Leadership can be defined by many ways. Like “love” or “responsibility”, leadership evokes an emotional response. “We know it when we see it” is an oft heard descriptor. For the purposes of this conversation, let us look at the DDI study on global management.
In their survey of 412 executives published in 2008, they found a number of priorities related to leadership. Among their priorities, ranking first was the leader’s ability to motivate. Further, working well across disparate cultures, making tough decisions, strategy and execution were among the top priorities.
This treatise is not a comprehensive analysis of policy decisions, macro and microeconomics impacts of taxes, not a discussion of race or religion or moral capacity or lack thereof, etc. We as a people need to go to the basic core of what leadership is and what we want it to be. In the political realm, we need to decide, is President Obama hitting the mark or not w/ one criterion: leadership.
Before we use DDI’s priorities of leadership, let’s start by also pointing out leaders have followers; a simple precept of leadership, really. If you are leading, and no one’s following, guess what, you’re not leading.
Who is following Barak Obama? According to Peter Brown at the WSJ, no one. At least, not as many as were one year ago. His support is at an all-time low, 41-44% depending on which survey you look to. Most importantly, his support across all demographics has dwindled. Only 19% of WASPs support Obama, down from 35%; only 12% of Republicans (more later on that); 38% of independents support the president.
What about the key liberal demographic, the wheelhouse of his support? Consistently liberals are abandoning him as well. It’s slowed less than other demographics, many of the liberal organizations moving against Obama. Friends of the Earth in March 2010 ran ads denouncing Obama’s environmental policies.
Without followers, how does anyone claim to be a leader? Perhaps I can end my analysis here…
But let’s look at DDI’s list and analyze the facts about the President Obama’s leadership abilities. Clearly the president is struggling when it comes to motivation. Influencing the electorate is playing out to one of the worst political slaughters our nation’s history, if current polling data holds from now until November. With control of the Congress, White House, and Courts, Obama was barely able to eke out one legislative “victory” in his healthcare bill. An extremely watered down (thankfully) version of his original vision passed by the skin of his teeth.
How about Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia? Has the president been able to influence the electorate enough to continue his agenda? What other major motivations has Obama been able to achieve? How’s North Korea reacted to his pursuits? How about Iran? How much did his numerous apology tours net the people of the United States?
What about making those tough decisions all leaders are faced to make? Formulating stagey and executing on that strategy? This isn’t a critique of actual decisions or even strategy, policy decisions are what they are. While we might not always agree on leaders’ decisions or strategies, do they at least make decisions or have any kind of strategic vision? If we look at the process used and timing on making decisions we have a clearer understanding of basic leadership and management skills.
Example 1: Afghanistan. Obama’s polices on Afghanistan have changed three times. Within the first 30 days of his presidency Obama announced a winding down and adding 17,000 troops for the purpose of “stabilizing” Afghanistan. 40-days later he unveiled another shift with the purpose of counterinsurgency, appointing Richard Holbrooke as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. May 2009 saw Gen Stanley McChrystal taking command in Afghanistan, in alignment w/ the new counterinsurgency strategy. But then by October 2009 all actions put on hold as VP Joe Biden argues the mission is changing again moving from counterinsurgency and to counterterrorism. Since then the strategy has shifted again, there’s talk of another shift, and a major shakeup in the military leadership with General David Petraeus taking over for McChrystal.
Example 2: The BP oil spill. Just one article in the WSJ has outlined just the highest level missteps by the Obama administration during the BP oil spill debacle. According to author Paul Rubin, the EPA refused to modify regulations around the amount of oil permissible in the discharged water. This would have allowed the literal dozens of skimmers available to be more useful and involved much earlier and kept thousands of gallons of oil off the shores in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Further, the Jones Act we heard so much about could have been waived. Bush did this immediately during Katrina, an oft and ill-used example of Presidential mismanagement. This one response from Obama would have allowed foreign vessels to operate in US coastal waters to help assist with the cleanup. As Rubin points out, the failure of Obama to act on these two items alone cost the use of one Taiwanese ship that could have dispersed roughly 500,000 barrels of oil – per day.
Additionally, Obama could have ordered the freeing of American-based skimmers. Of the 2000 skimmers in the US only 400 were deployed to the gulf. The other skimmers sit in reserve only awaiting another potential spill. What spill could take place that had the potential of being this large as to require 5 times the amount of skimmers used in the Gulf?!
This is probably the most egregious misfeasance ever documented in any national or international tragedy. Ever.
Clearly Obama is in over his head. He lacks the basic leadership skills we demand from our line bosses or managers. He does not have the building blocks in place, regardless of political philosophy or ideology, to lead a team, let alone a nation. President Obama, for his loquaciousness, his charm, his charisma, but for his lack of leadership is his undoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment