Interview with Tom Ridge, Former Governor and Secretary of DHS - Part 2 of 2
February 22, 2006
The second part of the interview we conducted with Tom Ridge featured him reflecting on his time as Governor and what he believes his legacy will be. We also asked the Governor to comment on the incentives that change agents have at their disposal to drive behavior. In the paper we noted that change agents in the War on Terror are driven by a limitless sense of the good that government can do. Ridge captured that idea well in the exchange that followed.
Daniel Forrester: Can you compare and contrast your role as Governor versus your role as Secretary? Take us into that world. You mentioned that the buck stops with you when you are governor as well as the federal executive branch. You mentioned that you were a bit frustrated.
Governor Ridge: It was not a frustration at all; it was simply a condition of employment, being a Secretary. Approval from the White House policy office was essential. Much of what we did related not just to the Homeland Security department but other executive departments and agencies. So it is a collaborative process that is sometimes, not always, but sometimes, painfully slow. But so be it. I don't think this administration is any different than others, The executive branch is very muscular. It’s slow moving at times. That doesn't mean it’s good or bad. That just the way it is. But as Governor, you oversee the entire portfolio, and I think it’s a bit easier to drive change if you are so inclined. At the end of the day I think the goals are the same. My cabinet was very large. We knew there were certain things we wanted to do with the environment, education, international trade, welfare reform and so forth. I had a very good idea of the kinds of things I wanted to do before I ran. We actually used those aspirations as a platform on which to run. Once in office, you empower individual Cabinet members. You talk to them about a game plan to affect the results and the outcomes that you want. Hopefully the vision is clear, so they can understand their role and their responsibility. You provide whatever resources they need to get their jobs done. Then you say to them, "There are two phone calls I'd like to get. One is that 'I am done and ready for the next mission' or two 'I need a little more help to affect this change.'" It’s not quite that simple, but when there is discord it’s a more manageable political environment. I think being a governor is the best political job in America. In most cases, you can drive resolution and consensus more readily in the environment of state politics.
We were very fortunate. Most of my cabinet members understood that collaboration was central to affecting the outcomes that we all wanted. I think everyone also understood that if there was any discord that I would be prepared to resolve it.
Now, going from state to federal government, one must understand that the President’s executive branch is a monstrous entity. You can affect change in policy even when it involves other departments and agencies, but even though you may achieve that, you still normally require Congressional approval. I would argue against the notion that it’s a "frustration" because I worked in this town for 12 years as a Congressman. So I understand the process. It can be painfully slow.
I also think, knowing the process, that Congressional oversight could be a little bit streamlined and more effective. We could change the committee structure, for example, which would help us be a little more facile, a little more agile, and a little more flexible when it comes to our ability to secure the country. Fewer committees, more strategic oversight, less time testifying and more time on operational responsibilities would be a welcomed outcome.
Daniel Forrester: Governor, in the private sector change agents drive behavior by the incentives they give in the work place. In the private sector, you can give me an economic incentive; you can give me recognition; you can give me rewards. Do you think you could have driven more behavioral change if you had at your discretion the ability to implement economic incentives or other incentives to make people lean toward your vision?
Governor Ridge: It would be nice. We had limited ability to give bonuses, very limited ability, which we utilized. I think most people in public service are driven either by emotional or intellectual rewards when it comes to getting things done. Rewards are intangible and very, very personal; they are very real. Within the environment of Homeland Security, I think one of the catalysts for change is a sense of mission. There is an appreciation for people’s roles that didn't exist four years ago. On September 10, 2001, our citizens looked at what was then Customs and INS, security personnel at the airports and a lot of related agency personnel in one way. Americans looked at them differently on September 12th. Suddenly these people became relevant to their security, their country, their neighborhood and their way of life. Because of the tragedy, there became an elevated sense of self worth by the individual employee. They felt a sense of value: “People are going to pay a lot more attention to what I am doing, and I have been doing a pretty good job.” But with that came an increased sharpness and determination – a desire to do an even better job for their country’s sake and their fellow citizens’ sake. So there is that personal assessment and motivation that factors into work performance. That is tremendously critical to how we operate in this country.
So I think this unique and huge change was driven by a strong sense of mission. But there was some understandable grudging acceptance of it at the beginning. People were initially concerned about their responsibilities, compensation, and reporting structures. But in time I believe the general consensus among employees was, "We didn't like it at the outset, but now we feel good about it. It was the right thing to do, and I'm glad to be a part of it."
So I know that there are some people at the airports as we pulled Customs and ICE together, for example, who said they didn't like it initially, but soon saw that it actually makes sense. I think DHS employees are unique in the level of change they've had to embrace. I think they're driven by a sense of mission, a sense of pride for what they do and the value the community and country places on what they do. They began to see tangible results in some of the changes, and that makes them feel good about being part of the change. If it materially affects you – i.e., if you are able to do your job more effectively, most people will embrace change because most people want to be more effective at their job. They want to make a difference. That’s the reward.
Daniel Forrester: What do you believe has been your impact in helping our government to fight the War on Terror?
Governor Ridge: What is my impact? Honestly, you hope that somebody concludes that the right man was there at the right time to get the first part of the job done as you built a new department. I am not in a position to assess that. I will let others do that.
My focus was to do my best, with the President’s trust and charge, to provide the leadership, the vision, and the support we needed to affect change. Because it was all about change, and as long as we're fighting terrorists who are increasingly adaptable, flexible, and methodical, Homeland Security will always be about change itself. This security transformation and integration is going to take years.
Secretary Chertoff and others have said that we did a heck of a lot more in the first two years than anybody could have imagined - that they had no idea we did all of this because so much was under the radar. So if the legacy is simply, 'we gave my successor and those who will succeed all of us a solid platform that affected programmatic change and personnel change and the necessary foundational elements to make our country and its citizens safe and more secure', then we did our job. Time will tell.