Obama's Priorities: Quick Wins and Momentum

Each week for the next three months, leadership transitions expert Michael Watkins will weigh in on the Obama administration's transition. These posts--and dozens of additional resources--can be found on our special feature, Obama's First 90 Days.
Not since President Roosevelt arrived in the Oval office in the depths of the Great Depression has so much ridden on the success or failure of a Presidential transition. Like Roosevelt, President-elect Obama takes power at a time of extraordinary economic distress. Writing of the dark times when Roosevelt took power, historian Arthur Schlesinger captured the mood in a famous passage: "It was now a matter of seeing whether a representative democracy could conquer economic collapse. It was a matter of staving off violence even (at least some so thought) revolution." It doesn't take much imagination today to conjure scenarios that are equally dire.
Like Roosevelt, it's therefore essential that Obama get off to a great start and rapidly build momentum during the first 90 days of his administration (given the speed of the times, Obama gets 10 fewer days). In the decade I've spend studying and writing about executive transitions, all my research has confirmed this essential point - that what happens at the outset matters a great deal. If the new Administration is successful in creating momentum during the transition, then early wins likely will propel it forward through the new President's first term. But if there are too many early reverses, if key initiatives stall in Congress for example, then critical momentum will be irretrievably lost.
Based on my initial observations, the nascent Obama Administration is off to a good start in this transition. It has moved rapidly to fill the most senior positions with experienced, pragmatic leaders; let's hope the many appointments to come are of similar quality. It has sent up a rigorous process to assess current policy and to transfer knowledge in order to avoid dangerous discontinuities. In this, it has been aided by the dedicated work of the Bush Administration and the Civil Service to ensure a smooth transfer of power.
But all this hard work is but a prelude to what comes next. In its first 90 days, the Obama administration must be able to (1) craft a legislative agenda that strikes the right balance between good policy and good politics and (2) mobilize the potential of the Federal bureaucracy to flesh out and implement key initiatives. If it does these things, then our chances of recovery are reasonably good. If not, then years of stagnation and hardship probably await us. And our nation's standing in the world likely will suffer irreparable harm.
For the next three months The Leading Edge will focus on blogging the Obama administration's first 90 days. Given that I've spent more than a decade studying executive transitions in the private and public sectors, this is an extraordinarily exciting prospect for me. As the transition unfolds, I will be focusing on progress (we all should hope) in the two fundamental arenas mentioned above - the legislative arena and the bureaucratic arena. Success will only come with wins in both. While the right policies and supporting legislation are of course necessary, they are by-no-means sufficient. To implement policy, the new administration must mobilize the latent power of the oft-maligned Federal civil service.
In commenting on the Obama transition, I also will be trying to highlight issues that arise in many leadership transitions in both the public and private sectors. I will be particularly interested in seeing how the basic principles that I believe underpin all successful transitions hold up in practice. Critically, I hope to engage in some vigorous debate with readers over the progress of this historic transition.
So let's kick that off here: What do you think are the most important things Obama should focus on to build that essential early momentum and quick wins?

4 Reasons Why Obama Shouldn't Appoint Clinton

I know this is going to get me in a lot of hot water, but it has to be said. Appointing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State would be the first colossal blunder of the nascent Obama Administration.

Why? Because you simply shouldn't bring a bitter rival onto your team in a subordinate role unless there is a compelling reason for doing so. In this case there isn't.

Sure Clinton would bring experience and star quality to the post. And I fully expect her appointment would be viewed favorably by key governments and NGOs

But I can think of at least four reasons why a Clinton appointment would be a very bad move.

1. Influence. By appointing her, Obama inevitably would limit his ability to put his own stamp on foreign policy. As someone who aspired to be President, she certainly has strong views on what American foreign policy priorities should be. But the role of the new Secretary of State is to support the President in making his policies a reality.
2. Incentives. A Clinton appointment would put someone into a critical role who has an inherent conflict of interest. She wants to be President, and we are not talking 2016 here. What happens if the current needs of the Obama administration come into conflict with the future aspirations of candidate-Clinton? Also think of the opportunities for spin: the successes would be hers, while failures would reflect back on Obama.
3. Baggage, Part I. The new team is already in danger of looking like a recycled Clinton Administration, with all the associated baggage. If Obama appoints Clinton, it will give the opposition the opportunity to indelibly frame the new administration as Clinton II, and so make it easier to undercut key policy initiatives.
4. Baggage, Part II. Even if Bill Clinton's business dealings pass muster, his new role as spouse-of-the-Secretary is bound to create headaches for the administration. If there is one thing we can count on, it's that Bill can't be counted on. He's ungovernable, and hence shouldn't be a part of the new government.

