridge: There was clarity in the President’s vision; he knew what he wanted. The enabling legislation refined it and defined it, and my job was to execute as much change within that framework as possible. Good leaders empower that sense of trust and authority in their people and that’s what the President did with me. Of course everything you do in Homeland Security that relates to other executive branches and executive agencies here at home requires either coordination or consent. We were accountable to both Congress and the White House, and the natural interaction and oversight significantly limited what the department could do unilaterally. By in large that went well; there weren't too many conflicts. The press corps tried to create a couple of major conflicts, but there weren't many.
Daniel Forrester: At the end of Secretary Chertoff’s tenure as Secretary, how will we actually know whether he was or was not a change agent?
Governor Ridge: Because he personally set the bar for others to make that determination. I think that was good to do. If you take a look at the beginning of the Department’s first year and the commencement of the second year, we publicly said: these are our goals; these are our aspirations; these are our organizational goals; these are the things we would like to affect. So there was a public template that you could compare against those markers. Secretary Chertoff has since laid out six generic areas where he hopes to affect some change. I think they are substantive; they have been publicly laid out so you will be able to go back and measure the performance.
For example, the borders are a huge challenge for us. Frankly, the methods for change in this area under Secretary Chertoff will be more of the same - the integration of people and technology. It’s a combination that yields progress on many levels. I think the border challenge needs to include the Temporary Worker Program and a few other things. Those determinations are still to be made.
Once you have created the organizational change, which is the first step, I think you will see the development of the policy shop and a much more strategically oriented department. In creating and setting up the department, we had to look at immediate and short-term needs and cast out the line toward solutions that could evolve to meet long-term needs. So two or three years from now, I think you will see a more comprehensive internal strategic policy mindset because of the re-configuration of the policy shop that was wanting. That was one of the reasons why we made the recommendation. Clearly one of the changes we could use is a more efficient Congressional committee and sub-committee structure. That is yet to be determined. But again, Secretary Chertoff has laid out a visible roadmap; he wants to reach specific destinations, and I think you will be able to conclude in couple of years whether he got there; just follow the trail.
(To be continued in part 2.)