Let’s face it. While the three leading presidential candidates are all talented, they all lack an essential qualification for the presidency – executive experience. Barack Obama may be a silver-tongued orator, but his background as an academic, a community organizer, and a lawyer did not hone much managerial expertise. Hillary Clinton may be a passionate activist, but – despite her famous 3 A.M. commercial -- her background as an academic, a First Lady, and a lawyer did not give her many tough decisions to make, under pressure, with different factions in her office advancing opposing ideas. And Senator John McCain may have spent years in the United States Military, one of the world’s best training grounds for management, but he started as a flyboy and when he returned was at the Naval War College then at the Senate as military liaison. In fact, all three would have to say that their Senate offices were the most complex bureaucracies they even ran – which is not saying much. Clearly, being governor is better training for the presidency which is, after all in the executive branch.
This shared shortcoming is important. As an academic I know what of I speak. Having been minimally managed and having done minimal managing, I am well aware of the skill set I lack. I don’t know about creating a vision for an organization, about seeing how it is implemented in levels below me, about how to reconcile my vision and views with those of others, or with my institution’s organizational culture. I happily avoid all the interpersonal baggage that comes from all these interpersonal dynamics, but I recognize that this is not my realm.
This problem is intensified because the modern presidency has grown too big for one person. In each election, Americans are actually choosing between two opposing teams. In an age of weakened parties, the teams have a Republican or Democratic flavor, but are most affected by the leader at the top. Like a privately held corporation, the modern presidency ostensibly reflects the boss’s desires, but the hundreds of key appointees in the executive branch, managing thousands of government workers, enjoy wide discretion. Franklin D. Roosevelt had less than a hundred White House staffers, only 71 presidential appointees in 1933, and 50 different agencies reporting directly to him; half a century later, Ronald Reagan had over 350 White House staffers, 600 presidential appointees, 1700 employees in the Executive Office of the President, and approximately two million governmental employees overall.
Of course, in this game of presidential campaigning, biography is not destiny. Former senator John F. Kennedy figured out how to lead, and former governor George W. Bush would get a “needs improvement” on his management report card if presidents underwent the same kind of supervisory process many corporate managers endure. Moreover, it is hard for any of the three leading candidates to claim more substantive executive experience than the other. Still, given the complexity of the presidency, the federal bureaucracy, and the challenges America currently faces, the combined managerial inexperience of Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama is unnerving.
What I don't understand
It all smacks of people looking for a sure thing. You know what -- there are no sure things where the Presidency is concerned. If there were, Herbert Hoover would be America's greatest President, and Abraham Lincoln its worst. I say we vote for the candidate we think will do the best job, whether they've done it previously or not.
Re: What I don't understand
One might debate the quality of that executive experience, but to ignore it simply seems like poor research-- or given the easy availability of the information-- no research..
Leadership
There's a difference between managing and leading, of course. A few observations on the latter. There are many components to leadership, including the ability to achieve buy-in to proposed actions by a majority of the led. Given the nature of campaigning -- which, depending on how it is done, can weaken or diminish a winning candidate greatly or just a little -- that buy-in is extremely hard to achieve once a President is in office. This is because the skill sets for winning elections (which can include private bullying and public bragging) and for governing may differ. How one accomplishes the former can have so corrosive an impact, it makes it difficult to do the latter.
The Richard Nixon who as President told aides 1971 "use any means" to attack Daniel Ellsberg and counter the publication of the Pentagon Papers reflected a campaign ethos which proved disastrous once in office. ("I really need a s- of a b- ... who will work his butt off and do it dishonorably. Do you see what I mean? Who will know what he's doing and I want to know, too. And I'll direct him myself. I know how to play this game and we're going to start playing it." Richard Nixon, July 1, 1971, released WH tape excerpt)
This is less corrosion in well-run private or public sector organizations, where people may be promoted for reasons that are not political. They develop other skills than many politicians do. In many instances, they achieve senior positions due to careful development over time of leadership and managerial ability combined with technical skills. Most importantly, they don't trail the "nyah nyah nyah nyah, I'm great, you're not" baggage of campaigns which can seriously weaken candidates.
While many candidates climb to the top by crushing opponents and relying on negative campaigning, people who rise in organizations often follow a different path. They build relationships that depend on trust and an ability to bond with diverse people above and below them within a reporting chain. They also develop a sense of stewardship which signals that they will strive to do what is best not for themselves individually, but for the organization.
If they do this well, officials are able to signal to subordinates "I've got your back." This often is unspoken yet so clear that it is generally accepted throughout an organizational structure. No organization faces only smooth sailing. Consequently, it is critical for leaders to develop a framework where people will pull together even in difficult situations.
In organizations, you can't set a "tone at the top" that signals "we're in this together" if you attain your position by denigrating and attacking colleagues publicly. That's not to say there aren't corporate cultures that reward bullying and underhanded tactics. Clearly there are. Fortunately, in 35 years of federal service, I have never worked in an organizational environment that rewarded such negative behavior.
One of the people who has given a lot of thought to the development of leaders is Gen. Anthony Zinni. I once heard him speak on the subject, very interesting.
As extracted from a presentation in 2004 at Villanova on leadership and governance, here is how Anthony Zinni defines a good leader:
"From the leader’s perspective, an introspective approach for considering questions of 'Who am I,' 'How do I think,' 'What do I value,' and 'How great is my integrity' helps to define one’s identity and personal code. Once this definition is developed, the leader can 'live a life that matters' by living and following the code. . . .
There are many varying traits, attributes, and styles that leaders possess to achieve success; however, it is difficult to define a core base of traits that are common to all leaders, and also how these traits may contribute directly to overall performance. One study of great leaders found traits such as intellect, determination, and courage to be most important, while a study of U.S. Presidents identified curiosity as a critical trait. Within the organization, these traits must be instilled or developed from the beginning to make them understood and rewarded. Similarly, there are many different leadership styles that can effectively be employed. It is important that leaders understand the effects of their style, and capitalize on the benefits of their personality, while staying true to themselves.
- The responsible leader must recognize that he/she is responsible for the decisions made for him/her and therefore analyze the structure of how decisions are made within the organization. How are alternatives presented and what ethical bases for decision making are utilized? It is imperative that feedback is built into this system and that the leaders are receptive to this information. This feedback helps the leadership to understand whether the organization works the way they think it does.
- At high levels of seniority, decisions become less clear, and the decision-maker is often forced to choose between the lesser of two evils or two goods. Because there are degrees of good and bad inherent in all decisions, a consistent ethical code is critical. 'Don’t confuse hard work with good work, and hard decisions with good decisions.'
- A good leader must recognize the value of words, for they are the 'most powerful thing humans have.' Saying something like 'I'm proud of you' to a subordinate can have an important effect, and helps to build a positive, healthy environment. Similarly, in communication, it is important to never misrepresent the truth, and to speak simply and directly.
- A good leader leads from the front, being a part of what the group or team does. The leader should only use his/her power ('Because I said so') as a last resort, and take time to ensure buy-in and understanding. This can be accomplished through listening to concerns and being a mentor to the followers."