I admire President Obama. I support him. He is smart, has a world view and understanding that makes him well suited to the modern world. Unfortunately, in the past few weeks we have not experienced his finest hour. There are times when intelligence, analytic ability, is far less important than urgency and empathy. It is the difference between leadership in combat and leadership in a court room or academic setting.
Some readers may be familiar with my situational leadership model described in Barbarians to Bureaucrats, following Toynbee’s lessons of the rise and fall of civilizations, leaders and cultures go from the imaginative and creative “Prophet” to the conquering “Barbarian” and into the more mature periods in which systems, structure become more important than personalities.
You may remember that great scene in the movie Patton in which George C. Scott, playing Patton, visits the beds of his wounded men, kneels down and prays with them. He then literally leaves his jeep and marches gleefully through the mud with his troops as they race to relieve the surrounded 101st Airborne Division. Of course, Patton is playing Alexander the Great who did the same. Patton believes he is the reincarnated spirit of Alexander. He is the Barbarian, the conquering hero who demonstrates his love for his soldiers and receives their love in return. And, this love, what we call “loyalty” in organizations, is not the result of deep analysis, intelligence or good policies. It is the result of emotions. It is the result of the leader demonstrating the same emotional sensibility of his soldiers, their urgency for the battle, and pure empathy for the fear and pain they are asked to bear.
Having consulted with Shell, Exxon, Texaco and Amoco in years past, and having coached senior teams at those companies, I have some appreciation for the process of deep water drilling. It is a fact that no one, in either government or industry, knows a sure solution to the tragic flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
I am somewhat amazed at news commentators who want Obama to take charge of the efforts to cap the well and stop the flow as if he had some unused magical powers. The U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, or anyone else in government has no answer to this. There is no power that can be commanded into action by the President to stop the flow. In a real sense, the president is helpless and must rely on the best efforts of BP and the other companies involved. Perhaps he could command more forces to the clean up effort.
But, that is not his problem or his failure. His failure is to perform the great theater of leadership in which the leader does as Alexander did, as Patton did, when they visited the tents of the wounded men, kneeled and prayed with their followers, and demonstrated the emotion of love and empathy for those who are in pain. There are little limits to the power of empathy, the power of letting those in pain know that you are with them, you are feeling what they feel, and that you will be by their side in their suffering. This is what George Bush failed to do in the aftermath of Katrina and I am afraid it is what Obama is failing to do or understand in the present case.
John Adams, speaking of the American Revolution, said that “A whole government of our own choice, managed by those persons whom we love, revere and can confide in, has charms in it for which men will fight.” He did not speak of intellect or analysis. He did not speak of factually correct decisions. He said that men will fight for leaders in whom they can confide, whom we love. And, we love those who demonstrate empathy and understanding for our own situation; who demonstrate the urgency that we feel; the fear that we feel. The tragedy of the BP Gulf spill may be more in the loss of affection for this president, a loss at his own hands, than for the coastline that in time will recover.
I have generally not been critical of Obama but believe your point is right on. Clinton in many ways was a master of this type of situation even though he was criticized by some as being theatrical. The fact is the everyday folks loved him for it. I hope your thoughts reach the President and he can carefully modify his posture. He cannot recapture the past but he can move forward to not make the same mistake again.
Tom Kelly
Very insightful Larry. I agree that there could be more of an expression of empathy on the part of Obama. He reminds me of myself. When problems build up I tend to become more introspective and, seemingly, withdrawn. He has much on his plate and more problems seem to pile on daily.
What really angers me more is that many of the current problems could have been forestalled years ago. The attitude that the market economy should run free-rein with minimal regulation has created a string of disasters that threaten our very existance as a thriving, growing nation. We are in danger of handing our next generations a country that is sliding into a swamp of poor governance and an impovershed economy.
Unfortunately, I don’t think empathy comes naturally to Obama. Its not his best quality, as opposed to President Clinton who may have been our most empathetic President ever. And I think if he tries to be empathetic, when he’s simply not good at it, it will make it look contrived and will, in the end, make him look worse. Perhaps his best course of action would be to find someone in his administration who can spearhead the government’s effort who is good at emphathizing?? But, I do agree with your well thought out points, Larry.
Until now President Obama has been a social activist, a teacher, and a legislator at the state and federal levels, but never an executive. He assumed the presidency with no executive experience, and as you pointed out he has come up lacking, not only with the recent events regarding the oil spill, but also his handling of Iran, and yes Israel, and his quick to blame others for mistakes and set backs. Leadership is not simply being in charge as you have so well stated and demonstrated in your work. I too hope that he is a quick learner and that he has those necessary attributes you have highlighted that make for a true leader not just a ruler.
nice post. thanks.
Larry, I think you’ve misplaced Obama on your chart. He is an aristocrat. Using your definition Obama “inherited great wealth” (he has printed more money than any president in our history). He is “alienated from those who do productive work” (he is so strongly opposed to business that it is hard for him to distinguish good business from bad). He “is the cause of rebellion and disintegration” (He appears determined to destroy America and seems relatively oblivious to the rebellion seething in our country).
I wonder if you can objectively look again at Obama, and using your own work, recast Obama as an Aristocrat? I also wonder what might happen should you do so?
Glenn, I think there are some things right and some things wrong with your comment. First, only history will judge where Obama is in our country’s life cycle. I agree with you that our country is definitely on the right side of the curve and all of our leaders (this is bipartisan) have inherited the wealth of our country.
Two years ago Obama was democratically elected by a majority of the people. He is still very popular. I do not think you can say that he is alienated from people who do productive work; nor do I see any evidence that he is opposed to business. He saved many of our major corporations, prevented a depression (which was done with both R and D support, and gave a tax deduction to small business.) So, I don’t get the so called “opposition to business.”
A true Aristocrat could not be elected. I don’t think we should dismiss our democratic process.
The point of my piece was more about the “style” of leadership needed in the Gulf crisis. People need to feel empathy in a crisis and this is one of the many roles of a leader of a country. I don’t think it is a role that most leaders (both Bush and Obama) are prepared for. It does not come naturally to them.