No doubt all business books that provide insights into effective management techniques have a few rules in common… things like the importance of decisiveness, keeping the strategic view, not allowing problems to fester, communicating effectively to both internal and external audiences, maintaining and encouraging loyalty, minimizing staff dysfunction and turnover. Things in that vein. These rules apply in spades to CEOs and, for that matter, the President of the United States.
In fact, the modern presidential campaign provides the kind of trials and pressures not unlike those faced by most CEOs. That includes managing massive budgets, creating and sustaining loyalty, selling a range of ideas to skeptical audiences, selecting and motivating quality senior managers, and developing trusting relationships with those top people.
In that context, then, it was revealing to read in the latest issue of Atlantic Monthly that Hillary Clinton apparently fell short in most of those areas. The only conclusion the reader can draw after reading the 6100-word article (“The Front Runner’s Fall,” by Joshua Green, Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 2008) is that Ms. Clinton apparently lacked core management skills as she made her run for the presidency. Reaching that conclusion leads to the follow-on: that she probably was not presidential timber.
At the same time, the parallel conclusion one might draw is that, in this day and age, candidates like John McCain and Barack Obama, in getting as far as they have, demonstrate those key management skills and both should be commended for that.
We may complain about the duration of these campaigns – going on more than 18 months now – but one thing is sure: they truly test the mettle of the candidates, putting them through some pretty rough paces.
Certainly, glad-handing voters in Bumsteer, Iowa, and Zipville, Ohio, is not the same as staring down Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And deciding whether to run an attack ad is not the same as the decision to go to war.
But this is a tough job en route to acquiring the world’s toughest. On many levels, the campaign is good preparation in that it demands the ability to: - Attract, build and retain the necessary talent pool to run a very complicated process under severe budget and time constraints
- Develop and maintain the loyalty of hundreds of staffers
- Create, staff and inspire at least 50 independent state organizations
- Communicate your core messages clearly and effectively
- And to do it all under the constant scrutiny of the modern news media
Those who do it well enough to get the nomination of their party certainly deserve our respect, regardless of how we may feel about their politics or their ability to govern.
So why did Hillary Clinton fall short? Pundits on both sides of the political spectrum long felt she had an honest shot at winning the Democratic nomination. Could her downfall have been her poor management skills, as evidenced in the Atlantic Monthly article?
Joshua Green sums up the dysfunction early in his story: “Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence – on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to ‘do the job from Day One.’ In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.”
Green cites numerous cases where she hesitated, wouldn’t make a decision, or left it to others, including her husband, the former president. Former GE CEO Jack Welch always said that it isn’t the wrong decisions that hurt your business. It’s the ones you don’t make. Mrs. Clinton also struggled with putting together an effective core team, one whose skills blended and complemented one another. There was a lot of backstabbing, backbiting, and second-guessing going on. Consequently, making a bad situation worse, there were no clear lines of authority, and Mrs. Clinton couldn’t or wouldn’t fill the gaps.
Therein lies an important lesson here for businesspeople – managers who must make decisions, hire and fire people, develop talent, sustain loyalty, all in the on-going challenge of running a successful business. People become managers and progress in the organization because they learn how to exercise these important traits, and then they get better as they progress in the organization.
Most businesses are structured in such a way that those who don’t progress in their management skills don’t climb the corporate ladder. We could say the same is true of our presidential campaigns.
The media buzz persists as to the health of Apple CEO and creative driver, Steve Jobs, and who might be waiting in the wings to replace him. No word yet confirming that Jobs in fact is in ill health, but don’t let that dissuade the media from speculating and holding a morbid deathwatch. The current issue of Forbes (Sept. 1, “Life After Steve,” page 40) throws some names into the ring as potential successors. Pardon my lack of enthusiasm, but despite my long-time admiration for the magazine, I think this story is off base. Forbes cites two insiders and six outsiders, noting their respective “Pros” and “Cons.” Tim Cook, Apple’s COO, now runs the worldwide Mac business but, according to Forbes, “doesn’t score high on marketing flair and the vision thing.” The other insider is Ron Johnson, late of Target where he earned his marketing stripes (and, one would assume, the right to be cited in this brief piece). His “Con?” "He’s no software nerd.” Neither is Jobs, for that matter. Steve Jobs knows what he likes, and what he likes invariably is what his customers like. It seems to be working.The Forbes list goes on, with senior execs from Dell, Nike, Lenovo, Nokia, P&G and Sony. All supposedly have the credentials to take over Apple. But at the same time, unsurprisingly, all seem to lack a common trait: none are Steve Jobs or his clone – as if that’s a prerequisite. That’s where Forbes misses the point. Let’s face it, when a superstar CEO passes from the scene, his/her successor is never a carbon copy. Nor does the new CEO carry forward in exactly the same way and direction as the former CEO. Despite the typically anxious market reaction around CEO succession, stockholders wouldn’t want it any other way. All the market really wants is a steady hand, guiding the company to continued growth and success. Stockholders hardly care how that happens. They want the hits (and profits) to keep rolling.Jack Welch has always been quick to remind interviewers that Jeffrey Immelt is in charge of GE. Though he has had numerous opportunities to do so, Welch has never (publicly) second-guessed his successor. Fact is, if Welch were still running GE, it’s highly unlikely that he’d be doing the same thing he did when he handed over the reins to his handed-picked heir. That was seven years ago and there have been a lot changes in the competitive marketplace to drive necessary internal change at GE in the intervening years. For that matter, under Welch, GE never sat still for long.Let the media speculate all they want. I’ll take the continuing public discussion as a firm message to the Apple board and Steve Jobs that they should be preparing a succession plan for the day when Jobs decides he wants to retire. In the meantime, I’ll say a little prayer for Mr. Jobs’ continued good health, and raise a toast to a long, productive life for him.
