Although I’ve abstained from taking a public position on the upcoming election, it doesn’t mean I don’t have one. In the next few hundred words, I want to share my world view – my thinking and experience as a trend-tracker, an economist, and a student of international affairs - about
America’s future and the role of our CEO/President.
Lord help me, I know this is going to sound just like Mr. Thielman, my high school civics teacher, but I believe that we have a stewardship as citizens of this country. My gender didn’t even have the right to vote when our country was founded, so at the least, I owe it to the sisters on whose bones I stand to get smart, show up, reach out, and dig in. The following essay is my tepid foray to build a constructive dialogue in which I hope you’ll engage. Email me jvr@nextgenerationconsulting.com.
America the Superpower
I earned my degrees in Economics and International Relations from Drake University in 1994. Let me put this into context: I studied politics and economics at the Karl Marx University of Economic Sciences in Budapest Hungary in 1992, from academics who were televised as the chief protesters against communism. My professors were rock stars in their home countries, and I studied under them on the shores of the Danube river just one year after the last Russian tank rolled out of Hungary, a testimony to their efforts. In spring, 1993, I studied the European Union at the University in Freiberg, Germany, when the EU was still a glimmer in the eye of Western Europe.
This was a heady time. The Cold War had ended, and a new world order was emerging. My colleagues and professors in Germany, Hungary, and back home at Drake were wet with speculation about what would happen when two opposing ideals – communism anchored by Russia and the free market anchored by the U.S. - would no longer be squaring off. The overwhelming question was, “What would a world with ONE superpower be like?”
The dynamic in a world with TWO superpowers is one of checks and balances. The U.S. couldn’t go TOO commando because Russia would counter. Conversely, if Russia got too big for its britches, the U.S. would pound its economic fist and calm would resume. It wasn’t perfect, but it was relatively predictable, which made people on both sides of the Wall feel safe.
Then Gorbachev introduced glasnost, the wall fell, communism collapsed, and Russia retreated from Eastern Europe. The U.S. was left standing as the sole international superpower.
The new world order – with only one remaining superpower – requires different models and means of wielding and managing power. But there was no playbook for a new economy where the U.S. was the last superpower standing. International politics experts knew that new hot spots would arise: the Balkans were predicted; the Middle East has always been a big Question Mark. How would these situations be handled by the international community? Would the U.S. – the last standing superpower by historical standards of economic and military weight – become the world policeman? Would Might make Right?
The Clinton administration was the first to come of age in the New World Order. Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright’s autobiography, is testimony to how it feels to change a tire on a moving bus. It was messy in the aftermath of the Cold War. And Sept. 11, 2001 demonstrated that although the U.S. was the last traditional superpower, a whole new manifestation of power was brewing throughout the world.
U.S. Leadership Model showing its Age
There was a time when most self-respecting institutions were run with the U.S. military management model: One Commander, Several Generals and a Pile of Privates. I call this the “Beetle Bailey Management Model” (BBMM), named after one of my father’s favorite cartoons. The BBMM was used expertly in WWI and WWII. Its efficacy was waning by Vietnam, and today has been retired by none other than the U.S. Military.
That’s right, the BBMM has been abandoned by the very institution that invented it. Our next generation of soldiers are being taught NOT to follow orders per se, but to “Think Like a Commander.” Decisions to call in an air strike, for example, can be made at any level within the organization (Wired Magazine, Sept. 2004).
Why has the military abandoned the BBMM it made ubiquitous? Because problems today are more complex, and require every soldier’s brain power, not just their brawn. This decentralized decision making system is similar to the world’s best customer service models. At the Ritz Carlton, any employee has $4000 of discretionary allowance they can use to make a guest’s visit just right. This “everyone’s-a-decision-maker” model works well because problems can arise anywhere at any time. At the Ritz, you don’t need four managers’ signatures to validate a $1500 room upgrade for a dissatisfied guest. It’s up to each employee to do right by their guests.
Although the U.S. military and many of the world’s finest companies have updated their management and decision-making model, many of our country’s top decision makers continue to use outdated management and mental models to address today’s threats. It’s akin to using 1950’s antibiotics for this year’s flu epidemic.