I fully expect to be pilloried by Clinton supporters for taking this position. But let's be frank, a Clinton appointment to Secretary of State wouldn't break any new ground for women in government. Also I would be delighted to see qualified women put in senior positions throughout the administration, just not Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama's Edge-Based Organization

President-elect Obama is the first politician use the power of the network to create an edge-based organization -- and thereby raise more money than any politician in history and sweep 364 electoral votes. No presidential campaign will be the same again. On this site, both John Quelch and Umair Haque briefly note that his campaign enabled self-organization, but I believe an edge-based organization means much more than simple self-organization - and its concepts are relevant to all companies.
What does it mean to have an edge-based organization? It means that everyone has situational awareness, skills to take action, shared values, and decision rights to empower the edge to take action (My thanks to my friends John Henderson and John Clippinger who have deeply influenced my thinking on this topic.) Obama's campaign did all of these.
Obama used the internet to endow the very edges of his organization with all the tools to self-organize, to get out the message with sophisticated media. He even armed them with an Apple iPhone application that allowed you to compare your address book to the centralized Obama campaign phone logs and see if there was someone you knew who needed to be called by you - not the machine - to support Obama. (See also my earlier blog post on Obama's use of the network compared to Hillary Clinton's.)
Of course, as the pundits note, the economy was a huge factor, but it was the edge-based organization that turned those worries into action. The Obama campaign gave people constant updates on the issues and progress in individual states - complete situational awareness. By giving the tools to the edge to organize gatherings, mailings, information, and coordination, they gave out "decision rights" that normally would have been kept closer to the campaign staff. Of course, those at the "edge" of the fight for Obama had the same shared values as those "inside."
For the past three decades the military has been working to create an edge-based organization because it is more nimble and effective. It takes great training, shared beliefs, great technology, and leadership with a whole new level of delegation. I think the most interesting question now, which was raised by a commentator on Quelch's article, is how will President Obama use the edge-based organization to govern, not just campaign?
My bet is he will do with the edge-based organization what Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the radio - reinvent it to create a whole new method of governance. He will go direct to the people via all relevant media; he will organize by issue; he will create a new form of direct democracy which will change the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branches of government.
All businesses can learn from watching these developments because everyone's market is alive with passion, desires, and ideas. But only the edge-based organizations can see the opportunities and move quickly enough to meet the challenges.

Obama's Authentic Leadership -- And Yours

As a new political era dawns, what lessons about leadership can we grasp from Obama's triumph? So much has been said already about the man who called his last book The Audacity of Hope. I'll focus here on one factor that stands out, and it's the thing about him that worked political magic--Obama's authenticity, as an utterly distinctive yet powerfully representative American and citizen of the world.
The good news for all those who aspire to create sustainable change in their worlds--people like you and me--is that each one of us can take practical steps to embody greater authenticity and thereby produce better results in all aspects of our lives.
One exercise that has proven especially effective with my students, clients, and Total Leadership readers asks you to describe critical events in your past and how they've shaped your values. Everyone can do this, from teenagers to retirees. You're also asked to portray the impact you imagine you're having on the world fifteen years hence--your personal leadership vision. This, too, is a leadership must-do that everyone can do. It is in writing, and then talking with trusted advisors and friends, about these matters that you enhance your capacity to be real; to act now in a way that's consistent with your core values. Effective leaders use their imaginations to connect the actual stories of their pasts with the hoped-for stories of their futures.
Obama's good fortune (and ours) is to have a personal history that suits our collective moment remarkably well--especially his multi-racial, multi-national origins. His particular leadership genius has been to articulate a personal and collective vision that is rooted firmly in his, and our, past while it soars audaciously with hope for a better tomorrow for us and the world.
A useful, powerful vision is one that inspires as it unites, that focuses attention on what matters most while it guides action. To achieve these essential leadership purposes, it must be a compelling image of an achievable future; pulling on the heartstrings, a picture you can see, realistic while stretching limits, and out there in time.
While Obama staked out the territory of his vision for America, he increased his credibility on the world stage by incorporating his real past into his discourse in a natural, transparent way. We and many throughout the world see him as real because he is playing out his own history in a way that makes sense to us; his public persona and aspirations fit as a coherent self-presentation. To most observers, he's not faking it. It's the real man and his story, and his hopes, that we see, and so it's easy to believe.
What's your personal history and how does it fit with your leadership vision? Do your people--whether at work, or at home, or in your community--see you pointing to a compelling image of an achievable future that's seamlessly and naturally rooted in the stories of the critical events in your life that have made you the distinctive person you are today? The more they do, the stronger your appeal and the greater your chances of success as you aim to garner their support for wherever it is you want them to go with you.