In the “Dog Bites Man” category lately, we have the oft-reported news that American daily newspapers are struggling. That’s putting it mildly. Barely a week goes by without more bad news for the industry. Circulation is down for every daily paper in the country and advertising revenue is plunging. Newspapers’ classified advertising business is virtually dead, gone to Craig’s List. And consequently, staff are being laid off, features eliminated, column inches of editorial copy cut, broadsheets narrowed, and news bureaus closed. So, what’s the latest news on the newspaper front this week? - USA Today is laying off 1000 employees.
- The New York Times is increasing its newsstand price from $1.25 to $1.50.
- The Tribune Company (which owns several dailies, including the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times) reported a $4.5 billion second quarter loss – which is pretty remarkable when you consider that Sam Zell paid $8.2 billion last December to take the company private.
Perhaps the most shocking news is that Portland, Maine, may soon become the first major American city with no daily newspaper. The Portland Press Herald, a 146-year-old newspaper, may shut down.Today’s Boston Globe reports that finances are so tight and losses so significant that the Press Herald has closed its Augusta bureau. That would be akin to the Chicago Tribune closing its Springfield bureau. The Globe reports that the Press Herald has had four rounds of layoffs in the last 12 months. The owner is looking in vain for a buyer and has said he may have no recourse but to “dismantle” the newspaper operation, according to court papers filed by the publisher. Of course, this may be mere bluster on the part of the paper’s owners, who are in a contract tussle with its unions. But don’t doubt that the death knell is imminent. People in the Portland area, the Globe reports, are examining their feelings about the paper and its role in their lives. While we may or may not care for our local daily newspaper and its editorial prejudices, some of us cannot imagine starting our day without it. Yes, I know all about the changing demographics; that fewer young adults read newspapers today than older generations. I know that many people in the all-important 18-35 age group get their news from the Internet and late night comedians like Jay Leno, Jon Stewart and David Letterman. Habits are changing rapidly, and it doesn’t look good for the newspaper industry.I read four papers each weekday morning: The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Boston Globe and Boston Herald. Each fills a unique role in my day because each covers the news a little differently with a distinct perspective. Were I to lose one or two of them, my day – and life – would change. My newspaper reading habits are already changing, thanks to the Internet. A laptop and WiFi enable me to read the newspapers in the morning and simultaneously surf the web to do deeper research or analysis of something I may have read in one of the papers, or to forward a story of interest to friend or colleague.But if we are honest with ourselves, we have to conclude that we are seeing the final days of daily newspapers, as we know them. How soon and what becomes of them, no one can say for sure. The fact is, the comfort and familiarity we derive from the physical printed page is being supplanted by electronic news. And that’s where the big money is going. In Boston, a new company was formed earlier this year that may be breaking new ground in the news business, playing a part in the move to replace newspapers. “Global News Enterprises” is the interim name of the new company that expects to launch a web site early next year dedicated exclusively to international news. It is now hiring correspondents around the world. It will have no physical output like newspapers but will be exclusively web-based. The founder is Philip Balboni, who made his pile as founder of New England Cable News, a regional version of CNN that, after initial struggles following its 1992 founding, is now making a lot of money for Comcast, its owner. Just as he rode an early wave in the NECN venture, I’d put money on the ultimate success of this one, too. The fact is, whether we know it or not, we are all adjusting and re-examining our relationship with the printed page. And the money is following – cautiously, but unalterably. Having started my career in newspapers, it saddens me to see them go, but it is, after all, reality.
Our American Airlines flight left the gate at Boston on time. We landed in St. Louis when we were supposed to. We departed St. Louis on time, and arrived in San Diego right on the schedule. The flight attendants were courteous on both flights, even though the planes were full. Four days later, our flight to San Jose departed and arrived on time. Coming home with a connecting flight through DFW the next week was the same banal on-time performance, same considerate on-board service. Furthermore, our undamaged, checked baggage came around the carrousel within 15 minutes of landing back in Boston.When do you think this happened? Twenty years ago? Ten years ago? Wrong. It was just last week. Is there a new attitude at the airlines, or did we just get lucky?This kind of feat in 2008 is startling in contrast to what we’ve come to expect in air travel. The rule in modern commercial air travel is chaos, rudeness, arrogance, total lack of information, and maddening delays. The exception that proves the rule is the experience we had last week, instead of the other way around, as it should be and once was. I wish it weren’t so and that I could report otherwise. But I was just thankful we had the exceptional experience this time.If you’re old enough to remember listening to your music on vinyl LP records, even now, when you listen to a CD or mpeg version of an old favorite, do you still flinch as you approach the point in the song where that annoying skip used to be? Do you expect it, but are pleasantly surprised when there is no skip?Ditto with our airline experiences, especially if you’re old enough to remember the good old days when flying was kind of exciting, a pleasant adventure; when everybody wore nice clothes and were on their best behavior; when courtesy in the skies was a competitive advantage for airlines and when the business was, in fact, competitive. Today, unfortunately, it’s the kind of adventure like hiking into unexplored territory, when you wonder when and where you’ll wind up and who or what is going to make your day miserable: TSA, the airline, the flight attendants, another passenger, the FAA, or the weather. So when the experience goes smoothly, you keep flinching, expecting things to go haywire any minute. But as one who is quick to write letters of complaint, when my airline experience goes well, I think I owe it to the business to say so, even though I know it is the exception that proves the rule.
