Page 248 - Leadership Lessons of the White House Fellows

BECOMING A FELLOW

As former Fellows and later as members of the President’s Commis-
sion, Dana Mead (WHF 70–71) and Roger Porter (WHF 74–75) have
experienced Selection Weekend on both sides of the interview table. Mead
and Porter helped select Fellows for twenty-five and twenty-four years,
respectively, and their distinguished service has helped sustain the program
for decades. To begin the final selection process, Porter gives each finalist’s
application close to an hour of his undivided attention, during which he
searches for evidence of the three characteristics he believes are essential
to a successful Fellowship. “First is the ability to write and to think clearly.
People who write clearly are generally also people who think clearly,” Porter
explained. “White House Fellows have a very high threshold that they need
to clear, and I want to be sure that when they are put in a high-level assign-
ment, they are going to be able to fulfill it. Second, I look for their capac-
ity to work well with others. Do they have an abrasive personality or a
collaborative personality? That’s essential to know because most of the
work that goes on at the top of organizations, whether it’s governmental or
nongovernmental, involves people working very collaboratively with oth-
ers. Someone may be brilliant, but if they don’t have the capacity to work
well with others, then their ability to contribute will be greatly diminished.
The final thing I look for is whether or not they have their ego under con-
trol. Are they focused on the success of the organization, or are they
focused on more personal measures of success?”
Mead said that since he wanted to hit the ground running each June,
he also began his assessment by studying every finalist’s application carefully
and making notes that he could use during the actual interview and delib-
erations. He took a dim view of candidates who submitted sloppy paper-
work that contained misspelled words and those who failed to follow the
instructions on the application, both of which indicated a lack of attention
to detail. Candidates who oversold themselves on their applications also
caught Mead’s eye, and not in a good way. He also paid a “huge amount of
attention” to the reference letters, which he felt disclosed more about the
candidates than did their own essays, though he read those carefully too.
From this preliminary paperwork exercise, Mead would begin to rank the
candidates in order, with one colossal caveat: He knew he might be dead
wrong. “I’ve always been mindful of the fact that you could get very
surprised by meeting the individual and find that he or she wasn’t like that
application at all,” he explained. “You always had to keep an open mind.”

233