The long death march that has become our presidential election cycle is over. Congrats to Barack Obama, may the enthusiasm and passion you captured during the campaign carry over to your term as our leader. I mean that, and it's proof that America still rocks the house. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that a country that needed Title VII forty-plus years ago electing a minority candidate as president is cool on many levels.
Talent trumps race. Lots of conversations coming at the Dunn boys around the dinner table in the years to come. About talent, possibilities, and of course, the role of government. Should be interesting, and I'm sure everyone will learn something.
Everybody wants a strong America with a strong leader, and I OB, I hope you can get it done. Of course, I'd like you to go to the podium regarding the EFCA, raise your hands and say "psych!!!" or "you've just been punked!'
On the flip side, if the first spending bill he signs is a hoops court for the White House, I'm good…
So, here we are. Obama's the new employee, the new leader. He walks into the office on his first day, and he's got some choices to make, just like you did the last time you took a gig that included managing and leading others, Among the choices:
1. "I'm a leader, and I already know what to do, and a big part of the change is going to happen quickly" – Otherwise known as the "shock and awe" first 90-day style, this involves a leader moving quickly without really taking the time to gather a lot of input or build consensus with segments that might not agree with him. When the president is from a different party than the majority of congress, this option really isn't on the table. Since the democrats now hold the White House and Congress, this is an option, although it really doesn't mesh with the image that Obama likes to project.
2. "I'm here to lead, but I'm gong to take the time to listen" – This is the classic middle ground for a new manager. Even if he/she knows what to do and has strong opinions, they'll likely take their time, get a couple of early wins on their own, but make sure to involve those that might cause conflict in an effort to build consensus.
3. "I'm a consensus builder, and I'm here to listen and give you a voice in coming up with the solutions" – The conflict avoiding approach, this path commits the new leader to months worth of meetings and burdens them with the requirement of reporting back to all the stakeholders, and showing them how their input was included in the changes that were implemented.
Obama's the new manager, the new VP of the division that's struggling, etc. He's been brought in to change things. It's no different than any other manager that's brought in – folks will be looking long and hard at what he does early to get cues on how he will lead in his first years.
Which of the three options does he take? Option #1 is available, but it comes with risks, just as it does for any manager. Everyone knows that change is needed in many areas, but be too extreme too quickly and you risk mobilizing forces against you. In the corporate world, that means you can get early wins but get stonewallled later as people build coalitions against you. In the political world, that means you stay president, but your party loses seats in Congress (see first term of George W. Bush).
So, what will the managerial style in the first 90 days be for President Obama? It'll be interesting to find out, but remember – he's not an at-will employee – he's got a four year employment contract. And a jump shot.
good stuff, KD. i highly doubt #2 is an option for our president-elect. he ran a campaign on change we need, so taking time just won’t jive with all that he promises. likely, it will be a combo of #1 and #3. besides what approach he takes during the first 90 days, one of the most interesting things to me will be seeing who he hires for his team… i can’t wait to see the selections.
i wonder who’s helping him recruit though?!
I am also interested in his team choices. Will they represent the values he communicated – change, bipartisanship, willingness to listen, thoughtful action. We know now (and some knew then) that Bush’s choices clearly represented his values and the priorities and behaviors of his administration. So points I guess on strong alignment. Like every new leader Obama has a major opportunity to fulfill the expectations of his supporters and begin the process of including others through his management and advisor choices and the setting of early priorities.
Ona personal note, as a child of the 60s/70s I certainly did not think then that I would live to see what happened Tuesday night. I’m proud to be in a profession that has been on the forefront of making Title VII a reality. But I must admit my heart was still disappointed by the solid block of red below the mason-dixon line. We still have much to do.
Joanne and JLee -
It should be interesting. We’ll see how it goes, and I’m rooting for Obama to be able to make a difference. I’m afraid his majority leaders in Congress don’t really care about the unity he’s created – I think they’ll probably just want to exercise power.
Joanne – Your comments are always insightful and I’m always happy when you come around, but I want to point out that your comments about states below the Mason Dixon are intellectually lazy. When 47% of Ohio, 44% of Penn., and 45% of NH votes for McCain, and the numbers in the SE are in the mid to high 50%’s for McCain, you’re telling me what? That we don’t have people that will vote for a minority candidate?
What about the midwest? You’re discounting a lot of people, including me, as having a lot of work to do. That’s a weak view, and the southeast, midwest and texas being red through the last 5-6 election cycles has more to do with party ideas than it does race in one election.