GovernmentExecutive.com

"Concerned Retiree" calls me out on Leon Panetta at CIA:

Ms. Rosenberg -- could you perhaps approach this topic -- i.e. Mr. Panetta doesn't appear to have any special substantive experience or knowledge of intelligence gathering, operations or issues - from the OTHER END -- i.e. please speculate and enlighten us on your views on how little substantive experience or knowledge is needed for the CIA Director post.

It's a fair question, and there are a couple of other questions mixed into the longer comment. So I'm going to answer this query by making a couple of numbered points. Bear with me.

1. Experience Matters, But What Kind? "Concerned Retiree" brings up Caroline Kennedy and President-elect Obama as examples of people who are considered good candidates for leadership positions not because of specific work experience, but because of intangible personal qualities.

I don't really think Panetta falls into the same category as Caroline Kennedy. Panetta's served in Congress, as head of an agency, and as White House Chief of Staff. Kennedy has no similar substantive resume. Much has been made of Kennedy's thin answers to written questions to news outlets. Panetta should--and I'm sure he will--face a lot of tough questions about intelligence, his lack of background in it, how his past management experience will apply to the CIA, etc. If he completely flubs his confirmation hearings, that's probably a good indication that he hasn't figured out CIA enough to direct it.

But I think to suggest that Panetta doesn't have relevant experience in any field just because intelligence work is not among the fields where he has a background is misguided. Yes, Panetta has not (that we know of, of course :) ) worked for the CIA. But he has lead an agency staffed mostly by highly specialized and educated experts at a time when that agency had serious morale problems, and a pressing mission (reducing the size of government, and making it more efficient). The CIA is chock-full of highly educated and trained people with specialized skills. Morale in the agency is low for a variety of reasons, a generational transition is under way, and the intelligence community is undergoing community-wide personnel reforms that affect how people are evaluated and what experience they need to get promoted.

In an ideal world, Panetta would be both an intelligence expert, and have had management experience in a situation similar to what he'll need to tackle the challenges at CIA. I think there's not much question that he isn't the former. He does have the latter. Is that enough? I don't really think I'm qualified to make that call.

2. Management v. Leadership. "Concerned Retiree" continues:

Each have their particular mix, their list of virtues, their recipes - but these are seldom fully articulated or even publicly discussed. It’s not that these “tests” are secret, but, rather hard to define.

I do think that defining what makes someone well-suited for a particular position, especially an important one, is a challenge. But I think there is a difference between praising someone's skills as a leader and as a manager. I have no knowledge or whether Leon Panetta can stir anybody's heart or mind. But he does have a track record of running large organizations and operations with some skill and success.

I think leadership is often a component of good management. After all, managers are going to be far more likely to build buy-in for their initiatives if they inspire and energize the people around them, and they'll be more likely to deal with employees happily and successfully if they have some measure of emotional intelligence. But that's hardly the entire picture. The ability to set priorities, to measure effectiveness, to set performance standards, to budget: all of those things go into management as well. Leadership is measured pretty much by how people feel. Management is measured by outcomes. I think management is quantifiable in a way that leadership is not, and therefore more important as a qualification than leadership is.

I also think that people may overstate the importance of charisma. Charisma gets you in the door. Management gets you results. Barack Obama certainly wouldn't have run for president so early if he was simply a nice, sincere, nerdy dude from Illinois. He probably wouldn't have been in the Senate in the first place. But he was elected president because of a campaign operation that I think is universally acclaimed as superb by folks on the right and left.

I hope these two broad arguments answer at least some of "Concerned Retiree"'s questions, or at least serve as the starting point for a conversation.