The ideal federal bureaucracy is organized in what should be a pyramid shape, with the president occupying the smallest portion at the top, the political appointees occupying a somewhat larger space immediately following the president, and the career civil servants consuming the vast majority of space underneath the political appointees. The political appointees are hand selected by the president to head a particular department of the presidents cabinet (such as the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Defense) and serve no designated term as far as length of time served. The career civil servants are selected after passing a required civil service exam and are eligible for tenure after working in that particular field for a certain period of time. Despite being ideally organized in this fashion, the cabinets are highly devolved with generally no common interests amongst them. The cabinets are not usually depended on by the president (unless it revolves an issue of an urgent matter) and are instead attentive to lobbyists (those who have similar interests as those in a particular cabinet) where strong relationships are formed among their “native” culture. Going “native” implies that the cabinet leader begins to form their points and agenda based on what is currently accepted in the industry they represent as opposed to remaining loyal to the agenda the president originally implemented. Heclo indicates that because of such, each cabinet is decentralized and undefined to the point where presidential power is equally destabilized. The head of each cabinet has limited authority over their area of expertise due to stiff regulations that are customarily unaltered. Heclo affirms that there is a substantial lack of political leadership with absence of communication between the cabinets and can result in uniformed and hasty decisions being made as a direct result.

The president should have an agenda that can be prioritized without overwhelming Congress. One or two substantial, important issues should be declared so the outcomes can be thoughtful, well versed, and established to satisfy both the president and the public. In an environment that is rapidly changing due to various external and internal stimuli, not all issues can be addressed with the attention needed to make an informed decision. Congress is constantly changing as well (as far as which party has the majority and from which states) in which the president must be sensitive to when setting his agenda. The president is more likely to achieve his agendas goals when he or she has bipartisan support. However, it can prove to be unsuccessful if the president leaves the topic at hand not well defined which could result in Congress passing a piece of legislation that does not agree with the presidents initial agenda. The president could also potentially overlook a major issue that should be addressed for an issue that does not necessarily need to be passed through Congress.
The president should pay close attention to the national mood, by doing so he or she can pinpoint what topics should be addressed in relation to how the public comprehends the current position of each issue and what should be tackled from a legislative standpoint. This is particularly important during times of crisis where the president can capitalize on such with a strong decision that could potentially drive up the popularity poll and sway voters to his or her political party. Legislation that may not normally get passed in Congress under normal circumstances stands a better possibility when an event occurs that could also influence public support. However, the president could conceivably address a momentous issue in a manner that would disgust or turn away the public because of a poor decision or one that proved to conflict with the publics personal interests. Being a successful president coincides with the publics overall standpoint on issues, where the public is generally satisfied with the outcome and has an overall better sense of pride and confidence in the president him or herself.