Take, for example, a sister. Condoleezza Rice was schooled in Cold War diplomacy by Dr. Joseph Korbel (none other than Madeleine Albright’s father). Dr. Rice speaks fluent Russian and was a scholar of Russian and Cold War power models. But those models’ effectiveness ended with the Cold War. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also cut their political teeth during the Cold War. These generals are fighting a 21st century terrorist challenge with a 20th century Beetle Bailey game plan.
CEO of the USA
Coming at the issue of the American Presidency with my business brain, I ask myself, “Would I renew President Bush’s contract as CEO?” All CEO’s are measured with both subjective and objective metrics. How should we set performance measures for the CEO of our country? Here are my 4 B’s, my proposed success measures for our Presidents, regardless of their donkey or elephant orientations.
BRANDING. How well does the CEO protect and build the “brand” of the United States? Is the United States both well-liked and well-respected? Does our brand open doors for business/alliances/value-added partnerships with other brands (i.e., countries)? What is the mind-share and heart-share of our brand? Today’s branding experts say your brand cannot merely be liked; it must be LOVED to engender loyalty? Do internal and external customers love our “USA” brand?
BRAINS. We know that today wealth is created by innovation. Knowledge work – as Drucker predicted 40 years ago – is the engine of economic growth. Does the CEO create an innovative and open culture that attracts and keeps the world’s best brains to work in our research parks, in our companies, as non-profit leaders, and as public servants? How well does our talent compete in the global market? Are we leading or trailing in innovation and value-added products and services, whether public or private? Brawn is not enough to compete. Al’Qaeda used very little brawn – but oodles of brains – to plan their attack on the U.S. on September 11th. Are we using the same level of strategic, innovative problem solving, or are we fighting new challenges with outdated brains and brawn?
The BOOKS. Are we economically healthier today than we were a year ago? Four years ago? Are we keeping expenses down, while investing in the Research and Development that will keep our competitive edge sharp? If we have to spend, are we ensuring that we’re not writing checks that our children will have to cash?
BUBBLE. Does the CEO behave transparently (as if living in a bubble)? Does she/he communicate openly and frequently with team and stakeholders (including U.S. citizens?) Does she/he share credit and take blame? Does she/he involve stakeholders in decisions that affect them? Is there a sense of shared ownership and a shared future? Are there high levels of trust?
These CEO measures are required of a President who leads in a new economy and a new era of power-wielding and power-management. Ideally we as American citizens could create a shared scorecard against which we would evaluate our presidents. If she/he measured up at the end of their term, we’d renew her/his contract. If she/he didn’t, we’d undertake an Executive Search to replace her/him.
Of course, we don’t have a shared scorecard. As U.S. citizens, we’re left to determine our own truth about how well the president has led, or how well a new president will lead. Each of us must determine which success measures are most important to us, and vote according to it.
And of course, the downside to our two-party system is that unlike an executive search which offers several candidates for CEO of the USA, the opposing party’s nominating process rarely provides a woman or man of overwhelming substance, and instead provides someone “electable.” That’s how we got John Kerry, and that’s how we got George W. Bush before him. There are many, many capable and qualified CEO candidates, but they can’t make it through the hamstrung/my-enemy-is-myself nominating process.
So there you have it. The U.S. can’t continue to address new threats with outdated management models. We must evaluate our president like we would the CEO of a company. And we must vote.
When I played professional basketball in Budapest, Hungary, in 1992, we were shooting free throws at the end of practice. I was chatting with my Hungarian teammates about the future of their economy. A bright eyed student, I encouraged my teammates to be patient, that the economy would correct itself – with the free hand of the market – within the next five years. Our captain, Krisztina, stopped dribbling her ball, looked straight into the heart of me and said, “Five years? Bec, I don’t have five years. I want to start a family, marry Zoli, and get the rest of my life started.”
She’s right. She did not have five years. But she did have a vote, which was something she’d never had before. We have this right, too. Please vote on November 2.