In Picking Obama, Nobel Places a Bet on Hope

Awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize represents the committee's investment in change, picking the leader whose values and principles they wish would guide the world. Prizes are now increasingly popular as incentives for innovation and change instead of rewards for what is already well-established. The Nobel Commiittee is following this path--placing a bet on Obama in the hopes of inspiring future actions. In honoring him, they handed him a very big responsibility. The world will watch to see whether results will follow. Obama ran for the presidency on hope, and the Nobel adds some hope-fuel to the tank.
The Nobel Prize this time is aspirational, looking forward with fingers crossed, rather than honoring a long track record of achievements. It is a sign that the world hungers for leadership for peace and planet-saving, and wants to reinforce America's role in those quests. It is also a sign that the Nobel Committee wants to influence U.S. politics, by giving Obama a booster rocket that I presume they hope will help get his agenda enacted.
It is risky for the prize to be awarded so early in a presidency, while so many decisions, like how to manage the war in Afghanistan, are still hanging, and the nuclear arms issues are hardly resolved. But the best leadership starts with principles and values first that then inspire others to new actions. Leaders look ahead. Leaders build confidence in advance of victory, to make success possible

Obama and the Peace Prize: "A" for Attitude

Beyond the obvious snub to the Bush Administration, what was the Nobel Committee's goal in awarding President Obama the Peace Prize? Certainly this is not an "A" for accomplishment, as it will take years, if not decades, to discern whether the Obama administration's international overtures and embrace of the UN system will bear fruit. (Let's remember to acknowledge the hard work of Hillary Clinton here too.)
Rather it is an "A" for attitude; it's for Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," as the Nobel Committee put it, lauding his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Obviously this comes at a very good time for the Obama administration. Of course, it will infuriate his critics on the right who despair (sometimes correctly) of the weaknesses of the UN system in dealing with the challenges posed by Iran and North Korea. But it will play well with the "sensible middle" of the nation, the pragmatic independents who, one hopes, will take this as evidence that Obama's efforts to end the long dark night of American unilateralism and isolation are bearing fruit.
The Nobel Committee's actions do, however, highlight an interesting and quite general management issue. When should we reward people for "right acting" as opposed to "right results?" When is the process worthy of the praise?
The answer is that managers should reward people who exhibit the right attitudes (and supporting actions, of course) whenever (1) it's difficult to make a direct connection between actions and measurable accomplishments (for example, because of a significant time lag) and (2) it's important to encourage people to continue thinking and acting in the right ways, to motivate them to pursue desired goals (for example, when we are trying to change a company culture).
Obama's situation definitely meets the first criterion, as it will take a long time before we know whether his efforts will pay off. But the Nobel Committee certainly had criterion #2 in mind in awarding the Peace Prize to our President: they wanted to raise expectations and so provide Obama with an incentive to aggressively continue to pursue his current approach.
In the research we do on negotiation, this is known as a commitment tactic. It effectively commits someone to pursue a specific course of action or else suffer a big loss. If you were in the President's shoes, you'd have to be thinking, "How will it look to history if I was awarded this prize for trying hard, but never accomplished much"?
And here lies the real risk for our President. As Cyril Connolly, the English critic and writer put it so aptly, "Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising."