A recurrent pattern in public administration is the appointment of campaign communication staff to key agency roles following an electoral victory. These individuals, skilled in messaging, rapid response and public engagement, often struggle to transition from the fast-paced, reactive nature of campaigns to the structured, process-driven world of governance.
Effective policymaking requires excruciating planning and negotiation, regulatory compliance and long-term focus — elements often at odds with campaign-style urgency. As a result, many former campaign staff leave their agency appointments within a short period, frustrated by bureaucratic constraints and the realization that governance requires sustained institutional processes and expertise rather than continuous political mobilization and the arbitrary boosting of KPIs.
The modern media environment, fueled by 24-hour news cycles and rapid digital dissemination, pressures agencies to produce frequent, high-profile announcements that often serve little purpose beyond inflating internal performance metrics. This environment tempts new political staff to prioritize visibility over substance, mistaking media saturation for governance.
Newly appointed political staff often enter agencies with misplaced confidence, assuming their campaign-honed aggressiveness will translate to effective leadership. They speak in platitudes and war metaphors.
This dynamic mirrors Alec Baldwin’s infamous scene in the 1992 film adaptation of David Mamet’s Pulitzer-winning play Glengarry Glen Ross. Baldwin’s character, Blake, delivers a ruthless, high-pressure monologue to struggling salesmen, intending to motivate them but instead fueling resentment and desperation. Likewise, incoming political staff who mistake dominance for leadership quickly alienate career professionals and find themselves overwhelmed by the complexities of governance.
Blake is, as one of my former mentors in Texas state government would say, all hat and no cattle. Ten pounds of bullshit in a five-pound bag.
When Policy Becomes Political Messaging
This misalignment between politics and governance has contributed to an increasing reliance on executive orders and policy directives as political communication tools. Rather than serving as well-planned instruments of governance, these actions are wielded for short-term political impact, treating policymaking as a series of symbolic gestures rather than a structured, outcomes-driven enterprise. While executive authority is a legitimate mechanism for enacting policy, its overuse weakens administrative effectiveness, contributing to policy instability and undermining public trust.
Governance should be strategic, deliberate and grounded in empirical analysis. When policy decisions prioritize social media impact over operational effectiveness, they risk short-termism, undermining institutional credibility and creating policy instability. Rushed decisions often lack rigorous planning, leading to inefficiencies and legal challenges. Politically driven shifts erode public trust and make agencies appear partisan. Furthermore, reliance on executive actions fosters policy reversibility, hindering long-term progress. To maintain credibility and effectiveness, governance must prioritize thoughtful, durable policymaking over fleeting public appeal.
Prioritizing Policy Over Performance Metrics
Government exists to serve citizens, not campaigns. While political leaders should always seek to communicate their priorities, effective governance requires stability, procedural integrity and a focus on results.
By prioritizing substantive policymaking over spectacle, government agencies can preserve public trust and promote durable, meaningful progress — ensuring that today’s decisions have a lasting impact beyond the next news cycle.
Michael Castellon 