RSS Feed MenuOf all the many, many disturbing facts we learned about Barack Obama during last year’s campaign, the one I personally found most disquieting was not the problematic associations with various leftists and loons (though they were certainly bad enough) but the complete and utter absence of any testimonials to Obama’s leadership and management ability. Normally, a party’s nominating convention features a parade of speakers to the microphone testifying to the nominee’s ability to get things done. “I vividly recall the day we were on our way to a campaign event, and he ordered the car stopped and personally organized the rescue of an old lady’s cat from a tree,” somebody would say. More seriously, the talk would be of bills passed, initiatives taken, lives improved, etc. But last year’s Denver convention featured none of that. No one so much as testified that he had successfully led a Boy Scout troop on an overnight hike.
This yawning gap in his resume has not gone unnoticed overseas. Nicolas Sarkozy was unimpressed with The One after their first meeting, pointedly noting afterward (in comments deliberately leaked to the press) that Obama had never so much as managed a ministry. One can only imagine what Vladimir Putin thinks.
That’s what came to mind when I read the front page story last week in the Wall Street Journal on Obama’s management style. The story, which drew remarkably little attention, wasn’t exactly devastating, but believe me, no president wants to be described in any headline as a “micromanager.” The name “Jimmy Carter” – he of rearranging the schedules for the White House tennis courts – was invoked several times. While the story did reveal some positive aspects of Obama’s style, demanding that his aides get outside their comfort zone and become familiar with other points of view, for instance, the overall portrait was not flattering. He is delving into the details of childhood obesity, loan-to-value ratios and the complexities of regulating credit default swaps. A clearly concerned Paul Volcker is quoted as asking aide Jared Bernstein after a meeting why Obama was concerning himself with the minutiae of such issues. “That’s what he wants,” Bernstein shrugged.
Micromanagement, of course, is evidence of an inexperienced executive seeking to compensate by ingesting vast quantities of detail. It also tells subordinates that their boss does not trust them to do their jobs, leading to alienation and disengagement.
The historical precedents are not encouraging. Our best 20th century presidents were not micromanagers. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were famous for their ability to delegate. (And were criticized for supposedly being disengaged.) Occasionally, this got them into trouble. (Think Iran-Contra.) But micromanagers, notably Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, ended badly. Woodrow Wilson started out well, but devolved into a micromanager of the worst sort, infamously concerning himself with the details of the operations of the Chinese railroad police and the governance of Eastern European satrapies. (This transformation, I suspect, was largely the doing of Edith Bolling Galt, the rich widow he married in 1915. Jealous of anyone who got between her and her husband, she convinced Wilson that his appointees were working against his interests and couldn’t be trusted. So he tried to do it all himself. The overwork, of course, drove him to a crippling stroke.)
It’s very early, of course, and if the economy recovers smartly, Obama will be perceived a genius and his micromanagement won’t matter. But the president has gone from being a self-confessed failure at his chosen profession of community organizing to the toughest executive position in the world. For all our sakes, we must hope he can learn on the job.
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:38 am
The “yawning gap in his resume” either went unoticed by a great many people or they were so digusted with the previous 8 years that they were willing to take a chance on an unknown. History will either repudiate or validate that decision. There are many cases where innate abilities can compensate for the lack of experience. Thus far, Obama does not seem to be in the Carter mold, but ask me again in a year or so. I did not vote for him, but he is the President and I wish him success in restoring our values, reputation, and economy. A very tall order, but we’ll see.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:39 am
………Obviously pining for the non micromanager skills of GWB…………. there’s nothing whatever wrong with being a micro manager per se…….micro management is not the issue……..it’s the ability to prioritise that’s important as a management skill…….In their heyday J. D. Rockefeller, Henry Clay Frick, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Thomas Watson sr, Winston Churchill, Bernard Law Montgomery, all in different fields were notorious but successful micro managers…….Carter’s problem was he couldn’t prioritize……..micromanaging tennis tickets is not important…..structuring a healthcare bill is……I’ve worked in some big and small corporations with all kinds of bosses and as a generalization the hands on guys were always much more successful……Clinton was something of a micro but could prioritize…….perhaps that’s why his record is so superior to his successors who couldn’t manage his way out of a wet paper bag……and I wonder if the author of this piece has ever actually managed a pretzel stand on 5th?
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:35 am
My experience as both a manager and being managed is that the key attributes (for both a leader and manager) are the ability to: prioritize; delegate; and directly manage (micromanage) are vital for success. Among the innate characteristics that successful leaders must possess is crux sensitivity, without which they cannot effectively delegate or micromanage. A study quite a few years ago found that 2/3 rds of the CEOs in major corporations were highly intuitive (typically ENTJ in the MBTI if you are into that sort of thing). Whether Obama possesses those attributes remains to be seen but I’m pretty sure the jury is in on GWB, who I believe, possessed no skills whatsoever.
Sometime ago U.S. News and World Report (perhaps others did also) had a lengthy article on the who was the worst. I forgot what the conclusion was but GWB was highly placed on the list for the worse. It certainly would be race between him and Carter (presidents in my lifetime).
Churl // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:40 am
There you go with Bush again.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:50 am
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:35 am
………I think? we agree……micro managing has it’s place as long as WHAT you’re micromanaging is strategically and/or tactically important………I’m sure Murdoch for example is a micromanager but he’s also a heck of a good prioritizer and strategist………I’m very familiar with the type having once worked fairly closely for a guy who started with nothing and ended up worth about 8 billion (deceased now unfortunately) and as it happens my son in law works very closely for a similar type…….the other thing about the hands on manager is he raises the overall level of the game……..if you’re working for someone like this you’d better have your sh** together because if you haven’t you aren’t going to last long…….and I sense this with Obama…….I wouldn’t want to go into a meeting with this guy and be shown up because he’d cut your legs from under you……..to be whining about whether or not Obama is a micromanager in the face of the massive incompetencies of Bush, McCain and Palin is simply absurd
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:27 am
I have worked for several Deputy and Assistant Secretaries who exhibited similar qualities. I recall many times burning the midnight oil before a meeting with some of them because I was scared to death they knew more than I did and I would not be able to answer specific questions.
