CNN host Jack Cafferty asked his audience, “Do you feel as patriotic as you used to.” The reactions reflect the frustrations of a nation that loves America and demands effective leadership. In a crisis environment, the rough edges of our system gnaw at the public’s sensibilities. At the heart of this unrest is a simple fact: we want strong leaders; instead, we have politicians.
Responses to Cafferty’s question are telling, among them: “We love the country but are frustrated by Washington’s politicians. The place is a basket case and I’m furious.” “I feel America is bankrupt, absent in ethics and care for its citizens’ well-being.” “I feel we are totally bankrupt of effective leadership at the levels of our government where it is most needed.”
Washington operates in mysterious ways. With so many priorities and agendas, it’s often hard to figure out what’s working and who is responsible. The bureaucracy gets more complex with every new agency, czar and executive order. Agencies are insular, often working at cross-purposes.
“The information is not flowing,” Florida’s Senator Bill Nelson said about the federal response to the oil spill in the Gulf. Decisions have been painfully slow. Federal agencies say no to locally initiated actions that could improve the situation. “It’s a big mess with no command and control,” says Nelson. Who is in charge? The President says the responsibility is his.
For any leader, it takes great skill to balance visionary strategic change with the challenges of smart execution. In the private sector, there’s a rhythm for producing large scale change. The most respected leaders tear away the barriers of former hierarchies, secure the facts, engage constituents outside of their inner circles, and create a compelling direction for change. They vet their plans before making promises. Anything complex is typically built in increments. Success is about results, defined up-front with great precision.
These private sector leaders integrate activities by enhancing current roles, removing layers and streamlining process and communication. While few leaders have all the answers, they hold themselves accountable for reaching the right solution. They know that people who understand what’s needed and are committed to the objectives will give it their all.
In contrast, the government model is very different. So monolithic and awkward, we need czars to innovate and integrate work across departments. I counted 49 offices within the Executive Office of the President alone, plus 15 Departments such as Agriculture and Defense comprised of numerous agencies and offices. It doesn’t stop there – add 67 independent agencies and government corporations, 75 boards and commissions, the Inspector Generals, quasi-official agencies such as the Smithsonian, 3 self regulatory boards, and 5 government enterprises including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and more.
Of course it takes incredible leadership to direct and inspire the many layers within the governmental maze. According to Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist, it took an aborted terrorist attack last Christmas for Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, to admit, “One of the things that may come out this awful day is a renewed sense of urgency.” The attempt to bring down a jetliner headed for Chicago spurred Napolitano’s department to accelerate its talks to collaborate with the Department of Energy, which has a tremendous research budget and capacity. A near-disaster lit the fire.
Imagine what could be achieved if leaders in the Executive Branch were committed to do what’s right for the country, preempting problems rather than fixing yesterday’s breakdowns. Washington could be so much more effective if the bureaucracy were streamlined, working across their silos with a sense of urgency to produce exceptional results.
Imagine how much respect Washington would garner if these same officials managed their organizations to achieve results - without political agendas.
The business of governing requires New Rules of the Road, borrowed in part from leadership lessons in the private sector. Consider some of the new expectations that could make a difference, using the recent breakdown of the Afghanistan team to illustrate.
General Stanley McCrystal was relieved of his command, fired because of remarks he and his team made in an article that appeared in Rolling Stone. The General had issues with civilian leaders of the team dedicated to making Afghanistan successful. Tragically, a writer chose to publish remarks that were allegedly off the record.
The appointment of General David Petraeus to replace McCrystal was called a bold presidential decision that fixed an unacceptable situation. McCrystal showed disrespect for his civilian chief and had to go. Days after, some members of the press raised the issue of the dysfunctional team; fewer questioned how the problem could have been avoided.
A team with a complex mission needs active leadership to drive success. In this example, the civilian team was undermining their military counterparts and Afghan leaders. There was no unity in mission; there was mistrust and disrespect. The issue festered for months, most likely for political reasons. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry’s relationship with Mr. Karzai, President of Afghanistan, is as venomous as the dealings he had with General McChrystal, says the Wall Street Journal. Vice President Biden’s opposition to the Afghan strategy is widely known. They needed an “undisputed leader” over the totality of the mission, personally engaged to grasp the severity of problems and fix them. In reality, the president did not play this role and the situation became toxic. Gaps in leadership have severe consequences.
What steps should a leader take to create a successful mission?
1. The total mission should be developed jointly and supported by all members of the team.
2. Leaders must create a structure and culture that puts everyone on the same page. They need to get specific, thrash it out; agree to the goals and roles. Eikenberry, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Biden, and the miltary should be coordinating their messages and activities. The reported civilian sniping indicates that the mission wasn’t working. “Strong personalities with overlapping roles” is no excuse.
3. The senior-most leader needs to share his agenda with utmost integrity, clearly and consistently with everyone involved. Mr. Obama chose to obfuscate his intentions. A review in the Wall Street Journal on June 24 states that, “so far, [the president’s] ambiguity [about our withdrawal from Afghanistan] has fueled the very infighting that led to General McChrystal’s dismissal, persuaded our NATO partners to prepare their own exit strategies, and convinced Afghan President Hamid Karzai that he can’t count on America’s long-term support.”
4. The top leader needs to support the team, encourage collaboration, check progress, and provide key players with feedback. These civilian and military heads need to come together in a way that supports the flow of information and access to each other. Complex organizations move in lock-step only with conscious collaborative leadership at the top.
5. Leaders should never spin or parse the truth. According to the Journal, Mr. Obama was “trying to appease his liberal base by promising withdrawal, while winking and nodding to our partners in Afghanistan that the deadline is effectively meaningless.” His political posturing diminished his ability to lead.
6. All leaders need to live by the standards and restrictions they set for others – period.
The problems within the Afghanistan team are likely to be resolved. General Petraeus has more leadership clout than General McCrystal. I suspect he will use his influence to rein in conflicting points of view.
Great leaders put results and the public’s well-being (and our troops’) above all else. Mr. Obama needs to give the war more attention – it is too serious a situation to put politics first. It’s not enough to say, “I will be insisting on extraordinary performance moving forward.” The country expects leadership, not words.
