Although President-Elect Obama has made some shrewd appointments, his lack of management experience does show itself in his decision to appoint a “Chief Performance Officer”.

On paper the new post sounds a good idea. After all, it is about time someone did what it is supposed to do – to go through the whole federal budget and make sure the taxpayers are getting value for money.

The problem is that there are already at least half-a-dozen offices in different parts of the federal bureaucracy which are supposed to be doing just that.

Adding one more – complete with full supporting staff, plush offices, expense accounts, equal opportunities courses, and the rest of the public sector paraphernalia – simply adds to that bureaucracy.

Indeed, the whole concept of “performance review” as a separate function – under various names – is itself a very public sector phenomenon.

Very few private companies have a separate department to carry out that role.

Instead the role is taken to be part of the responsibilities of every manager at every level. If a subordinate manager’s performance is inadequate, it is not a matter of “internal audit” or “review” – he is simply removed by his superior.

To have a separate department would be a wasteful duplication of resources. It would also disrupt the chain of command.

The President-Elect would do well to learn from the private sector: instead of adding to the wasteful bureaucracy of the federal government, he should ask Congress for the power to make it easier to remove managers, at all levels, who perform poorly.

At the same time, entrepreneurs can learn from the public sector... how not to structure an organisation.