Without getting into a debate – I don’t know enough about Palin or McCain to form an opinion regarding their management skills and abilities so I can’t comment.
Churl // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:35 am
Bush bad, therefore Obama good.
Q.E.D.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:46 am
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:27 am
” I was scared to death they knew more than I did and I would not be able to answer specific questions”
……..Naturally…..no one want to look a fool and most of us have some professional pride…..shwo me a guy without professional pride whether he’s a design engineer or a gardener and I’ll show you a wanker …….the guy I mentioned once fired me at dinner and rehired me at breakfast next day….true
“I don’t know enough about Palin or McCain to form an opinion regarding their management skills and abilities so I can’t comment.”
…….The 2008 campaign?
Churl // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:35 am
……..why not for once show a bit of maturity
oldgal // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:47 am
A micromanager tells you exactly what to do without telling you why you are doing it or what results are expected…a la…go to the freezer get the fries. Obama seems exceptionally good at laying out the expectations and supporting his staff to deliver the results. His campaign pulled off the impossible by empowering the grass roots organizers, setting expectations on their comportment and results and providing training…an exceptional job of management.
The level of detail with which a manager is comfortable has more to do with decision making than people (or to use the latest horrible corporatese…human capital) management. I like a manager who makes informed decisions, gathering information along the way where opportunity presents itself. I have found managers who make decisions without background knowledge and without multiple points of view tend to be ideologic in nature and unable to recognize or learn from their mistakes.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:03 am
oldgal // Aug 18, 2009 at 10:47 am
“‘A micromanager tells you exactly what to do without telling you why you are doing it or what results are expected…a la…go to the freezer get the fries.”
……While this could be true it’s not really the definition of a micro manager………..for example I’ve no doubt whatever that Murdoch micro managed the acquisition of the WSJ……the notion that he did so without endlessly discussing goals, strategy and tactics ad infinitum with his lieutenants and advisers doesn’t compute………I agree about the brilliant management of Obama’s campaign but the notion that micromanagemt of strategically or tactically important issues is incompatible with being a “good” overall manager is basically preposterous which is why I know NM Gusher doesn’t have much practical management experience.
sinz54 // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:13 am
It’s premature to compare Obama to Jimmy Carter.
Because the environments in which each have had to operate are so different.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter didn’t walk into a nation in economic collapse, fighting two wars at the same time, with our economic problems threatening to take down the entire global financial system. He micromanaged a lot of things that were NOT anywhere near that urgent or perilous.
In 2009, Obama had to face all those problems. It’s hard to avoid dealing with too many things at the outset, when you’ve been handed too many things at once! Obama has been flitting around trying to stabilize a nation in deep trouble.
midcon: In that sense, Obama is like a new CEO, just brought in to try to rescue a bankrupt company whose products are spurned by most customers and whose employees are screaming bloody murder. That requires a whole different breed of CEO than what you described. It requires a true visionary.
And both FDR and Reagan were visionaries. They believed that the way to rescue America from its parlous situation was with a new vision of American government and society.
We can get a better measure of the man after some of these immediate crises have ebbed somewhat–more troops home from Iraq, lower unemployment.
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:30 am
sinz, Most CEOs are “visionaries.” When you look at the CEO’s of major corporations words like visionary, charismatic, intuitive, attention to detail, management by objective, etc. etc. are common attributes. I believe that the CEO type – real CEOs, polictical, and military leaders, share most of these characteristics. It is true that some have more of some attributes than others. For instance, I would not classify McCain as a high visionary. It doesn’t mean he would not have been an effective CEO. On the other hand he had significant experience in government/military. So for me, it’s an exercise in balancing attributes with need to achieve the maximum ROI. Not to get into a debate, but my assessment of Obama’s resume was that it was too thin for the CEO slot. I guess that meant I valued experience over visionary for the top job. Of course now Obama is getting his experience at the end of the firehose. Some survive trial by fire; some don’t. My preference was that OJT (on the job training) be conducted outside of the presidency. In any event it will be fun to do an performance assessment at the end of 4 years.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:48 am
midcon // Aug 18, 2009 at 11:30 am
” I would not classify McCain as a high visionary. It doesn’t mean he would not have been an effective CEO.”
………..the biggest thing he ever managed….. his electoral campaign……he massively screwed up…..his committee work and personal experiences fit him for a consigliere role at best……he wouldn’t for example be half the Defsec that Gates is……I agree that most successful CEO’s are visionaries but they also have considerable exec skills……vision alone can get you into a lot of trouble……and there is no on the job training for being president…….even on a smaller scale making the transition from an exec speciality like sales/marketing or ops to being chief exec is a huge culture shock……and I’m speaking from personal experience
jagerine // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Of all the good sense I read on here, please be real. This sounds like a campaign attack.
“…the president has gone from being a self-confessed failure at his chosen profession of community organizing to the toughest executive position in the world”
He was a state legislator and then a US senator (even if for a short time) between that. Please don’t skip a whole decade, it just devalues your other points.
ottovbvs // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm
jagerine // Aug 18, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“Of all the good sense I read on here, please be real. This sounds like a campaign attack.”
……..I’m shocked that you could suggest such a thing
Barack Obama News » Blog Archive » Obama: Carter 2.0 // Aug 19, 2009 at 3:46 am
[...] Original post [...]